If i fast for 24 hours and i'm cutting on 1400 cals per day, can i eat 2800 the next day when my fast finishes?
it doesn't work like that
Just eat a steady deficit and be patient you dumb cuckolding faggot
>>36767208
yes
>>36767259
>>36767312
You get better results taking one or two days a week during a cut to eat at maintenance. Otherwise your body will adjust to the lower caloric intake and stop burning fat, you have to make it think its gonna start getting a higher caloric intake again so after that day or two when you go back to reduced calories it pulls energy from your fat.
The dumbed down vocabulary I used in this explanation may make it sound like broscience but its completely legitimate.
>>36767500
Is that right? sounds kind of fishy
>>36767500
Well memed Sir
Why not eat 3600 cals as you'll fast again the next day after that?
>>36768476
Smart thinking anon
>>36767527
Thats because its utter bullshit
>>36767527
>>36768202
>>36769004
Look up "calorie zig-zagging"
>>36767527
Your body can certainly adjust to caloric intake quite drastically, that much is true. I used to live on sub-1000kcals for about eight months when I was cutting hard, and lost no weight at all during the last two months.
In how far the quoted method is effective in kicking the body back into gear, I don't know.
Also look up carb cycling.
>>36769664
How much muscle did you lose and what are you doing now?
>>36769972
I didn't lift then, only did cardio (because my priority was to stop being a fat fuck), so probably a bunch. I started to lift a relatively short while after, and gained a ton of muscle very quickly (like adding an inch of height (not circumference) onto my biceps over the course of three-four weeks), so I assume I roughly gained back what I lost there. Would've probably been better to lift throughout.
Still lifting 3x per week + 1x cardio now, progress has slowed down obv. Still DYEL, hoping to approach otter by the end of the year. I'm also tracking all my calories & macros precisely.
>>36767259
it actually does
