Ive been re-affirming my knowledge of the caloric deficit method, and it seems pretty solid. I worked out that if i restrict my caloric intake a day to 1500, the p90x workout (which is said to burn average 600 cals) coupled with my BMR will create a deficit of 1400 calories a day.

3500 cals = 1 pound.

3 days = more than a pound in loss.

In about a week, i should drop 3 or 4 pounds, maybe even more depending on how hard i work myself.


I am targetting weightloss, and only weight loss this first round of p90x. So im looking to burn off as much as i can as soon as i can.

Your opinions, and be brutal, will this make my body shed it's fat?

ell, you'll lose weight. About 6 pounds of water. Then you'll bonk. And you'll hate yourself!!!

Why? Simply put, you cannot eat a drastically calorie-restricted diet and expect your body to perform at a level that will ensure safe weight loss. The recommendation for safe weight loss is a loss of 2-3 pounds in the first week, followed by 1-2 pounds per week after that.

What's more, you'll also be gaining muscle mass...even if you exercise like you plan in your post. So, you may not lose as much weight as you'd like, since muscle has weight as well. It's also more dense than fat, so you'll gain weight with less of a change in your body, especially in Phase I. Remember that P90X is extreme. You probably could eat at 1.4 times your BMR and do P90X and lose weight. I'm concerned that your caloric intake is so low that even your BMR won't be covered.

Bonking is the depletion of all the glycogen stores in your body. There's nothing to burn, so the muscles turn to anaerobic metabolism for their fuel needs. The major by-product is lactic acid. SORE MUSCLES!!! And you'll be as weak as a wet noodle, too! My biggest bonk was so bad that I crawled out of the basement...it took an hour. I felt better after two big glasses of orange juice and promised myself I'd never do it again.

My thoughts...
First, follow the nutrition guide. It's worked for thousands of us, so it'll work for you, too. Tested and proven!

Second, forget the scale. Use some other measurement of fat loss...you can do calipers, plethysmography (low level electrical current with calculation of resistance), or immersion in water. Or use the standard tool that you already have: a belt. Remember that it's not as important what you weigh and more important how much body fat you have. That's what you're trying to lose, so measuring that part of you and charting your progress will be better.

Third (and this is a BIG third!!!), promise yourself that you'll never, never, NEVER underfeed yourself! That's not to say that calorie restriction isn't important; it definitely is. But you want to be reasonable about it. The amount of calories you suggest and the P90X program will put your body into starvation mode, and it will deliberately lower its metabolic rate (aka, BMR) to prevent weight loss. And you could cannabilize your muscle mass in the process.

Well...you did say to be brutally honest! Should've seen the stuff I didn't have time to include (it's a G-rated forum, so catch the hint!)

Hope this helps...

Kevin

Also, I checked your personal info. You're still a teenager, right? I'd be very concerned about underfeeding, since you're still growing (the good way). Please be very careful about this as we want you to be all the things you're destined to become!

adzent wrote:

QUOTE:
Ive been re-affirming my knowledge of the caloric deficit method, and it seems pretty solid. I worked out that if i restrict my caloric intake a day to 1500, the p90x workout (which is said to burn average 600 cals) coupled with my BMR will create a deficit of 1400 calories a day.

3500 cals = 1 pound.

3 days = more than a pound in loss.

In about a week, i should drop 3 or 4 pounds, maybe even more depending on how hard i work myself.


I am targetting weightloss, and only weight loss this first round of p90x. So im looking to burn off as much as i can as soon as i can.

Your opinions, and be brutal, will this make my body shed it's fat?

So what happens when you're done and you go back to eating 2000+ calories a day? Your body will not be used to it, and it will absorb all those extra calories (or what it thinks are extra), and you will gain a lot of weight back. I did the caloric deficit thing for a while, but I was not doing P90X. I did get results, but because I was keeping my exercise low (20 mins of cardio a day). with P90X you will need more calories.

Now on the other hand, people on this board like Dustin, who just completed P90X, averaged around 1400-1500 calories a day while doing doubles! His net loss was incredible, and he still gained a lot of strength. So, I have mixed feelings on it because I know scientifically, you should not do this, but I had success with it before P90X, and Dustin while doing P90X, so I can't really say either way.

Bonking is the worst! You don't just bonk while you're working out. You're bonking all day long unstill you get those calories back up. I did this by still eating the same foods, but adding more fruit. Fruit is EXCELLENT for adding energy, plus it's almost entirely fat free. I eat 3-5 fruits per day. Without it I'd be dragging my butt around.

What is the difference between BMR and RMR?

Austin wrote:
[quote]adzent wrote:

QUOTE:


Now on the other hand, people on this board like Dustin, who just completed P90X, averaged around 1400-1500 calories a day while doing doubles! His net loss was incredible, and he still gained a lot of strength. So, I have mixed feelings on it because I know scientifically, you should not do this, but I had success with it before P90X, and Dustin while doing P90X, so I can't really say either way.

Yeah, I did go pretty hardcore on the calorie restriction. I sort of modeled my caloric intake by another person on these boards that has gone through the program twice -- Anthony Le. We are both about the same height and build. One of my weaknesses is that I want quick results, and thus my approach was probably overly aggressive. Nevertheless, I'm very happy with what I've accomplished.

I don't necessarily recommend what I did though, but it worked for me. I kept a very close eye on my energy levels, and if I felt the least bit off I would increase my caloric intake as necessary. Plus, I am a rather small person and don't have a large caloric need (5'6.5" and 158 lbs).

I always made sure to eat very high quality foods -- Fresh fruits, vegetables, white meats, whole grains, almonds, etc.

The other thing is that I've had a ton of experience with working out 5-6 hours a day during my 15 years of hardcore martial arts and wrestling training (from about age 9-24). So I had a pretty good idea of what my body could handle and what its threshold was.

Kevin is right, you want to shoot for about 2 lbs of weight loss a week.

I averaged about 3 lbs of weight loss for the first 6 weeks or so. Then closer to 2 lbs for the last 7 weeks.

Luckily now that I've lost most of the fat I need to lose, I don't have to be so aggressive with my diet.

I have the same weakness.

Well i want to shoot for 3-4 lbs weight loss a week, and i did plan on altering my intake depending on my energy.

i do not think i have ever experienced bonking before, ive never been so out of energy you feel like crap, but ive never had so much energy (well, maybe a few times) that you feel like oy could run a million miles. What i will be doing however, is eating a lot of fruit, which will boost me energy levels considerably.

No youre right, my intake will be totally burned by my BMR, with an excess, and on top of that my p90x workout.

Adzent,

I'm just relating what they taught us in med. school...it's your call!

Kevin

Thank you for that by the way Kevin



Well, im only concerned with losing as much as i can as fast as i can, as im pretty impatient.

So if i use the deficit method, i will loose more weight, and after the fat is gone, ill slowly bring myself onto a higher calorie diet, increasing the intake of one nutritinal factor at a time. example, increase protein drastically, begin increasing fat, and then introduce more carbs after a few weeks of the previous. something like that anyway.

Just out of curiosity, will two people with the same caloric deficit really lose the same weight even if one was eating junk food and the other is eating good whole foods with a good protein-fat-carb ratio? Or can eating the same number of calories worth of bad foods affect your metabolism negatively and lead to less weight loss or even weight gain?

I'm asking purely in terms of fat loss since I know that healthy whole foods come with a ton of other benefits.

zach,
I really think the type of food you eat has an impact on your weight loss....not just calorie counts.

zach, thats a good question. i've always wondered the same thing, and my thinking was that the answer is yes, they will lose the same amount of weight. cuz at the end of the day, its calories in vs calories out. they say it all the time on the biggest loser. its just that if you eat crap, you dont get to eat much of it. its like, you can buy a hyundai, or you can buy a BMW. with the same amount of money, you could buy 2 hyundais (or maybe even 3), as you could a bmw.

plus when you make poor choices (fatty and/or sugary), you usually get hungry again really quickly, leading you to eat again.

frankly coco I am not a believer in the simple math of calories in vs calories out. The body has many systems that react to what you feed them. As an example, if someone was to eat the bulk of their calories through carbs (more specifically sugars) there would have to be an impact on insulin production and that in turn would change your body's metabolism and how your body burns/stores fat.

I think calories in/calories out is a very simplified way to put it for people who don't need (or want) to learn more about the subject but in fact there just has to be more to it than that in my opinion.

I'd love to hear some medical expert's opinion.

Carbs and Protein have the same amount of calories per gram, 4 calories per gram, where as fat as 9 calories per gram. So generally speaking, if you eat 200g in protein, and 200g in carbs, you will have the same amount of calories. Now, like what they said before, the protein will help you maintain your hunger where as the carbs make you hungry more often, but also, when you work out your body in the way that P90X works out your body, you NEED protein to build muscle after it's broken down by the workout. It is VERY important to get a good balance of everything. A good ratio to start with is 20% fat, 30% carbs, 50% Protein in phase 1, 20% fat, 35-40% carbs, 40-45% protein in phase 2, and 20% fat, 40-45% carbs, and 35-40% protein in phase three and through the rest of your life. If you maintain balance, you will not only lose weight based on caloric deficit, you will also lose body fat percentage with the protein your consuming, because it will make your muscles grow and burn more fat.

Coco and Whip,

Great posts!! You two really represent the two sides of the discussion well. So, who's right? Well, in a way, you both are...

Sorry if someone expected the big smackdown. Here's the question I'd pose to illustrate the point: which is healthier, a serving of fish that contains 30 gm of protein or a serving of steak that contains 30 gm of protein?

Most of us would answer "fish". But why? Both contain the same amount of protein, and it's good protein for our bodies. The reason that fish would be considered more healthy is that it doesn't have as much of the negative things that beef has. It has less fat, more omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, and fewer carbohydrates. Now, if you're looking just at protein, they're equivalent and it's just calories in vs calories out. However, if you look at some of the intangibles, what you eat can affect your health and your weight.

So, I'll try to eat more fish and poultry as my primary protein source. But I won't feel at all bad if I have a thick, juicy steak either. I just have to budget on carbs and fat more to enjoy the steak than I do for the fish. And maybe take an extra omega-3 tablet. Also, I won't eat steak every day. It'll be a nice treat on a splurge night once or twice a month.

Here's another zinger...if you're young (under 40-45 years of age) you probably don't notice how you feel as much as if you're a little older. When I was younger and I heard middle-aged and senior adults saying this, I thought they were pulling my leg. But it's true!!! There are certain foods that just don't sit as well as they used to, and that can be a good thing for the diet. So, I don't eat as much of the heavy stuff as I used to and find myself leaning more to the lighter (healthier) foods because I don't feel as bad when eating them.

Hope this helps...

Kevin

Kevin wrote:

QUOTE:
The reason that fish would be considered more healthy is that it doesn't have as much of the negative things that beef has. It has less fat, more omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, and fewer carbohydrates.

I just have to budget on carbs and fat more to enjoy the steak than I do for the fish.

Steak has more carbs? Huh?



Unless you're thinking of sauces or rubs (which could be applied to steak or fish), steak has zero carbs. Same would go for a piece of salmon.

Kevin wrote:

QUOTE:
The reason that fish would be considered more healthy is that it doesn't have as much of the negative things that beef has. It has less fat

Actually, a piece of salmon has more fat than a piece of steak -- but it is slightly lower in saturated fat (depending on the type of steak) and high in poly and monosaturated fat which is healthy.

If you're just comparing salmon to steak -- the main negative that steak has is that it's higher in saturated fat, but not by a huge amount believe it or not (depending on how lean the steak is you're eating). The real downer of steak is the cholestrol.

What about the idea of how much energy it takes to digest the various foods you eat? Certain nutrients like simple carbs are readily and quickly absorbed by the body, while the body struggles to partially break down fiber and gets no caloric value out of it. Logically, wouldn't you think that a portion of whole grain bread would take much more energy to break down than the equivalent amount of table sugar? So even if you are eating the same amount of each you are creating more of a deficit by spending more energy on digesting the wholesome food.

This is where the whole idea of "negative calorie" foods came about. I don't really know whether it's possible to eat a food that will take more energy to burn than it provides (a big debate, a lot of people mention things like celery), but things like vegetables that are high in nutrients and low in calories would have this effect to some extent. The foods are already low in calories per serving size and often contain tons of fiber and complex carbs that are harder to break down. Imagine your body trying to break down a good 2-3 servings of broccoli vs. a single rich chocolate truffle with the same amount of calories.

Not sure where I was really going with this, but thought it would be worth adding.

Zach,

The biggest advocate for this type of diet is Dr. Martin Katahn, who wrote "The T-Factor Diet" and others. The concept is that certain foods have a higher thermogenic effect (the "T" factor) and require more calories to burn than others. Thus, by understanding the "T-factor" or thermogenic effect, in which carbohydrate calories are burned faster than fat calories, you can lose weight quickly and safely, and keep it off—all without going hungry.

Most modern diets incorporate this concept to some extent. It can be a useful adjunct to dieting in general and I'd commend the book to anyone with an interest.

Kevin

Thanks Kevin. I did some looking around and found this 2 page article.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/371448/understanding_the_thermogenic_effects.html?cat=51

I was really surprised by the huge difference between macronutrients. If the numbers in the article are correct, then someone eating 1000 kcal worth of protein will devote 250-300 kcal toward digestion, while someone eating 1000 kcal in fats will only use about 30 of those kcal for digestion. That's a big difference!