I sent an email to Alan explaining how 2 people here on this forum both were at 1,600 calories and not seeing any weight-loss results....but when they increased to 1,900 they then began to see a loss. So I straight-up asked him if I'm perhaps eating at such a deficit that I'm putting my body into some kind of starvation mode and perhaps the answer to seeing more weight-loss might lie in eating more.....his response:
On the note of increasing calories & seeing weight loss, its only a result of having more energy to train harder or longer. It still boils down to cals in vs cal out.
In the past I've asked him about the whole "starvation mode" concept and he says that only kicks-in when you're really truly facing survival, starvation and more like stranded on an Island. I suppose this then goes back to the notion that I'm not burning as many calories as my HR-monitor projects AND I'm eating many more calories then I realize.
Thanks for the detailed reply BSL - it's an interesting discussion !
The point that still stays with me when it comes to deciding how many calories to cut is the one that has been mentioned over and over again by members on this forum when advising newbies on how to go about losing fat. That is, most of us trot out the notion of doing something like the old Harris calc to ' ballpark ' a newbie's maintenance calories and then we suggest they create a calorie deficit of 500 calories a day from maintenance or cut 15% / 20% etc. etc. from maintenance.
Now with respect to the whole ' starvation mode ' thing, my sense has always been that one of the reasons you don't want to tell people to ' over restrict ' calories - i.e slash calories by 1,000++ calories a day or cut maintenance by 30% or 40% etc. etc. is because of the stress such a big cut would put on your body. In other words, your body senses some sort of ' artificial famine ' or goes into some form of ' starvation mode '. And, that the stress manifests itself in things like a bump in your anabolic hormones like cortisol - and depending on people's diets, more cortisol means that your body will want to spare ( instead of burn ) your fat stores as a source of energy.
I also thought that by going into a artificial famine or starvation mode, your body's actually going to produce more fat storing enzymes ( I
think it's called lipoprotein lipase
) which breaks down dietary fats to be stored as fat - and I have read this bump in fat storing enzymes may be in response to your body trying to maintain itself at some sort of genetically pre-determined ' set point ' of body weight. I wonder if this pre-determined ' set point ' of body weight is a relevant issue in your case.
So, let's say you were a newbie to this forum and you wanted advice on how to shed some fat ( excluding exercise for the moment ) You're 210 lbs. of average body fat ( i.e 15% - 17% ) . Most of us would ballpark your RMR at 210 x 11 = 2,300. And if you take Beradi's lifestyle adjustment to RMR of...
1.2-1.3 for Very Light (bed rest)
1.5-1.6 for Light (office work/watching TV)
1.6-1.7 for Moderate (some activity during day)
1.9-2.1 for Heavy (labor type work)
...then 1.6 would seem about right for ' lifestyle ' calories , giving you 2,300 x 1.6 = 3,600 calories. Again, most of us would tell you that if you want to shed fat safely to cut it by 500 calories a day ( i.e to 3,100 ) or by 20% ( i.e to 2,900 ). However, you're intake right now is 1,900 calories - or a cut of almost 50%. Now, I'm no nutritionist, but I would simply be curious to ask Alan ( who is ) if there is any reason why one should avoid a deficit cut of 40% +...as it appears you're doing ( i.e a cut of 40% + ). If he says there isn't any reason, then that's fine. But, I've always been under the impression that huge cuts in calories are not recommended, in part, based on the points I touched on above.
This is where I get confused...I think 1,900 calories is way too low ( i.e under your BMR ) and Alan ( I assume ) thinks it is just fine. Again, I always took BMR to represent those ' coma calories ' - i.e just enough calories to keep you alive !
- and going below that is not a good idea ! However, if Alan says there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person sustaining a daily intake of calories
below your BMR, then I'll stand corrected...I'll assume I must have simply misinterpreted what BMR means .
I'm trying to calorically tune my days to account for exercise. I don't want to eat 3,500 each day regardless of how much I exercise that day....it's just not right to eat the same for each day when on some days I may do very little and on others I may burn 2,400 calories with 3+ hours of exercise.
Perhaps the simplest thing to do is to focus on calories
per week - adjusted maintenance vs burned, rather adjusting your calories
each day. In other words, what Berardi said...
" rather than trying to stagger your calorie intake on a daily basis by eating different amounts of food on different days, I let my training cycle my calories for me "
...may have some merit.
The basic question remains: on a given day, if I do 2,000 calories worth of exercise....how many calories should I be taking in (beyond my base so as to help build muscle, replace lost energy, maximize fat-loss and not hinder/slow my metabolism??
Here's my hunch. From what I've read and seen on the HR-monitor, it would seem that roughly 40% of the energy used during exercise is coming from fat, the other 60% is likely glycogen and what-not. I'd take a wild guess that I should then be eating 60% of whatever I exercised so as to replace that glycogen loss. So if I go to the gym and burn-up 2,000 calories, it would be ideal to then eat about 1,200 calories afterwards.....it's understood that eating right after exercising is good, the body tends not to store it as fat, and if 60% of the energy came from non-fat storage, then putting-back 60% seems like the answer. Ya see what I'm trying to pick-apart here?
For argument's sake, let's ditch the 1,900 calories a day just for the time being and assume your maintenance ( excluding exercise ) is closer to 3,600 and your 20% cut puts you at 2,900 a day ( excluding exercise ) - or a deficit of 700 calories a day or a deficit of 4,900 ( say 5,000 ) calories a week over 7 days. So, how about this........
- Maintenance for 7 days .................3,600 X 7 = 25,000
- Heavy exercise 3 days a week.........2,000 X 3 = 6,000
- Lighter exercise 2 days a week...........500 X 2 = 1,000
- TOTAL CALORIES burned..................................32,000
...so -
in theory at least - if you shave a weekly deficit of 5,000 calories from 32,000, you're left with 27,000 or 3,800 calories a day. Now assume that 1,900 represents a 20% cut for some reason ( i.e a 2,400 maintenance ), then you'd burn about 24,000 a week, less a weekly deficit of 2,500 is 21,500 or about 3,100 calories a day.
So, you could just split the difference and go with about 3,500 calories every day could you not ?
Or, if it turns out 1,900 is not a problem ( according to Alan ) , then instead of "
trying to stagger your calorie intake on a daily basis " just go with
3,100 calories a day, 7 days a week..........cause as Alan said, "
It still boils down to cals in vs cal out "
