is there really anything more to it?
>>36984873
yah, genetics
Nope. Weight loss/gain is truly that simple.
>>36984873
lol at that 40% calorie reduction.
>>36984920
If you're a fatty, that's fine.
So for a slight cut, at a TDEE of 2700, maybe eat 2500 cals? I'm at like 16% bf tryna get down to 12% for summer
>>36984873
for weight gain, most people want to gain muscle, not fat (or at least as much muscle as possible), so there is more to it
>>36984950
need to meet your protein demands to make sure your body shreds fat and not your muscles.
>>36984897
Found the planet
>>36984953
eating more + hypertrophic training seems to cover it
>>36984969
true true, so 150 g of protein
>>36984873
If you're trying to gain (muscle) weight, you need to hit a certain amount of protein. Other than that, yes, that's how this works. It literally CAN'T work any other way.
>>36984969
>>36985076
>>36985654
What's the latest on g/kg (or g/lb) for protein?
I've heard everything from 0.5 g/lb to 1 g/lb (1 g/kg to 2 g/kg)
>>36984873
scooby says weigh weekly
what if I'm a dyel skinnyfat
doesn't body recomposition work well with noob gains?
>>36986724
>dyel skinnyfat
No problem at all
Eat at a deficit, with an excess of protein, and work out properly.
Your fat will get burned off. Then you can start doing lean bulks.
>>36986891
I should eat at a deficit with high protein and low fat right? What about carbs?
>>36986568
i second this. current fatass. i know what i need to do, but i fucked up my last cut by losing muscle like mad.
whats the current consensus on protein intake daily on a cut?
>>36986908
It doesn't matter. Neither of them are going to magically make you gain weight if you eat at a caloric deficit.
Oats and stuff will help you feel full for longer, though.
>>36987001
wouldn't fat intake slow fat burning though?
>oats and stuff
I'm already eating oats, what would the stuff be?
Appreciating your advice a lot so far.
>>36986568
iirc its closer to .5g/lb than 1g/lb
I'm 175lb and I shoot for ~100g/day not including post workout (which is 1 cup whole milk + 1 scoop)
>mfw 1 scoop
Its not rocket science
>>36987070
>what would the stuff be
high-fiber and high-protein helps with feeling full.
>wouldn't fat intake slow fat burning though?
Fats have the highest potential to slow weight loss because they're the most energy-dense food available to us. The reason why fat consumption could slow fat burning in the body, is simply because of its high energy content which allows the body to derive energy from what is being consumed rather than from what is stored.
Carbs & protein are both at ~ 4 kcal/gram; fats are at ~9 kcal/gram. ~2.25 times higher energy content/mass.
It's not as much about fats, as it is about the amount of calories. As long as you eat at a caloric deficit, your body will need to take fuel from your energy stores.
>>36986568
Idk but for males 5'7" to 6" 150-175g daily works fine by my experience
>>36987259
>males
>5'7" to 6"
>>36987070
fat burning = calorie deficit
calorie deficit = hungry
(dietary) fat and fiber = filling
eat less if you want to lose weight, eat more fat and fiber if you dont want to feel hungry all the time
try eating a breakfast of 4 eggs and some veggies and a some high fiber carbs ie rye crackers, a piece of multigrain toast, oatz (oatz arent a miracle food, dont fall for the meme)
then eat the same number of calories in pop tarts, donuts or some other sugary high-carb low-fiber bullshit the next day
compare when you feel hungry or need to eat again
the human body is more nuanced than calories in = calories out, but for all practical purposes this is really all that matters to you. Want to stop being chubby? Eat 500 calories below maintenance with adequate protein, fiber and fat.
>>36984873
>is there really anything more to it?
yes, the macros.
>"Lean mass gains is easier achieved"
eating proteins. You can hypertrophy all you want, but if your caloric intake 45% carbs and 40% fats, you're going nowhere.
Also, macros regulates hormones and hormones play a big role in weight (and in gains). Often people try to just count correctly calories disregarding macros, fibres and free sugars. The same amount of calories may exert a different metabolism response if checking macros and some essentials nutrients.
>inb4 hurr durr all calories are equal
they are, but your body isn't a perfect thermodynamic machine and engages some metabolic responses to your diet.
TL;DR obviously that's the start - even a first grader can understand that the starting point is "counting calories". But there's more to it.
>>36984897
Genetics are not as set in stone as you think.
They do not operate in a closed system.
You can change your genetics.
Literally.
By lifting weights.
Your genetics for nutritent partitioning will literally change, if do anaerobic activity frequently, and avoid aerobic activity
>>36984873
Horrible advice for losing weight. Don't weigh yourself everyday. Don't cut more if you're seemingly not losing any more weight (for a few days). You want to lose fat, not weight.
Just stay consistent and look into the mirror. You'll know if it works. Cutting down your calories more and more will only lead to losing muscle.
>>36988432
>not creating a moving average out of every daily data point
Also btw
The plateau is imaginary in that gif. The average k value in that area is negative.
>>36989131
>not creating a moving average out of every daily data point
so much this. Just use Libra, or some other app that does it automatically for you. Excel everything if you're an autist.
Tracking your weight and not being a total dumbshit with diet/exercise is adequate for %95+ of people who want to improve their fitness. It's not adequate for bodybuilders and professional athletes who want to be at the peak of their field.
>>36986568
Above a certain point your body isn't going to be able to use it before you either piss it out or workout again, however excess protein intake will eventually slow down fat oxidation (if you trust lyle mcdonald)
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
