-
Burn the fat feed the muscle is one of the non-bullshit ones. I know, too much bollox in fitness.
I grabbed a standard calculator, and took it from there. But, do I "know" it. No, there is always a margin of error.
Hence I just took MFP, checked if that value matched (yeah weight is stable, so it's OK) and then take it from there.
RE the female triad, at 25% bodyfat I don't seem to run a risk.
Either you lose too much bodyfat and hormones tank, or for other reasons (not quite understood, but since pregnancy can kill you, probably evolutionary) periods stall. Which is BAD.But if you are a man with a lot of fat, it's possible you can cut more. But, do you have to? I mean, an lbs of fat is 3500 kcal. You need to take into account that you lose 10% of food via heat, so if you cut 500 cals you really cut less than that.
Say you are at 3000, you lose 300. At 2500 you lose 250, so to get to this perfect 500 per day is 3500 per week you gotta cut 50 more.
I've no idea what your fat percentage or diet is like or how much you exercise. Cos in theory you could cut 1000 a day right now, but it may just mess you up due to your training needs.
I'd just dunno, use a stupid dumb calculator, this is going to give you a maintenance. Run it for 3 weeks to see if it's really maintance (I would track your exercise too and eat the exercise calories back)
If weight goes up, it's wrong. If it goes down, it's also wrong. If it is stable, but you are less lardy happy days.
Then you can cut 550 a day from it, [make sure you get enough protein! 1.8 grams per lbs is definitely enough btw] and see if you hit your goals.
OK, it's perhaps stupid basic and not 100% worked out with 20 pages of mathematical calculations, but you can have some beer/pizza and then once you get into the last annoying lard, then you can refine it with "macros" and "clean eating" and "fasted cardio".
Rinse and repeat :)
[from which I know that a low carb diet with having to work and use my brain is just a no-no so lower fat is it this time]
You are reading a single comment by @JWestland and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
JWestland
Well_is_it
"a 2002 paper by Manore, already suggests that the 1,500kcal are in fact an absolute minimum for the real light-weights among female athletes. Only in one of the 15 studies with datasets from 138 women on which the values in figure 3 are based, were the ~30kcal/kg body weight sufficient to prevent onset of amenorrhea."
http://suppversity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-female-athlete-triad-part-iiiiii.html