What could cause bodyfat to remain constant while dropping weight in a calorie deficit diet?
being natty and already very lean
nattys can't get very lean and keep the muscle, no matter what. hormones prevent that
>loss of water retention
>loss of bone density
>Loss of muscle
>>36503939
Yeah, but you shouldn' t randomly lose muscle if the only thing you changed is the diet, right?
>>36503928
I know this is /fit/ but i see a lot of people tryong to lose fat, without working out.
The thing most people dont know is that, fat is more precious for your body than muscle.
If you are on a deficit, the first thing your body is going to "waste" is muscle, NOT FAT.
I didnt know this myself in the past, i thought whenever im in a deficit i would only lost fat.
Now here come the solution. You gotta workout every muscle when you are on a deficit.
If your muscles are "in need" your body is not going to use them on a deficit, and instead the fat.
But this is something real sik kunts dont need to worry about. I lift 6 times a week, so im safe.
>>36503968
>changed is the diet
Did you go low carb?
>>36503981
Nah, they're around 150g/day (1700 kcals tot, 500 deficit)
>>36503971
Not OP but can relate. What if right now I can only do bodyweight exercises, would that be fine?
>>36503986
How do you know you're not losing fat?
>>36503971
> The thing most people dont know is that, fat is more precious for your body than muscle.
Wrong.
> If you are on a deficit, the first thing your body is going to "waste" is muscle, NOT FAT.
Wrong
I mean just think for a second about what you're implying.
The function of fat is to store calories for times where the body can't meet energy requirements .. why the FUCK would the body prioritise muscle which it spent time and resources building it .. I mean COME ON.
THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE SHIT.
>>36503995
Last time I tried to cut I lost around 12 lbs and my body looked pretty much the same (skinnyfatty) now I ordered a caliper to be sure, but last time it looked pretty obvious.
>>36503993
Yes, the exercises do not have to be hard or anything. Just try to hit muscle failure a few times during your workout and you are good to go.
desu bodyweight exercises are even better, because it works out weak and "hidden" muscles that you do not normally trigger.
Weak muscles would be the first ones being wasted by your body on a deficit.
>>36504005
Not him, but nature doesn't always do things logically.
>>36504008
You might not have as much muscle as you thought, and cut too early. Did you dirty bulk?
>>36504025
> desu bodyweight exercises are even better, because it works out weak and "hidden" muscles that you do not normally trigger.
> Weak muscles would be the first ones being wasted by your body on a deficit.
at this stage this guy is either trolling or a retard
discard everything he's typed.
>>36503993
please don't listen to>>36503971
he has no idea what he's talking about
>>36504032
No i used to be overweight. I got some pics from when I lost weight last time I think. If thread survive till i get home i'll post them.
>>36504028
If you have any semblance of intelligence you can easily deduce this is not true.
If the body prioritized muscle over fat we'd die under any sort of calorie restriction, rendering our fat stores which according to this guy are for .. nothing? .. because the body prioritizes muscle tissue to catabolise over .. literally stagnant laden calories doing nothing other than .. waiting to be liberated for use ..
I'm honestly shocked there are people with such a lack of understanding of biology who have graduated high school.
Even if you're in high school this type of shit is covered in senior topics.
>>36504005
The thing is, you are using bro science.
What i stated here >>36503971 is a fact, known by every biologist.
I know it sounds pointless, which is the reason 90% of the world thinks the way you do. But unfortunately it doesnt work that way.
But it doesnt simply work they " white and black" way.
If you are on a deficit, you are going to lose fat and muscle, but mostly muscle for the first 10 pounds or so you drop.
Someone with a build like Zyzz or whatever, would mainly lose muscle if he didnt work out. Its because no human needs that kind of muscle mass, realistically it is totally unnecessary for your body.
If you are a skelly though, you wont lose THAT much muscle, because you already have barely any.
Anyways, if you workout several times a week and hit the majority of your muscle groups, you dont have a reason to worry about it either way
>>36504065
You basically have no understanding of biology or exercise physiology at all.
You are wrong in virtually every aspect of what you've typed out so far.
Anybody who has taken your advice seriously is now worse off for having read it.
>>36504033
>>36504041
Its okay bro. 90% of the world isnt aware of this fact. So im not going to be mad at you, because it really does seem pointless if you hear this the first time.
>>36504054
Isn't it possible the body doesn't prioritize anything?
You're trying to apply logic to something that isn't logical.
Maybe the body burns fat, muscle, random blobs of glucose, and whatever the hell else it happens to find useful at any given time?
>>36504054
You are "black and white" thinking here right now. Just like you said yourself, it PRIORITIZES muscles over fat on a caloric deficit.
That doesnt mean, if you drop 10 pounds, you are going to lose 10 pounds of pure muscle mass, and not a single gram of fat.
The effect varies depending on your physique. If you have 17 " inch arms, 10% body fat, you are going to lose quite the muscle mass if you drop 10 pounds.
If you are 250 lbs of pure fat with and small, weak muscles hiding under that fat, you are going to lose maybe a few pounds of muscle in the beginning, but after that it will be mostly fat.
>>36504086
Jesus christ.
It's called calorie partitioning, go fucking educate yourself.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/calorie-partitioning-part-1.html/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/calorie-partitioning-part-2.html/
Do you actually think the human body will liberate fat stores, cleave glycogen, and catabolise its own muscle at random? Or even at the same rate?
Are you dumb?
OP here. 5'10'' 163 lbs with bf definitely over 15% , maybe under 20% (can see some upper abs but have bellyfat and a little bit of boobs). Don't know if that might help, but my body definitely isn't zyzz's
>>36504096
Of course not, stop misrepresenting my fucking point you mongoloid spastic cunt.
You're the one trying to argue the body will preferentially use MUSCLE TISSUE as fuel when it has access to FAT.
That is 100% wrong and you're a fucking retard cunt if you believe that.
The ratio of fat:muscle is basically double until you approach extreme levels of activity & caloric restriction, at which point diminishing returns kick in and the ratio of muscle:fat receives diminishing returns for any extra calories you cut; i.e. the rate of muscle loss will approach the rate of fat loss as you increase calories beyond the ideal set point.
Stop trying to suggest shit happens randomly as the crux of your argument
> Oh it's random bro, you're thinking black and white.
Cunt I suspect your IQ is < the amount of posters in this thread t b h
>>36504086
Yes it burns and uses anything to keep your body going on a caloric deficit. But like i said before, it prioritizes the muscles in the first place. So if you drop 100 pounds of weight, you are going to lose a few pounds of muscle at the beginning. From there on its will mostly be fat.
Guys:
> IF YOU LOSE WEIGHT, IT WILL BE PURE MUSCLES MASS
Thats not what im saying
> YOU NEVER LOSE FAT ON A DEFICIT
Thats not what im saying either. As i said in several comments, it depends on:
> Your physique
> the amount of fat you start with
> wether you are reguarly exercising or not
>>36504108
It depends how trained your muscles are. If you started working out 2 months ago and you are somewhat 18% bf, and you train several times a week, you are going to lose barely barely any muscle mass.
Now lets take a person, 190 pounds, 12 % bf, lifts for 3 years now.
He drops 10 pounds. It will be mostly muscle, and a bit of fat.
Isnt that what everyone is already aware of? I dont understand why i get so much shit for this.
Also, i initially wanted to answer OP's question so i'll give you a short answer now:
> You are going to lose less muscle, and more fat, if you are reguarly working out while you drop the pounds
Does that still sound completely fucking retarded to you?
>>36504113
Except the key point of your argument is patently wrong
> it prioritizes the muscles in the first place.
Wrong.
That's the whole point.
It's not just wrong, it's EXTREMELY wrong and defies all conventional reasoning in regards to dieting and muscle atrophy.
This is why you're being attacked
BECAUSE YOU CLEARLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>>36504005
Bullshit. Muscle requires more energy to keep than fat so your body will dump anything that decreases it's chance of longevity
>>36504005
>think before you type shit
>writes an entire broscience article
Summer is in 2 months leave us alone
>>36504178
Provide a single source suggesting the body will preferentially catabolise muscle in a caloric deficit.
>>36504178
ur2dumb
>>36504200
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-muscle-prof-better-way-lose-fat.html
I copied and pasted what you wrote into Google and the first link states
>Simply put, when you have a higher body fat percentage, you preferentially burn fat as fuel; if you're lean, your body will preferentially burn muscle if the calorie deficit is too drastic. Specifically, a study from the University of Rochester found that people with more fat could cut their calories by greater than 1,000 per day with minimal muscle loss, while leaner people lost the majority of weight from muscle at this level of deficit.6 However, the same study found that a lower calorie deficit, of less than 500 calories, resulted in minimal fat loss for lean individuals.
>>36503937
So I've noticed. I am at 6-7 BF% and tried to lose even more, but only thing I noticed was strenght and muscle loss and incredible soreness after each workout including joint pain. Still got leaner though, but looked worse
Biggest mistake I made so far
>>36504005
This is literaly building muscle 101 how can you not know this while being on a fitness related bord. Like wtf do you people put any thought and research into anything you do?
>>36504222
Try again buddy
>>36504250
That literally does not support what you just said.
How fucking dumb are the majority of people in this thread, honestly.
Just go into fucking google kid and type: DIET and MUSCULAR ATROPHY and read through the links.
You'll see the same theme consistently: 1. glucose/glycogen 2. fat stores 3. muscle.
Not: 1. muscle 2. glycogen/glucose 3. fat stores.
That's the whole point.
>>36504258
Don't samefag dude, it's cringey, you're wrong just accept it.
>>36504268
It says the further into a deficit you go the more you're likely to burn muscle first, not fat
>>36504250
And thats why lean individuals use fatburners.
>>36504275
This board is literally full of autism holy shit
>>36504275
Why do you think pros start ecercising 6 times a week instead of 4 or 5? To hit the muscles more often so your body gets the signal " i need muscles dont use it up, instead use fat". Thats like stopping working out and just being in a deficit, guess what? You loose a shitton of muscle and not fat
>>36504268
Again, I googled what you wrote " preferentially catabolise muscle in a caloric deficit."
And that was the first link. There's a sauce.
The guy also has a PhD in this specific area
>>36504281
What if fat people used fatburner
>>36504277
>>36504303
Just read through the entire study your bodybuilding.com guy referenced, his inference about the body using muscle preferentially over fat isn't pointed out anywhere in the paper.
It isn't stated by the authors at any point, isn't alluded to in any graph, conclusion, discussion, anything.
It's entirely a fabrication of the author.
>>36504303
>>36504300
And in the same article you linked me:
> This suggests that if you have a lot of body fat, you can cut calories more aggressively early in your prep, and become more conservative as you lean out. This approach was recently supported by a study in Norway, where athletes were placed on a weight loss program resulting in either 1 or 2 pounds lost per week.7 The subjects in the fast weight loss group lost a small amount of muscle and about 20 percent of their fat mass. On the other hand, the slow group lost more than 30 percent of its fat mass and actually gained muscle!
tl;dr much more fat loss than muscle loss, and in the slow cut group they gained muscle.
i.e. muscle not used preferentially.
>>36504311
All fat burners worth money are damaging to use long term, so RIP fatties. It's only practical to use when losing those last stubborn lbs of fat.
>>36504418
Right. So the study is right but the basis of this 4chan discussion isn't because OP didn't put in his stats. We'really assuming skinny fat but the chaos started by some other anon stating that muscle is used preferentially but didn't state that it was in lean individuals with a higher than normal caloric deficit
>>36504075
I mean, he's right about the skellies losing less muscle if fat were available thing, people with excess muscle mass will tend to lose it far faster than the average person would. It's why the average sedentary male loses a pound of muscle a year, but a /fit/ person could easily lose 20.
>>36504499
at some point OP wrote that:
>>36504108
>>36504065
Someone doesn't understand the difference between lean mass and muscle mass...
All you faggots need to know is everybody is different and some will lose more muscle and some more fat but always both when cutting. To minimize muscle loss it's been proven that high intensity cardio w/ a slight caloric deficit with high protein is optimal in preserving lean mass.
>>36506761
>cardio
>there are people that don't understand that your body preference for using fat as a source of energy is positively correlated with your body fat percentage
It's basically marginal utility applied to your body : the less you have of something useful, the more you value it...
It's obvious you'll lose more muscle if you cut when you already have extremely low levels of fat, because your body knows lowering your fat even more will take your to life-threatening levels of fat
