The First Law of Metabolic Thermodynamics States that...

[BackInTheGame78]

All calorie deficits are not created equal.

A person who has a higher total caloric burn rate via TDEE plus caloric intake will always lose more weight even when the caloric deficit is the same, all things being equal.

Example:

Person 1 has a TDEE of 2300 and is intaking 1800 calories.

Person 2 has a TDEE of 2800 and is intaking 2300 calories.

Person 1, total caloric expenditure is 4100. Person 2 total caloric expenditure is 5100.

Person 2 will lose more weight(and fat) than Person 1, all things being equal, even tho they are in the same 500 calorie deficit per day.

These are things people don't really understand well, but in terms of the body, think of it as calories being fuel...the more calories you are adding, the more the furnace is fueled and the more your metabolism can start turning into a blowtorch for fat, with ancillary incineration happening as it increases.

This is why it is always more effective to eat more and increase your TDEE via activity(to a degree, too much isn't good either as the body cannot repair itself quickly enough for workouts) versus eating less and being less active even if you maintain the same calorie deficit.

 

[Ricky]

Yeah a body in which the fat is lost from a combo of exercise and diet always looks better than someone who only dieted and didn't exercise

Metabolism is such an interesting thing.

Number of meals a day supposedly doesn't make a difference but i have always felt better on a number of small meals a day. Its just tough to keep them small and not overeat.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Yeah a body in which the fat is lost from a combo of exercise and diet always looks better than someone who only dieted and didn't exercise

Metabolism is such an interesting thing.

Number of meals a day supposedly doesn't make a difference but i have always felt better on a number of small meals a day. Its just tough to keep them small and not overeat.

Some people do OK on that but I don't like a bunch of small meals because you are still forcing your body to spike insulin every meal even if it's only a little bit and forcing it to work on digestion throughout the day, which necessarily means that it's negatively effecting your fat bruning capabilities in some way and also taking time it could be working on other things away since it needs to continuously digest.

 

[Money & Muscle]

Person 1 has a TDEE of 2300 and is intaking 1800 calories.
...
Person 1, total caloric expenditure is 4100.

If person 1's TDEE is 2300, then they expended 2300 calories.
I'm not sure how you get 4100 out of this honestly.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

If person 1's TDEE is 2300, then they expended 2300 calories.
I'm not sure how you get 4100 out of this honestly.

They expend 2300 calories but also have to digest 1800 calories. Combined that is 4100.

Total calories expended both from TDEE and from digestion make a difference in terms of results.

 

[Money & Muscle]

Total calories expended both from TDEE and from digestion make a difference in terms of results.

You're talking the thermic effect of food?

 

[BackInTheGame78]

You're talking the thermic effect of food?

I'm talking about simply calories intaken during a day.

I've lost significant weight enough times in a short period of time to know that eating more works better even in the same caloric deficit than eating less for maximizing fat loss.

Likely for many reasons that don't have to do with calories.

 

[Money & Muscle]

I'm talking about simply calories intaken during a day.

CICO isn't really negotiable, but not all calories are created equal (as im sure you know). Absolute caloric deficit is still the single best tool for setting any diet plan. The total calories eaten have little to do with end result, assuming the absolute deficit is still the same.

Thermic effect of food can have an impact here, but it certainly isn't a primary cause for weight loss.

I've lost significant weight enough times in a short period of time to know that eating more works better even in the same caloric deficit than eating less for maximizing fat loss.

Likely for many reasons that don't have to do with calories.

What do you suppose these reasons are?

 

[BackInTheGame78]

CICO isn't really negotiable, but not all calories are created equal (as im sure you know). Absolute caloric deficit is still the single best tool for setting any diet plan. The total calories eaten have little to do with end result, assuming the absolute deficit is still the same.

Thermic effect of food can have an impact here, but it certainly isn't a primary cause for weight loss.


What do you suppose these reasons are?

Thermic effect of food and exercise assisting in regulating blood sugar in the absence of insulin likely help some, but I think the bigger one may be that lower calorie counts tend to drop many people below their base BMR when they subtract 500 which I am not a fan of ever doing. Some studies will say that it doesn't have a huge negative effect but in practice I disagree.

It's gotten me stuck where I stopped losing weight until I actually added 300-500 calories a day.

 

[Money & Muscle]

Thermic effect of food and exercise assisting in regulating blood sugar in the absence of insulin likely help some, but I think the bigger one may be that lower calorie counts tend to drop many people below their base BMR when they subtract 500 which I am not a fan of ever doing. Some studies will say that it doesn't have a huge negative effect but in practice I disagree.

If you lose weight, your BMR will reduce as well, this is just a fact.

Anecdotally, I believe that staying in a long-term deficit of any kind can negatively affect BMR beyond that of weight lost. You can look up the MATADOR study if you want to see some interesting results.

It's gotten me stuck where I stopped losing weight until I actually added 300-500 calories a day.

Diet breaks can help for numerous reasons, but we don't entirely understand the reasons as to why. I think MATADOR gives the most insight to this, but it is still theory on what specific mechanisms are implemented to make the 2 weeks on/2 weeks off approach more effective. Most theory suggests Leptin levels play a major role in this, specifically in diet rebound weight. Layne Norton has a video series on this, if you're that interested in learning about it.

My only point in commenting on this thread is that a 500 calorie deficit is a 500 calorie deficit. The only major difference between a higher absolute caloric intake (at the same level deficit) is the thermic effect of food. Fat loss rate would still be quite similar between the two, BUT I agree that if you can increase your activity say 1000cals/day TDEE and increase calories by 500/day, you will probably have a better end result (see G-Flux) by means of compliance and not affecting leptin levels.

 

[Ricky]

I'm talking about simply calories intaken during a day.

I've lost significant weight enough times in a short period of time to know that eating more works better even in the same caloric deficit than eating less for maximizing fat loss.

Likely for many reasons that don't have to do with calories.

Maybe when you eat more your non exercise activity increases too…

one of the problems with exercising hard but eating in too much of a calorie deficit is how tired it makes us the rest of the day.

 

[Money & Muscle]

Maybe when you eat more your non exercise activity increases too…

The inverse of this is true. When you eat less, you will tap your foot less, use less hand gestures in conversation, speak slower, etc.

Not entirely sure if this is a mutual relationship for a caloric surplus, interesting thought though.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Too complicated. Key to losing weight is cleaning up the diet. Eat less calorie dense food. That means get the added fat and butter out first, followed by added sugar (including all beverages) and refined carbohydrates. Then switch from fatty meat and full fat dairy to leaner options.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Too complicated. Key to losing weight is cleaning up the diet. Eat less calorie dense food. That means get the added fat and butter out first, followed by added sugar (including all beverages) and refined carbohydrates. Then switch from fatty meat and full fat dairy to leaner options.

Yes, diet is probably half of it, strength training is probably 25% and the consistent accumulation of little things adding up to big things is the other 25%.

I'm down 46 lbs in slightly over 4 months and that includes an entire month where I was basically stuck within a 6 lb range bouncing back and forth until I tweaked a few things.

The following month I dropped 11.4 lbs and this month that just completed yesterday I dropped 16.8 lbs.

I have accomplished this by doing strength training 4x a week using heavy bands and intense workouts that last 18-25 minutes max, prioritizing sleep(7-8 hours every night), walking 4-5x a week at least 10K steps, carb cycling, 5:2 fasting and various blood sugar related supplements and ones that have shown results in terms of body composition changes(TMG/L-Carnitine Tartrate in combination). All of these things add up together to create a whole larger than the sum of its parts, IMO. Protein is high, usually 40% most days resulting in around 190-220g depending on what day of the carb cycle it is.

IMO, The advice of losing no more than 2 lbs a week is not based on any science and is mostly due to people who try to lose weight rapidly doing it all wrong, mainly by lowering their calories way too much or doing way too much cardio. In fact the latest studies that have come out show that the main effect of rapid weight loss is more rapid improvement in your metabolic markers in blood work and that there was zero difference in how fast people gained weight back if they regained weight. If they lost weight quickly or slowly, it came back on at the same rate.

Suffice to say while I may not be an "expert" on the topic, I am far more versed than most people based on actually doing this type of relatively rapid transformation 6-7 times(usually it's around 25lb tho, this was way too much winter weight) in the past 10 years and having to make tweaks each time a little. I can definitely say it gets harder and there is less margin for error as you get older, especially after age 40...

People are capable of turning their body into an absolute fat blowtorch, but most don't get themselves to that point...

 

[EyeBRollin]

Yes, diet is probably half of it, strength training is probably 25% and the consistent accumulation of little things adding up to big things is the other 25%.

I'm down 46 lbs in slightly over 4 months and that includes an entire month where I was basically stuck within a 6 lb range bouncing back and forth until I tweaked a few things.

The following month I dropped 11.4 lbs and this month that just completed yesterday I dropped 16.8 lbs.

I have accomplished this by doing strength training 4x a week using heavy bands and intense workouts that last 18-25 minutes max, prioritizing sleep(7-8 hours every night), walking 4-5x a week at least 10K steps, carb cycling, 5:2 fasting and various blood sugar related supplements and ones that have shown results in terms of body composition changes(TMG/L-Carnitine Tartrate in combination).

IMO, The advice of losing no more than 2 lbs a week is not based on any science and is mostly due to people who try to lose weight rapidly doing it all wrong, mainly by lowering their calories way too much or doing way too much cardio. In fact the latest studies that have come out show that the main effect of rapid weight loss is more rapid improvement in your metabolic markers in blood work and that there was zero difference in how fast people gained weight back if they regained weight. If they lost weight quickly or slowly, it came back on at the same rate.

Suffice to say while I may not be an "expert" on the topic, I am far more versed than most people based on actually doing this type of relatively rapid transformation 6-7 times in the past 10 years and having to make tweaks each time a little. I can definitely say it gets harder and there is less margin for error as you get older, especially after age 40...

I think diet really is at least 80% of the equation. My anecdotal story is that I wasn’t trying to lose weight, just to optimize all my blood markers. My exercise routine stayed the same. The net result was 10 lbs lost in 3 months. Further confirmation is that my wife who also wasn’t trying to lose weight.. lost 8 lbs herself (we share 90% of eating habits since moving in together). I cut out alcohol, removed all butter, sugar, refined carbohydrates, oils except for EVOO and Avocado oil, and meat except for goat (my wife loves it) from the house.

Blood markers are now optimal. I hear the Triglycerides to HDL ratio are a makeshift metobolic indicator. Got the Triglycerides down to 50, ratio is at 0.9.

 

[Ricky]

Hey @BackInTheGame78
What are your thoughts on the Protein sparing modified fast?

 

[BackInTheGame78]

I think diet really is at least 80% of the equation. My anecdotal story is that I wasn’t trying to lose weight, just to optimize all my blood markers. My exercise routine stayed the same. The net result was 10 lbs lost in 3 months. Further confirmation is that my wife who also wasn’t trying to lose weight.. lost 8 lbs herself (we share 90% of eating habits since moving in together). I cut out alcohol, removed all butter, sugar, refined carbohydrates, oils except for EVOO and Avocado oil, and meat except for goat (my wife loves it) from the house.

Blood markers are now optimal. I hear the Triglycerides to HDL ratio are a makeshift metobolic indicator. Got the Triglycerides down to 50, ratio is at 0.9.

In terms of simply losing weight, then sure, you can get there with diet at 80% of focus.

In terms of maximizing efficiency, no way.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Hey @BackInTheGame78
What are your thoughts on the Protein sparing modified fast?

I am not sure what you are referring to with that...you will have to elaborate.

 

[Ricky]

I am not sure what you are referring to with that...you will have to elaborate.

Well its a fairly extreme diet. The reason i became interested is after Peter Attia kind of backpedaled on fasting. He felt fasting isn't worth it now unless you are extremely overweight because too much muscle could be lost.

The concept of protein sparing modified fasts is that instead of completely fasting, you are ensuring you receive your protein needs. You eat little other than that so obviously can't continue the diet for super long. But in the process you lose fat and spare muscle tissue.

It could definitely be dangerous if done for too long, but i am thinking doing it on occasion only to get more lean. My body fat is just south of 20% now (although admittledly not measured by very accurate methods). The article mentions this
" You should only do a PSMF if you’re over 15% (men) or 25% (women) body fat. You can try it if you’re leaner than that, but the risk of muscle loss, lethargy, and weight regain is much higher the leaner you are when you start"

Should You Use a Protein Sparing Modified Fast to Lose Weight? - Legion Athletics

What is a protein sparing modified fast, and should you use it to lose weight? Learn the answer in this article.

legionathletics.com

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Well its a fairly extreme diet. The reason i became interested is after Peter Attia kind of backpedaled on fasting. He felt fasting isn't worth it now unless you are extremely overweight because too much muscle could be lost.

The concept of protein sparing modified fasts is that instead of completely fasting, you are ensuring you receive your protein needs. You eat little other than that so obviously can't continue the diet for super long. But in the process you lose fat and spare muscle tissue.

It could definitely be dangerous if done for too long, but i am thinking doing it on occasion only to get more lean. My body fat is just south of 20% now (although admittledly not measured by very accurate methods)

Should You Use a Protein Sparing Modified Fast to Lose Weight? - Legion Athletics

What is a protein sparing modified fast, and should you use it to lose weight? Learn the answer in this article.

legionathletics.com

That's simply wrong on fasting, at least within short windows. My fasts are usually 30-36 hours going from after dinner one night, skipping eating the next day and eating again the following morning.

The science shows it's the best way to burn almost pure fat and it's actually very muscle sparing due to huge pulses of GH that raise it to 600-700% of baseline within 24 hours. From a survival aspect this makes perfect sense as the body wants to give you energy short term that you need to go "find food" without causing a loss of muscle which will help you find food.

Compared to virtually every other method of losing weight that is at best 50% fat and 50% muscle, short term fasting is 90% fat loss. Literally the best you can do without using some crazy drug that can burn out your mitochondria and kill you. Forgot what that's called... it's super effective but super dangerous because the optimal dose and the kill you dose are very close together. Or possibly some sort of cryogenic/ice bath stuff that causes your body to burn calories to stay warm.

As a protective measure, just in case, I intake 10g of Perfect Amino BCAA's on fasting days which basically provide some protein building blocks with no calories.

I would recommend doing that as it will still allow you to fast but also provide some amino acids. It may not be necessary, but if it helps in any way, it's a bonus. I have not noticed any negative effects on muscle growth/muscle loss while fasting and I have done some form of it for many years now.

Some also recommend drinking electrolytes to ensure you aren't disrupting that balance and making it easier on your body once you stop fasting, but I have never done that. Might try it and see if it has any effect.