Would this be a good cutting strategy:
Reduce daily intake of cals by 200 each week until I start to notice/measure fat loss, then remain at that level or even add 200 back to make sure I'm not taking out too much. While doing this, I would keep my current 50/20/30 c/f/p ratio.
Also for my next question: Is cardio necessary for cutting? It seems to me that you have 2 choices when cutting: reduce the amount of calories you are consuming, increase the amount you are burning, or a combination of the two. Is that correct? Can I get by without cardio if I reduce my calories by a sufficient amount? The reason I say that is because I am currently eating 5k cals per day, and I always feel stuffed. It wouldn't hurt me to cut down to even 4k per day. Is the main reason people do cardio when cutting is so they can eat slightly more and don't have to feel hungry all day?
Last edited by SpecialK; 01-31-2005 at 06:08 PM.
If you want to lose weight and cut all you have to do is burn more calories than you takin in during the day. The less you take in the easier it will be to create this deficit and the more weight you will lose, however as you start to lose weight quickly along with that goes muscle. I would recommend when cutting cals to cut carbs, not protein and fat. Keep protein high as this will help to maintain muscle during the cut. Cut fat as you progress during the cut, but not too low.
As for the cardio it will definantly make it easier to cut, especially as the cut goes on. In the beginning you will find it easy to lose without cardio but as you get leaner it will be tougher, so i would recommend doing cardio and increase the amount as you go on.
Theres several different methods out there for cutting. 2 of the most popular on this board seem to be the "UD2" and "PSMF". Lots of people on this site seem to use both, but they are pretty hard core, and it depends on how serious you are.
You won't be losing any muscle doing that, but you might be cutting for 3 years...Originally Posted by SpecialK
I would say yes, but cardio also has other benefits as well, most notably increased nutrient partitioning effects.Originally Posted by SpecialK
First let me add that I don't need to lose a ton of fat. I'd estimate my bf% is in the 12-13% range. I want to get down into the single digit range so I can see my abs again w/o flexingOriginally Posted by Vido
Having said that, why would it take me 3 years using my strategy? I searched through some cutting threads and noticed that people were recommending dropping no more than 200-300 cals/day per week.
That's to ensure ZERO muscle loss. Personally, I'd rather lose a lb or two of muscle if it meant I could cut infinitely quicker.Originally Posted by SpecialK
I used to agree with the people saying that, but have changed my stance. I now believe that if you're not going to do a "hardcore" cut (UD2, PSMF, etc.) you shouldn't even bother. A properly done UD2 should also lead to zero muscle loss, and potentially even slight gains. PSMF won't hold on to the lean mass as well, but nothing strips the fat off more quickly.
Well, if I follow my plan, then after 5 weeks, I will be down to 4k cals. I can't imagine that I would have to drop much lower than that to see any results. I could be wrong, of course. I'll look into the UD2.
You might be right, but to me that 5 weeks is just wasted time. You could probably be DONE your cut by then if you did something more drastic.Originally Posted by SpecialK
If you are at 12-13%, definately give UD2.0 a try. You will probably see a lot more progress with an 8 week cycle of UD2.0, then just merely cutting 200 cals a week (btw, I have tried that approach before, and I still lost some muscle mass)Originally Posted by SpecialK
"It is often said, mainly by the "no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thought it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"
"Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one."
"Bah. You know I hate poor people."