Can someone explain the science behind cutting to me and clear up any misconceptions I might have?
I heard that when you starve your body, it tends to eat its way through muscle first and fat second. I've always seen cutting as only slightly starving yourself and your body eats up the extra fat to make up for any calories you're missing. Am I wrong in thinking it would eat through muscle first?
You're not entirely wrong but to a certain degree depends on bf % When someone of like 40% bf eats at a deficit, the body burns some of that massive fat store. When someone of <12% bf eats at a deficit the body is more likely to try to breakdown some of the stores of muscle mass to make up the difference. It also depends on protein intake. Especially when you're cutting, if you're not achieving a certain amount of protein intake your body is much more likely to break down muscle to make up the protein balance
so long as you're eating enough protein to sustain LBM and enough dietary fat to support hormonal functions you can cut on very low calories so long as you're refeeding often. It's much faster to cut that way.
Unless you're on anabolic drugs, you will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS lose muscle with fat loss. And when you bulk, you will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS put on fat along with muscle.
It's the harsh reality of doing things natty
A caloric deficit of more than 500 calories under maintenance it will cause a greater loss of muscle. Whenever you lose weight due to a caloric deficit you will lose both muscle and fat. The goal is to find the deficit that yields the least amount of muscle loss and the most amount of fat loss.
The muscle then fat is momscience. I'm currently cutting on 800 calories and I haven't lost much size if any. Noticeably smaller waist with a slightly smaller shoulder width which was most likely fat.
>however i started at 25%+ bodyfat it might not be the same for ~13% bf
>it tends to eat its way through muscle first and fat second
That fucking body must be very, very retarded.
i almost lost no muscle while cutting on low carb/carb cyle diet
Perhaps not without connective tissue to help you propel your own weight forward. But 40 extra pounds of vanity muscle and 17 inch arms is just a bunch of calorically expensive bullshit that'll weight you down.
Your body will want to keep any possible fat stores to survive famined conditions.
that's not true you fearmongering dyel
Catabolism is actually hard to fucking achieve. I'm not talking about transient glycogen or water, I'm talking dry LBM - you are unlikely to actually lose it unless you are severely limiting calories.
Because you have piss-poor insulin sensitivity
eat like nature intended rather than stuffing your face full of shit and you'll oxidise the majority of excess calories once you've hit a healthy body fat
Because of the way your body strengthens muscles...since muscles consume more calories than fat it is only normal for your body to prefer to store energy in the form of fat. This all process is obvious, unless your body is under pressure to build more muscles, in which case it will redirect its energy towards the construction of bigger and more energy requiring muscles
Because your body keeps muscle needed for it to survive. Your body doesn't consume muscle for fuel until you get to ~5% body fat. It does everything it can to conserve muscle in times of famine and store fat in times of plenty.
Don't confuse using protein as fuel for using muscle for fuel. The body will stop protein synthesis in order to suck as much fuel as it can from food as possible.
the body doesn't eat only one source of energy at a time
it's more like it eats a percentage of fat and a percentage of muscle simultaneously, with the percentages depending on the individual, if you're frauding, etc.
It's the same discussion. Beach muscle != muscle.
There's other things which contribute to a muscle's apparent size than muscle fibers. There are short term energy stores (glycogen) and the water it needs to process (1g glycogen requires 4g water), and long term energy stores (intramuscular triglycerides [fat between muscles]). The volume of your muscle can decrease quite a bit, and indeed does in as little as two weeks, without decreasing actual muscle fibers.
He's actually right.
I hate myself for not saving the source but there was a study that outlined strength progress when lifting, and some cardio exercises with individuals eating at a 500 cal deficit and 200 cal deficit.
The group with 200 cal deficit made better strength progress compared to the group with 500 cal.
Although the sprinting speed difference was negligible the 200 cal group could lift a non-trivial amount more than the 500 cal group by the end of the experiment.
If someone has the source linking it would be pretty based.
the trick is to either carb-fast or reduce carbs enough to induce gluconeogenesis.
and eat high fat, high-protein diet to keep packing on LBM
this shit is in the sticky, nigger.
also you are going to want to eat lots of vegetation for vitamins, minerals, and fiber.
>so long as you're eating enough protein to sustain LBM and enough dietary fat to support hormonal functions you can cut on very low calories so long as you're refeeding often. It's much faster to cut that way.
To clear it up a bit.
While this applied to people who were by all means beginners, and it was people who were starting to train, I think the principle would still apply.
Where there'd be better muscle growth or maintenance while cutting on a 200 cal diet versus a 500+ cal diet.
to be clear, this is when your body doesn't get enough glucose (essentially most sugars and starches get metabolized into glucose) externally, it will make glucose from your body fat.
you totally can do zero carb.
but as far as i am concerned, its best to eat nuts and carrots and shit from time to time.
i think there is a way to calculate how many grams of carbs you can ingest while still maintaining gluconeogenesis, but you would have to talk to a physician about that.
its easier to just make sure you are eating WAY less than the average american.
substituting stevia extract for sugar and quinoa for starches is a great way to cut out the vast majority of your glucose intake