PDA

View Full Version : Does the whole "don't lose more than 1 lb per week" apply to cuts?



SpecialK
09-30-2005, 09:22 AM
I posted another thread that had this question buried in it somewhere, but since no one replied and I'm curious, I'll post it again.

I have read that 1 lb/week is about the max that anyone dieting should aim for. However that was written for the general population, who are just concerned with losing "weight", as opposed to the people on this board, who are primarily concerned with losing specifically fat, while preserving as much muscle as possible.

Does that rule apply to cutters? When I was eating 3600+ cals/day, I wasn't losing any weight. I did that for a month. When I dropped down to 3400 cals/day, I had some sudden 1.5-2 lb drops, then my weight leveled out for the next 1.5 weeks. Fine, I lost some water. That's to be expected. But then when I dropped down to 3200 cals, suddenly I'm losing 1.5-2 lbs/week, for the last 3 weeks. What's going on here? If I add 200-300 cals back, I won't be losing anything. If I subtract more, well that sounds like a bad idea.

I am noticeably more vascular now than when I started to lose weight, but I haven't made a whole lot of progress on the stomach fat. What should I do?

Built
09-30-2005, 09:34 AM
I've noticed during cuts that there seems to be a "threshold" above which I don't seem to drop.

Go by a trend - because of water weight, you'll see big drops, then nothing, then a drop.... If you're not more than 500 cals below maintenance, you can't drop more than a pound of fat per week unless you're creating more of a deficit from somewhere else.

SpecialK
09-30-2005, 09:56 AM
I've noticed during cuts that there seems to be a "threshold" above which I don't seem to drop.

Go by a trend - because of water weight, you'll see big drops, then nothing, then a drop.... If you're not more than 500 cals below maintenance, you can't drop more than a pound of fat per week unless you're creating more of a deficit from somewhere else.

Is that how water weight loss occurs though, in spaced apart drops? Others on here told me that you lose all your water weight in the span of a couple days. I'm not sure if that's right or not.

Also can you keep losing more water even if your caloric level is the same? Like I said, I have been at 3200 for about 3 weeks now, is it still possible to be seeing .5 lb water weight drops in the span of 1-2 days?

Built
09-30-2005, 11:05 AM
This might be helpful...

Lyle McD (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/forums/showpost.php?p=172695&postcount=23):
That is, if the fat cell fills up with water and stays filled up forever, well...the cell never shrinks and clearly that's not happening. At best, this water premise might sort of kind of explain the delay that is often seen/non-linear fat loss that people tend to report. Without knowing

a. if it's actually really happening
b. what's causing it

It's all just a lot of random speculation.

At some point, you'd expect the water to be lost through whatever mystical mechanism is involved with this whole thing.

Lyle



Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/forums/showpost.php?p=172775&postcount=25) 2003 Jun;27(6):677-83. Related Articles, Links


Changes in abdominal subcutaneous fat water content with rapid weight loss and long-term weight maintenance in abdominally obese men and women.

Laaksonen DE, Nuutinen J, Lahtinen T, Rissanen A, Niskanen LK.

1Department of Medicine, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.

OBJECTIVE: Insulin resistance decreases blood flow and volume in fat tissue. We hypothesised that fat tissue nutritive blood flow and volume, and thereby water content, would increase during weight loss and weight maintenance in obese persons. DESIGN: Longitudinal clinical intervention with a 9-week very-low-calorie diet (VLCD) followed by one year of weight maintenance. SUBJECTS: Obese men (n=13) and women (n=14) with the metabolic syndrome. MEASUREMENTS: Water content of abdominal subcutaneous fat tissue as estimated by a sensor on the skin surface measuring the dielectric constant at 300 MHz. Anthropometric measures of fatness and fat distribution. Biochemical measures related to insulin resistance. RESULTS: Subjects lost 14.5+/-3.4% of body weight during the VLCD, and generally sustained this weight loss during weight maintenance. Insulin sensitivity as estimated by an index (qualitative insulin sensitivity check index) increased during the VLCD, and remained increased throughout weight maintenance. The dielectric constant increased from 23.3+/-2.3 to 25.0+/-2.1 (P<0.001) during the VLCD, and further to 27.8+/-1.9 (P<0.001) during weight maintenance, indicating an increase in the water content of subcutaneous fat. The increase in subcutaneous fat water content did not correlate with weight loss and other measures of adiposity during the VLCD, but there was an inverse correlation that strengthened in significance from baseline to 6, 9 and 12 mo (r=-0.32 to -0.64, P=0.079-0.002). Increases in subcutaneous fat water content also correlated with improvements in insulin sensitivity at 6, 9 and 12 months of weight maintenance (r=0.34-0.54, P=0.094-0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Water content of abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue increases with weight loss in obese persons with the metabolic syndrome, and may reflect increased subcutaneous fat tissue nutritive blood flow. The increase in water content correlates with the increase in insulin sensitivity, suggesting that weight loss and consequent improved insulin sensitivity could mediate the increase in abdominal subcutaneous fat hydration.

Sooo....if you're eating at a significant deficit fat loss is occurring. Whether it shows up on the scale (OR the tape) or not, is due to a combination of water retention, hormones, and magic.

SpecialK
09-30-2005, 11:33 AM
This might be helpful...

Lyle McD (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/forums/showpost.php?p=172695&postcount=23):


Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/forums/showpost.php?p=172775&postcount=25) 2003 Jun;27(6):677-83. Related Articles, Links


Sooo....if you're eating at a significant deficit fat loss is occurring. Whether it shows up on the scale (OR the tape) or not, is due to a combination of water retention, hormones, and magic.

So I should just stick with the deficit I'm at now, and not be too concerned that my "weight" (from any number of sources) loss seems to exceed the magic "1lb/week max" rule?

Edit: I should also add that my bf right now isn't all that high, maybe 12-13%, just not low enough to clearly see abs.

CarlP
09-30-2005, 11:49 AM
Why do you even lose water? If your water intake is the same on a cut as a bulk, wouldn't you keep the same amount of water weight?

Built
09-30-2005, 12:12 PM
Fat is bound up with water.

SpecialK
09-30-2005, 12:18 PM
Oh yea, another question - doesn't carb consumption affect water retention, both within the muscle and sub-q?

Built
09-30-2005, 12:21 PM
Yep. Glycogen is bound with water.

SpecialK
09-30-2005, 12:24 PM
So in conclusion, should I just stick with the deficit I'm at now, and not be too concerned that my "weight" (from any number of sources) loss seems to exceed the magic "1lb/week max" rule?

Built
09-30-2005, 12:54 PM
Yep. If you're comfortable, leave it alone.

CarlP
10-04-2005, 06:45 PM
Fat is bound up with water.

So two 200 lb people are the same, except person A has 10% body fat, person B has 20% body fat. Person B is holding more water?

Built
10-04-2005, 06:50 PM
I was going to say yes, but I believe muscle holds more water than fat cells do, so I have to rethink this.

The person with 20% bodyfat is holding more fat cells. Part of those fat cells is fat, part is water.

So, as I understand it, person A contains more water than person B, but as EITHER of them loses non-LBM weight, part will be fat (the substance, not the cells) and part will be the water that fat is bound up in.

Does this make sense?

HILL
10-05-2005, 03:45 AM
im aiming for 2 pound a week at the moment and am doing ok

SpecialK
10-05-2005, 06:55 AM
Well I woke up today, again 2 lbs lighter than before when my weight was holding at 206. I am about to call this cut off. I still can't see my abs any better than when I started, yet I have lost 16 lbs. I'd rather be big with some fat than skinny with low bf. Sucks, but I guess I have to choose either skinny and cut or big and moderate bf%.

I did this cut about as conservatively as possible - no more than a 200 cal/week reduction, and I even stayed at the same level for 3 weeks in some cases. For some reason, going from 3600 cals/day down to 3400 made all the difference.

Shao-LiN
10-05-2005, 06:55 AM
The biggest reason why people recommend that you aim for 1 pound per week is that it can help you retain LBM. The slower you go, the more LBM you tend to keep. Just as the slower and more controlled your bulk, the less fat you tend to gain overall...assuming the right conditions (correct diet and training).

Isaac Wilkins
10-05-2005, 07:06 AM
So two 200 lb people are the same, except person A has 10% body fat, person B has 20% body fat. Person B is holding more water?

Assuming that the muscles were glycogenated, it's probably a wash.

Muscle glycogen holds a lot of water with it (about a 1:3 molecular ratio). Fat stores have some water, although there's no water molecule in the stored triglyceride molecule, which is three 16-carbon fatty acid chains bound to a glycerol (carbohydrate) molecule. There is intracellular water within fat cells and muscle cells.

Person A would tend to notice larger water weight swings because of glycogen depletion. Person A has more muscle mass, so more stored glycogen. If this was depleted through low-carb dieting or exercise, then the bound water with the glycogen is released and utilized/excreted. This water weight would come right back, of course, as they carbed back up. This is also why it is so important to drink a lot of water when one is carbing back up.

The fatter person would experience the same type of swing (they still have 160 lbs of lean mass) from depletion, but it wouldn't be as great as the person who has another 20 lbs of muscle to pack glycogen in.

Water loss from losing fat would be a much more gradual process for both of them, as this water isn't really utilized or shed by such a rapid process.

SpecialK
10-05-2005, 11:19 AM
The biggest reason why people recommend that you aim for 1 pound per week is that it can help you retain LBM. The slower you go, the more LBM you tend to keep. Just as the slower and more controlled your bulk, the less fat you tend to gain overall...assuming the right conditions (correct diet and training).

Yea but if 3600 cals/day = no weightloss (gave it 14 days at this caloric level), and 3400 cals/day = rapid (2 lb/week) weightloss, what choice do I have?

Isaac Wilkins
10-05-2005, 12:33 PM
Yea but if 3600 cals/day = no weightloss (gave it 14 days at this caloric level), and 3400 cals/day = rapid (2 lb/week) weightloss, what choice do I have?

I would be VERY surprised at that. Not that I don't believe your results, I think that there might be something else going on. What had you been doing in the weeks leading up to the 3600 cals/day and 3400 cals/day time?

Bodyfat loss sometimes seems to come in spurts, which basically is like the hormonal planets coming into a line, so to speak.

HILL
10-05-2005, 02:04 PM
take a look at the thread below this girl lost 2 pound a week. She was on anabolics but still

http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=70229

ReelBigFish
10-05-2005, 02:05 PM
with what Borris said, what where your p/c/f amounts during the 3400 and 3600? how long did the 2/lbs a week weight loss last when eating 3400?

SpecialK
10-05-2005, 02:34 PM
Alright, I can post some more detailed numbers later, I kept track of it all in my journal. However to summarize:

P: 40-45%
F: 20-22%
C: whatever was left

When I was at 3600 cals, I moved back to school and had to go from an office job to walking around alot to get to class and such. I lost some weight there, but like I said, my weight was stable for nearly 2 weeks before I made my next reduction, and that's when the rapid (2 lbs/week) losses started.

Shao-LiN
10-05-2005, 05:36 PM
take a look at the thread below this girl lost 2 pound a week. She was on anabolics but still

http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=70229

But still what? You don't think the addition of anabolics plays a major role in LBM retention while on a cut?

CarlP
10-05-2005, 07:13 PM
I was going to say yes, but I believe muscle holds more water than fat cells do, so I have to rethink this.

The person with 20% bodyfat is holding more fat cells. Part of those fat cells is fat, part is water.

So, as I understand it, person A contains more water than person B, but as EITHER of them loses non-LBM weight, part will be fat (the substance, not the cells) and part will be the water that fat is bound up in.

Does this make sense?

The second sentence does it for me. I understand cells and stuff, but when you said bound up, it was too vague for me. Thanks.

Stumprrp
10-05-2005, 07:56 PM
arg, well i started the gym in late july and its now early october and i started tat 275 and now 238, i guess i just really had alot of extra fat.

HILL
10-06-2005, 05:10 AM
Im sure the anabolics was the major part in which allowed her to keep the amount of lbm she did what i was getting at was she still managed to successfully loose 2 pounds a week which is what i am aiming for

Isaac Wilkins
10-06-2005, 06:14 AM
Im sure the anabolics was the major part in which allowed her to keep the amount of lbm she did what i was getting at was she still managed to successfully loose 2 pounds a week which is what i am aiming for

If one knows what one is doing, or one is very overfat then I certainly believe that one can drop more than a pound of fat a week. One pound per week is about right for the normal dieter, though.

Bringing anabolics into this discussion is like comparing apples to desk lamps.

HILL
10-06-2005, 06:29 AM
I KNow i was just saying that 2 pound a week is reachable that was all

Shao-LiN
10-06-2005, 07:01 AM
2 pounds is reachable...5 pounds is reachable as well. "Reaching" more than a pound is not hard.