Very true but the point at which you enter a deficit will change, within limits of course.
Cutting with HST
- Thread starter charr
- Start date
My worry is, as you progress in your cut, and if what I read is true about slowing your metabolism with cardio, I think you're at a greater risk of your body eating it's own muscle for fuel more so than fat (or at least as much as it's burning fat).
Again, the body going more into survival mode... It starts throwing up red flags and it REALLY wants to hold onto fat because your body is feeling threatened.
It's why I believe HIIT is much better than cardio (unless you're training for a marathon!)
Again, the body going more into survival mode... It starts throwing up red flags and it REALLY wants to hold onto fat because your body is feeling threatened.
It's why I believe HIIT is much better than cardio (unless you're training for a marathon!)
Kitad
New Member
Except that if your training or your dieting is off, then you may end up losing muscle in a deficit and not fat
Also, "survival mode" is something you should probably just remove from your vocabulary. What fat people in first world countries consider their bodies going into "survival mode" is really just them not counting all their calories and being lazy. The really big things that happen on a hormonal level to prevent further weight loss only become a real issue when you get to 10% or lower bodyfat levels. And even then, as Jester pointed out, your deficit is simply lower. There is no possible way to not lose weight if you cut calories hard enough. See the famous starvation studies for proof.
It wants to hold onto BW, period. Eating less than you need will still prevent that.
Go and check up on Protein Sparing Modified Fasts, or Lyle McDonald's work; Rapid Fat Loss diet, Ultimate Diet 2.0 etc.
Further, if you're getting below a genuine 10%, then you're starting to wade into a very unhealthy space. The body did not evolve to efficiently maintain 8-packs year-round.
And again, metabolism doesn't "slow" ... your rate of body loss decreases because as you lose tissue, your intake is no longer becoming a 'deficit'. You can't expect a deficit for BW of 100kgs to be a deficit at BW of 90kgs - you need to cut more calories out.
I'll say again, if you're absolutely determined to cut weight and lean small & shredded, go and ask Rihad for advice. He's shed a tremendous amount of tissue over the past year and is v.well cut right now. Pretty small, but again, cut to shreds.
That isn't what I said... And not my point.
If you are seditary, and eating a deficit and losing fat, it's one thing...
Now take that very same person, on the same deficit, and start adding cardio 4X30 minutes a week. How does your body respond?
Sure, you burn maybe 250 kcal a session, and you hope your body is consuming all fat for that energy, but it won't. Your body LOVES it's fat stores! Cardio of course, is gonna help you reach your goals, no doubt. I never said it wouldn't...
BUT, you'd be stupid to think that your body is not going to compensate in some way (on the same caloric intake).
The body, if nothing else, is superior at compensating. It IS going to slow down! That doesn't mean you're not going to reach your goals... Again, I never implied that. But slowing down isn't likely what you want to accomplish. If anything, your body will really want to store fat the very next time you eat a surplus, because of the stress you caused.
Totz, I know you're a firm believer that you do not need cardio to reach your goals... And I pretty much agree.
If I do cardio or HIIT it isn't for faster weight loss... It's so I can eat more and stay in deficit. If I drop down to 1600 or 1400kcal (currently at 160 lbs), and I do periodically, it is VERY difficult to hit my carb /protein macros. Cardio and HIIT help me get there without blowing over in Kcal's.
But if you are doing a steady, regular cardio routine while running below maintenance, there is no way your not further stressing your body and there is no way it isn't going to respond in a manner that I touched upon.
If people can't express their thoughts and views on here for discussion, without being responded to in an intelligent, respectful manner, then it is a very pathetic forum. Stop being so fucking argumentative! Lol
Okay, I'll drop "survival mode", and instead use "adaptive response" or "adaptive thermogenesis" instead...
A quick Google search provides this study...
"... Scientists from the University of Vermont published their findings in the Journal Sports Medicine:
“A plethora of studies have examined the combined effects of diet and exercise on body composition and resting metabolic rate. The hypothesis is that combining diet and exercise will accelerate fat loss, preserve fat-free weight and prevent or decelerate the decline in resting metabolic rate more effectively than with diet restriction alone. The optimal combination of diet and exercise, however, remains elusive….
It appears that the combination of a large quantity of aerobic exercise with a very low calorie diet resulting in substantial loss of body weight may actually accelerate the decline in resting metabolic rate. These findings may cause us to re-examine the quantity of exercise and diet needed to achieve optimal fat loss and preservation of resting metabolic rate.”
As I said, you're still going to lose weight (and likely not all muscle) with cardio, but too much is not going to do you any good... And with us trying to get extreme, single digit losses, like you said about the hormonal changes, it's threading a very fine needle. If you're around 10% and going further, even a little cardio might be enough to swing into this adaptive response.
As for preserving lean body mass, you're much better off using HIIT with your resistance training than pure aerobic cardio... Not everyone agrees, but I do.
Last edited:
A quick Google search for 'starvation' will yield some interesting results too.
That study at best speaks to the applied concept of optimisation for exercise + restricted caloric intake. Well obviously there will be an optimal point, and life says that it is rarely at either extreme of the spectrum.
Re: HIIT vs LISS - LISS' cardio benefits applied to lifespan, general cardiovascular health etc. would push it in front of HIIT for me.
That study at best speaks to the applied concept of optimisation for exercise + restricted caloric intake. Well obviously there will be an optimal point, and life says that it is rarely at either extreme of the spectrum.
Re: HIIT vs LISS - LISS' cardio benefits applied to lifespan, general cardiovascular health etc. would push it in front of HIIT for me.
I agree there is an optimal "zone" to which diet and cardio would effectively be applied... And I'm betting that it's a moving target in the same way that BM deficit dieting is...
And in the same respect, this window gets narrower as your FB percentage drops.
I'd like to find a study that looks at long term dieting + cardio with respect to metabolism and fat loss.
Personally, as of now, I'm hovering around 10-12%, and still coming down about 1lbs a week, with subtle, normal fluctuations... As I am now in school, I'm going to use myself as a guinee pig and start ramping up cardio a bit in the rec centre. I've done 2 HIIT Hill sprints and 1 short jog in the last 2 weeks... I think just enough to be effective, not enough to be detrimental.
Then again, my daily A/B split workouts (6 days a week) with 12 exercises a day would be plenty of "Extra" calorie burn! Maybe too much, according to HIT principles!
And in the same respect, this window gets narrower as your FB percentage drops.
I'd like to find a study that looks at long term dieting + cardio with respect to metabolism and fat loss.
Personally, as of now, I'm hovering around 10-12%, and still coming down about 1lbs a week, with subtle, normal fluctuations... As I am now in school, I'm going to use myself as a guinee pig and start ramping up cardio a bit in the rec centre. I've done 2 HIIT Hill sprints and 1 short jog in the last 2 weeks... I think just enough to be effective, not enough to be detrimental.
Then again, my daily A/B split workouts (6 days a week) with 12 exercises a day would be plenty of "Extra" calorie burn! Maybe too much, according to HIT principles!
On a bulk, I stay close to + maintenance and monitor my weight and how I look in the mirror in the mornings...
I'd say, if you're gaining 1lbs a week, that is lots. That's 30lbs a month! If you're working your ass off in the gym, you might put on 1 to 1.5lbs of muscle in that month.
1lbs a week gain is 500cal over your maintenance per day... Not a whole lot extra! A handful of mixed nuts and a large glass of milk, for example.
Right now I'm trying my new diet which is in and around my maintenance over the winter, see how I progress.
Personally, with the right macros and the right timing, I don't believe you need to eat over maintenance to put on muscle.
I looks at it this way... If you're putting on fat, then you're consuming calories your body didn't need and didn't use. As long as your intake isn't something stupid like 600g of fat, 180g of carbs and 130g of protein!
I'd say, if you're gaining 1lbs a week, that is lots. That's 30lbs a month! If you're working your ass off in the gym, you might put on 1 to 1.5lbs of muscle in that month.
1lbs a week gain is 500cal over your maintenance per day... Not a whole lot extra! A handful of mixed nuts and a large glass of milk, for example.
Right now I'm trying my new diet which is in and around my maintenance over the winter, see how I progress.
Personally, with the right macros and the right timing, I don't believe you need to eat over maintenance to put on muscle.
I looks at it this way... If you're putting on fat, then you're consuming calories your body didn't need and didn't use. As long as your intake isn't something stupid like 600g of fat, 180g of carbs and 130g of protein!
1lb a week is not 30lb a month.
I would say somewhere between 0.5 - 1.5kgs of muscle for a month for non-newb gains is about all you can expect, and it is 100% dependent on your training, diet, genetics.
Timing does not muscle gain - intermittent fasting should be proof enough of this for you. You cannot gain on maintenance - the very definition of "maintenance" is that it isn't enough for you to gain weight (of any kind), and is enough for you not to lose weight (of any kind).
Pipe dreams are fun, I suppose ... ?
I would say somewhere between 0.5 - 1.5kgs of muscle for a month for non-newb gains is about all you can expect, and it is 100% dependent on your training, diet, genetics.
Timing does not muscle gain - intermittent fasting should be proof enough of this for you. You cannot gain on maintenance - the very definition of "maintenance" is that it isn't enough for you to gain weight (of any kind), and is enough for you not to lose weight (of any kind).
Pipe dreams are fun, I suppose ... ?
So in theory how much muscle should I have gained using HST for 3 cycles. I put on 17 - 19lb over the 3 cycles. I've read alot how HST is the fastest way to gain muscle.
Also does anyone know why I put on roughly 14 - 16 lb on the first two cycles and only 3lb on the last cycle despite eating the same calories? This will help me when trying to bulk again. 3-4 lb per cycle might be a good aim but I want to know why I gained so much so fast at those calories.
Also does anyone know why I put on roughly 14 - 16 lb on the first two cycles and only 3lb on the last cycle despite eating the same calories? This will help me when trying to bulk again. 3-4 lb per cycle might be a good aim but I want to know why I gained so much so fast at those calories.
mickc1965
Well-Known Member
Chris,
Just for arguments sake a person weighing 180lbs would require say 2700 calories a day to maintain weight (180lbs x 15) and they increased calories to 3200 in an attempt to increase weight by 1lb per week, their increase would likely be as follows (based on 8 week cycles rather than weekly as too much hassle writing it all out)
Cycle 1 - 180lbs @ 2700 calories for maintenance but eating 3200 calories - 500 calories excess per day x 56 days = 28,000 calories divided by 3500 = 8lbs increase
Cycle 2 - 188lbs @ 2820 calories for maintenance but eating 3200 calories - 380 calories excess per day x 56 days = 21,280 calories divided by 3500 = 6.08lbs increase
Cycle 3 - 194.08lbs @ 2911 calories for maintenance but eating 3200 calories - 289 calories excess per day x 56 days = 16,184 calories divided by 3500 = 4.62lbs increase
Final weight - 198.7lbs , which pretty much follows your own situation of 14lbs first two cycles and 4lb in last cycle
Just for arguments sake a person weighing 180lbs would require say 2700 calories a day to maintain weight (180lbs x 15) and they increased calories to 3200 in an attempt to increase weight by 1lb per week, their increase would likely be as follows (based on 8 week cycles rather than weekly as too much hassle writing it all out)
Cycle 1 - 180lbs @ 2700 calories for maintenance but eating 3200 calories - 500 calories excess per day x 56 days = 28,000 calories divided by 3500 = 8lbs increase
Cycle 2 - 188lbs @ 2820 calories for maintenance but eating 3200 calories - 380 calories excess per day x 56 days = 21,280 calories divided by 3500 = 6.08lbs increase
Cycle 3 - 194.08lbs @ 2911 calories for maintenance but eating 3200 calories - 289 calories excess per day x 56 days = 16,184 calories divided by 3500 = 4.62lbs increase
Final weight - 198.7lbs , which pretty much follows your own situation of 14lbs first two cycles and 4lb in last cycle
Last edited: