Comments on: Not Losing Fat at 20% Deficit, What Should I do? – Q&A

By: TCO

TCO — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:15:13 +0000

I went from 230 to 160 over the last 6 months. Have lived this thing. Am a firm beleiver in “energy math”. You eat less, your deficit goes up and so does your loss rate. The converse too. (I don’t believe in the “setpoints” or cheat days or “starvation mode” or any of that crap.) That said, deciding what is COMFORTABLE and adhearable to is important. And having BIG SALADS (including one 2 hours AFTER dinner) will kick ass in keeping cheats away….it just bitchslaps the cheats. It’s like pre-emptive WAR. Eat them even if not hungry.

I also think (from common sense and experience) that increased SIGNIFICANT (like an hour of solid cycling) activity burns more. Think that being heavy to start with burns more (you walk around and you do more work, also there is some homeostatic load in maintaining circulation, etcl in the larger mass).

I think people get themselves confused with bodybugs and calculator s and all that. If you are “not losing” at deficit, you are NOT AT DEFICIT. Note: a slow week or even more if you are in low deficit could just be water retention and variotion error. But if you look at the LONG TERM LOSS RATE (in #/week)…that IMPLIES YOUR DEFICIT. If you lose a pound/week, that is a 500/day deficit. (3500/7)! Once, people get that through their brains, to think of their deficit as EVIDENCED by their loss rate (vice the reverse) then it gets their heads straight. GRRR!

By: Sharon

Sharon — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:50:53 +0000

Excellent article – it really helped me with my current struggle. I’ve been wearing the BodyBugg for about 7 weeks now – and the obsession with the numbers is proving frustrating at times. I find the BB very motivating for caloric BURN but not so motivating when it comes to the burn vs. the intake – actually more like aggravating. I’ve been maintaining large deficits each day , 900-1000+ cals per day, but my week to week changes (or sometimes lack of changes) have been unpredictable at best. Your article is helping me put it in perspective.

One thing I believe is that while “calories in/calories out” is a significant component of the fat loss puzzle, it is by no means a straight-up relationship like some “experts” insist that it is.

By: Brock~E~Lee

Brock~E~Lee — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:07:14 +0000

Nice article Lyle! Even with my unlucky metabolic gift of ~30% below normal I found that 8 X BW with 1hour movement has me losing 1lb a week like clockwork.

By: CarloTranslator

CarloTranslator — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:52:51 +0000

Lyle, I had been discussing with a friend the point you were making early on about water balance having an impact on initial fat loss. I have a completely uninformed theory about this and wanted to see if it had any basis in reality.

Prior to starting a diet, people are typically overfeeding and thus not mobilizing/oxidizing fat to any appreciable extent. As they start the diet and go into a negative caloric balance, their fat oxidation will increase and so will protein synthesis to maintain the proper amounts of proteins required to break the fats down and transport them. Fat oxidation itself increases the water usage of the body as does protein synthesis, which should signal an increase in fluid storage through some mechanism. The body increases the amount of water it retains in response to this increased fat mobilization, thus initially the amount of fat burned is offset by the additional water retained. Once the “tipping point” is reached where the body does not need to store any additional water, the numbers begin to go down again.

Possible? Impossible? I’m an idiot?

By: chris

chris — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:21:46 +0000

Lyle, just looked at Leigh Peele’s site, and was wondering how relevant metabolic damage would be here. Does not metabolism always restore itself to normal levels with 1-2 weeks of maintenance caloric intake/adequate carbs? (relative to changes in bodyweight that is). Obviously if the questioner had been dieting over the mid to long term without a break, then I assume this could be another reason for a greater than 20% deficit being necessary.

By: admin

admin — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:41:58 +0000

Calories from fruit can add up fairly easily (e.g. a small apple is about 80-100 calories). Whether that’s what you need to cut back on to lean out depends on the rest of your diet.

By: Ian

Ian — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:32:41 +0000

Lyle, you mention veg as ‘free food’. I think the same about fruit, which I snack on a lot of fruit through the day (apples, pears, oranges, grapes, etc.) I’m looking to drop from a fairly stable 14.5% body fat (according to my tanita scales) to a slightly leaner 10-11% – should I be thinking about cutting back?

By: admin

admin — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:01:50 +0000

I think you are 100% correct. When you’re dealing with that specific situation (smaller dieters, usually female) who aren’t getting a lot of food, reducing food intake can become a real problem because so little is being eaten already.

In that case, increasing activity is generally the better way to increase the deficit.

Lyle

By: L.J.

L.J. — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:45:04 +0000

Lyle,
If someone was consistently eating what they believed to be a 20% deficit, but was already fairly small (say 125 lb female that is consuming 1250 calories), would increasing the deficit be your first recommendation or would you suggest an increase in physical activity first and see what happens with fat loss?

With my smaller female clients, if they aren’t seeing a reasonable amount of fat loss at BWx10 calories, they aren’t very receptive to the idea of cutting calories even more – to the point that adherence becoming a huge issue. It seems easier to suggest more physical activity (i.e. 10 minutes of jump roping on off days), to keep the exercisers motivated and sticking with the exercise plan. What are your thoughts?