*** DISCUSSION *** Are all caloric deficits created equal?

[gbrice75]

Let's refer to them as person A and person B. Both have a TDEE of 2500 calories, are 5'11 at 190lbs and 16% bodyfat. They share the same goal - to add a bit of muscle and reduce bodyfat.

Person A has decided to eat at 200 calories over maintenance and rely on activity (cardio) to create his caloric deficit. He's burning 700 calories via cardio, leaving him at a deficit of 500 behind TDEE.

Person B has decided not to do cardio at all, but is eating 2000 calories/day, 500 below his maintenance. Both are using identical weight training regimens.

When all is said and done, both are at a deficit of 500 calories under TDEE. Do you feel they'll see the same results? Is a caloric deficit a caloric deficit? Personally, I don't think so. My thoughts...

Person A is eating more to fuel activity (training/recovery, cardio, etc.) but also burning more calories with said activity. However, he is feeding his body. He's fueling his muscles, he's keeping his system processing.

Person B is under eating and not doing as much physical activity. He's not eating to fuel any growth and is relying solely on his body 'eating itself' via caloric restriction.

For optimal fat loss, I like a good combination of both. A slight caloric deficit plus plenty of cardio usually is the right recipe. However, when a plateau is reached, I always recommend people try to increase activity before reducing calories further.

Use this thread to discuss. Please keep it respectful!

[Back In Black]

Lord, is it 6 months already since the last one

[austinite]

This is certainly interesting. Funny thing is I hear members from time to time saying "Me and my roommate are on the same workout schedule, but I am not losing weight!".

I believe the active one would benefit more in the long run, even if he/she is at or slightly above TDEE.

[Back In Black]

There are a number if points raised here. If you specifically look at your last point about not reducing calories below a certain amount then I agree completely.

If you keep reducing calories you keep reducing macro's and micro's and the ability for your body to recover from its workouts. Your body would at some point, essentially, be malnourished. Not just in terms macro nutrients but micro nutrients too. All those phytonutrients that we don't quite understand fully are a vital part of a healthy body.

Speaking from experience higher calories PLUS cardio do a much better job for me than just dropping cals alone.

[mnj611]

I would say no, but my reason is metabolism. If you do less doesn't your body find ways to be more efficiant? So your metabalism would slow down to make up for lost calories. But cardio would force your body to burn fat constantly.

[--->>405<<---]

Hmm... Very interesting. I would think the one doing the most exercise and eating would benefit more. I also think he would be doing a LOT more activity for those 500cals.

500cal deficit is a lot easier to create thru diet than cardio.

I would think the body composition of the person getting their deficit tru extra cardio would be better. Obviously eating more food should help maintain more LBM plus the extra micronutrients and all the physical benefits that go along with cardio not to mention less stress and better sleep and better cardiovascular function.

IMO in this lifestyle those who are able to "get away" without "having" to do cardio are actually the ones losing! U know once u are very fit cardio can actually be enjoyable and really not effortful!

[gbrice75]

I would say no, but my reason is metabolism. If you do less doesn't your body find ways to be more efficiant? So your metabalism would slow down to make up for lost calories. But cardio would force your body to burn fat constantly.

Bingo. 10 posts and you nailed it.

I should point out this metabolic slow down wouldn't occur over the course of a day, or even a week, but running a hypocaloric diet for too long will eventually lead to this. It can be offset with re-feeds, etc. but I still wouldn't recommend going beyond 16 weeks without a break - meaning eating at maintenance (at least) for 4 weeks or so. The last thing you want your body to do is reach a new, lower 'set point' in an effort to maintain homeostasis.

[baseline_9]

I tend to agree with the way this thread has gone so far....

I will add that it is goal dependant..... If I was at 12% BF and maintaining that weight at 2750 cals but wanted to drop down to 10% BF then that is a fairly short term or quickly achievable goal..... So do you need to worry about metabolic slow down or potential hormonal issues..... Probably not as we're talking about a short time frame....

As mentioned above, it is 'easier' to created that calorific deficit via reduced intake vs increased output....

With that being said and the example above I'd simply recommend that person drops calories.....


However if I was 20% Bf and wanted to drop down to 10% that's a whole different story with many more variables that will come into play (towards the end where body fat levels are lower and one has been dieting for an extended time period)....

If that was the case I'd actually recommend the opposite..... I'd keep calories at least at mtnce and increase output to create the deficit..... The reasoning for this is obvious, it leaves you more to play with as you get closer to hitting your goals the issues stated above 'should' be less of a problem....

[baseline_9]

One more thing....

If you wish to drop to a low body fat and maintain it, period, then higher calorie intake and higher energy output would IMO be the best option here......

You could drop the fat with less cardio and less calories and then increase cardio and calories to maintain the condition.... However I believe that for maintaining low body fat and maintaining LBM a higher calorie intake is optimal.... This will of course have to be offset with a grater output....

But you can't have your cake, eat it and be ripped can you..... You have to have cake, eat it, burn it and then be ripped

[gbrice75]

I tend to agree with the way this thread has gone so far....

I will add that it is goal dependant..... If I was at 12% BF and maintaining that weight at 2750 cals but wanted to drop down to 10% BF then that is a fairly short term or quickly achievable goal..... So do you need to worry about metabolic slow down or potential hormonal issues..... Probably not as we're talking about a short time frame....

Agreed. Even Lyle McDonald has you in a 'severe' caloric deficit short term in his 'Stubborn Fat Loss Diet' book.

However if I was 20% Bf and wanted to drop down to 10% that's a whole different story with many more variables that will come into play (towards the end where body fat levels are lower and one has been dieting for an extended time period)....

If that was the case I'd actually recommend the opposite..... I'd keep calories at least at mtnce and increase output to create the deficit..... The reasoning for this is obvious, it leaves you more to play with as you get closer to hitting your goals the issues stated above 'should' be less of a problem....

Great point.

One more thing....

If you wish to drop to a low body fat and maintain it, period, then higher calorie intake and higher energy output would IMO be the best option here......

You could drop the fat with less cardio and less calories and then increase cardio and calories to maintain the condition.... However I believe that for maintaining low body fat and maintaining LBM a higher calorie intake is optimal.... This will of course have to be offset with a grater output....

But you can't have your cake, eat it and be ripped can you..... You have to have cake, eat it, burn it and then be ripped

Bahahaha!!! Yea man, I agree with this last part 100%. Great post Base, as usual.