Can we do deficits in a new way?

(John) #1

I have had to argue a lot lately about metabolism, I have also been getting a lot of newbie questions about deficits and there doesn’t seem to be much out there for the average person other than pick a percentage.

We know via Alpert that the body can generate calories from fat stores at a maximum rate which is reported to be 31.4 calories per pound of fat. If you expend more than this your metabolism will suffer. I think this is how we need to think about deficits, and maybe an online calculator?

Let me plug in my numbers to this
BMR is 1,853 and TDEE is conservatively 2,038

I am about 20% body fat at 195 so that means I have about 40 pounds of fat and using Alperts number I can generate 1,256 calories on my own. The difference from TDEE and my Alpert number (2,038-1,256=782) tells me everything I need to know. If I eat less than 782 calories my body fat cannot make up the difference and my metabolism will be affected, but at 782 I should be maximizing fat loss. I should also not freak out about eating more than my deficit because my fat stores don’t have to produce anything, it is demand driven, so I can eat up to 2,038 calories with no gain (this doesn’t account for when you are sleeping or not timing meals perfectly but that’s ok).

Now I can feel better about my weight loss, I am not making wild guesses about my deficit, I am understanding my body will create energy from fat when needed, and I am not going to lose my mind when I eat over my deficit because it is not a hard number any longer but a range.

I can eat from ~800 to ~2,000 calories a day with no ill consequences, the closer I get to 800 the faster the weight will come off.

Did I get anything wrong?

(David K) #2

Most of us here don’t count calories or worry about deficits.

Carbs: <20
Protein: 1g-1.5g per Kg of Lean Body Mass
Fat: To satiety

(Dustin Cade) #3

Keep it simple…

(John) #4

True, most here don’t except for fasting.

(G. Andrew Duthie) #5

But fasting isn’t about caloric deficit.

Fasting and restricting calories aren’t the same thing, and they don’t produce the same results metabolically.

There are a lot of assumed factors there. If you eat either macronutrients that cause insulin to rise (carbs especially, but also protein), it can have adverse effects. If you eat a lot in a sitting, it’s my understanding that the resulting stomach stretching can also trigger release of insulin, separate from the impact of the macros.

We all want this to be simple, and on some levels, it can be. But the underlying mechanisms are very complex, and affected by multiple factors, and it goes way, way beyond just calories. Which is why many keto/fasting folks tend to focus more on what we eat than on the calorie count.

(eat more) #6

i like numbers :slight_smile:

like this one or am i confused? (totally possible :wink: )

(John) #7

True, but it gives a range to work with. If you consistently eat below what your body can produce from fat then your metabolism will drop, which is part of what I am working to avoid. I am about to start working on muscle building for a while so I am restructuring from lazy keto, eat whatever sort of thing to something better suited to still lose while building muscle. Optimization and testing if you will, figuring out how much protein I need, calories need to be supplemented etc.

(John) #8

Totally forgot they had that. Nevermind!

#9

I’ll add that meal timing is crucial, too.

Hormones like insulin, glucagon and HGH are pulsatile in nature, so when they need to be there, they shouldn’t be interfered with by the others - predominantly insulin interfering with the rest of them.

So my thinking is that ‘deficits’ would better come from increased time between eating - yes, the net result would be fewer calories on average, but meals themselves would be pretty consistent and always eaten to satiety.

So “time-restricted feeding” as a different way of thinking about “intermittent fasting” allows the right hormones to do the right job at the right time.