Clen with no AAS? Ticket to smallville?

[acetrentura]

Posted about this before, but didn't get answers really talking about the clen.

Already have an EC stack on hand (I know it's milk toast compared to you guy's compounds), but am considering clen.

Will taking clen without any AAS cause a loss in muscle mass? I'm only 19, so I won't be taking AAS anytime soon.

I'm going to be cutting starting tuesday the 25. Maint 2400, will be cutting at 2000. Will clen plus that deficit cause a loss in lean mass? Should I take clen at maint or 2200 to minimize the muscle loss? And how much cardio should I be doing, if any at all, should I want to preserve my gains.

Stats
Age 19
Height 5'5"
Weight 155 lbs
BF 14%

[joebailey1271]

I think you should start at the 2400 and see if your losing weight, if not slightly lower it. Its really individual no matter what formula you use.

[acetrentura]

I think you should start at the 2400 and see if your losing weight, if not slightly lower it. Its really individual no matter what formula you use.

Good point, I will try that, I can spare the time to do a little experimenting with my calories.

Facepalming for not thinking of that, renders this whole thread moot.

[king6 II]

I firmly believe that diet and cardio should be the only key to loosing body fat. Try a caloric deficit of 500 calories per day, that should give you what you are looking for.

[JuiceBox7]

I firmly believe that diet and cardio should be the only key to loosing body fat. Try a caloric deficit of 500 calories per day, that should give you what you are looking for.

^^^^^^

[RangerDanger830]

^^^^^^

A lot of people like Austinite use a very simple method of estimating your TDEE, or close to it. Your LBM times 15. In your case your TDEE is almost exactly 2000 using that method. That would be my starting point personally. That is assuming your stats are completely accurate. 500 calories a day is a great place to start like King mentioned but if your TDEE is really low, like 2000, then I would suggest only a 300 calorie deficit. Nothing here is set in stone, just my personal opinion from my research and experience. If I were you I would be trying to gain muscle rather than cut fat, just my opinion again though, do what makes you happy.

[joebailey1271]

2000 calories at 19, way to low, thats exactly why those formulas are crap, im double his age and lose fat with 2500 cals on weight days and 2200 on non,

[RangerDanger830]

2000 calories at 19, way to low, thats exactly why those formulas are crap, im double his age and lose fat with 2500 cals on weight days and 2200 on non,

And your methodology of using age as a factor in determining TDEE is crap. TDEE is based off of your body composition, not your age. Your age does affect your metabolism usually but it cannot be accurately used to determine your caloric needs at all. But then again, it works for you so it must work for him.

[RangerDanger830]

Heading to bed, stealing this from Emma Leigh...

There are then a number of other formula which calculate BMR. This means it calculates what you need should you be in a coma.
1/ Harris-Benedict formula: Very inaccurate. It was derived from studies on LEAN, YOUNG, ACTIVE males MANY YEARS AGO (1919). Notorious for OVERESTIMATING requirements, especially in the overweight. IF YOU CAN AVOID IT, DON'T USE IT!
MEN: BMR = 66 + [13.7 x weight (kg)] + [5 x height (cm)] - [6.76 x age (years)]
WOMEN: BMR = 655 + [9.6 x weight (kg)] + [1.8 x height (cm)] - [4.7 x age (years)]

2/Mifflin-St Jeor: Developed in the 1990s and more realistic in todays settings. It still doesn't take into consideration the differences as a consequence of high BF%. Thus, once again, it OVERESTIMATES NEEDS, ESPECIALLY IN THE OVERWEIGHT.
MEN: BMR = [9.99 x weight (kg)] + [6.25 x height (cm)] - [4.92 x age (years)] + 5
WOMEN: BMR = [9.99 x weight (kg)] + [6.25 x height (cm)] - [4.92 x age (years)] -161

3/Katch-McArdle:Considered the most accurate formula for those who are relatively lean. Use ONLY if you have a good estimate of your bodyfat %.
BMR = 370 + (21.6 x LBM)Where LBM = [total weight (kg) x (100 - bodyfat %)]/100

As these are only BMR calculations To convert BMR to a TOTAL requirement you need to multiply the result of your BMR by an 'activity variable' to give TEE.
The Activity Factor is the TOTAL cost of living, NOT JUST YOUR TRAINING. Think about it - if you train 1 hr a day - WHAT ARE YOU DOING THE OTHER 23 HRS?! So MORE important than training -- it includes work, life activities, training/sport & the TEF of ~15% (an average mixed diet).
Average activity variables are:
1.2 = Sedentary (Desk job, and Little Formal Exercise)
1.3-1.4 = Lightly Active (Light daily activity AND light exercise 1-3 days a week)
1.5-1.6 = Moderately Active (Moderately daily Activity & Moderate exercise 3-5 days a week)
1.7-1.8 = Very Active (Physically demanding lifestyle & Hard exercise 6-7 days a week)
1.9-2.2 = Extremely Active (Athlete in ENDURANCE training or VERY HARD physical job)

I prefer the Katch method myself. Notice the most accurate of the three takes BF% into account and not age at all.

[otypico]

Never used AAS and have cycled clen for the last 2 years, and no I havent experienced muscle loss, I use it for both bulking and cutting. Clen will actually make you look bigger by making you more vascular in and outside of the gym. Your calories seem low, like the fella above said u should aim for about 2500 calories.
EDIT: highly recommend having carbs as the main energy source and fats at about 20% of your calories when using clen.

[joebailey1271]

All bs ranger danger, allmost everyone i see says those formulas make their cals too high, but like u said i guess if it works for u, it must be legit,, Oh and i didnt use methadolgy, i used what works, slowly lower your cals til u start to lose, ok is that easy enough to understand

[Docd187123]

2000 calories at 19, way to low, thats exactly why those formulas are crap, im double his age and lose fat with 2500 cals on weight days and 2200 on non,

You're also 5in taller and 65lbs heavier....not that that would have anything to do with the discrepancy

All bs ranger danger, allmost everyone i see says those formulas make their cals too high, but like u said i guess if it works for u, it must be legit,, Oh and i didnt use methadolgy, i used what works, slowly lower your cals til u start to lose, ok is that easy enough to understand

Those formulas are ESTIMATES. There's no way to account for individual variances in metabolism, digestion/absorption, lifestyle factors etc. Having said that, they ARE THE MOST ACCURATE METHODS available to determine baseline TDEE. Experimentation and trial and error will put you as close as you need to be.

Please educate yourself before making baseless comments.

[EquilibriumZ]

Determining calories is trial and error. So buy a scale weigh exact calories and write them down. Boom you ll know your body within 8 weeks

[RangerDanger830]

You're also 5in taller and 65lbs heavier....not that that would have anything to do with the discrepancy



Those formulas are ESTIMATES. There's no way to account for individual variances in metabolism, digestion/absorption, lifestyle factors etc. Having said that, they ARE THE MOST ACCURATE METHODS available to determine baseline TDEE. Experimentation and trial and error will put you as close as you need to be.

Please educate yourself before making baseless comments.

Thanks Doc! I never said they were exact bailey, it is just a close starting point where you can use trial and error to tweak it just right for yourself. Usually the calorie estimation is close enough for the error part of trial and error to be forgiving as you find your niche.