Which macro-nutrients to prioritize when cutting down by a percentage

Started by Patrick Smith, March 10, 2013 · 5 Replies · 2,913 Views

Patrick Smith

Hi guys,

 

If you're decreasing your kcal consumption by a percentage, which macronutrient should take the fall? Or should you decrease all of them equally?

 

The sensible thing to me seems to be maintain protein exactly where it is, keep fat where it is or lower it only very slightly (because it's already pretty minimal for me), and lower carbs a bit.

 

What do you think?

Daniel Burnham

Depending on activity fat should be the macro modulated to fit your caloric intake.

Patrick Smith

Daniel - that's what I was thinking, but my fat intake is only about 70g a day. If I lower it too much, I think it'll be unhealthily low... Not only that, it's hard to get enough carbs and protein without getting at least 60g fat a day for me.

3D Guy

when you are cutting, you want to preserve muscle mass.

 

protein must be #1 in proprity, and might be a good idea to take it up to 2-2.2gr/(lean mass kg).

after that, you need to fue your workouts, you need carbs.  so #2 should be carbs. getting around 4-6gr/(lean mass kg) will fuel your workouts, and will keep your glycogen levels in order.

 

the rest, must be fat.

FutureisNow
When you are talking about a percentage, it's not uncommon for people to attempt to cut some fat by

use of exercise, I wanted to mention a common miscalculation  that can account for not seeing the

desired fat loss at the expected rate.

 

Here is a scenario.

 

You are using relatively moderate intensity and high volume exercise, such as easy cardio or moderate resistance or gymnastic work,  you (average male)  might be burning 300-400 calories an hour. 

So hypothetically in a two hour workout, you are burning an extra 750 calories, right?

 

If  your requirement for the day (including exercise) was 2500 calories, you wish to run a 20% deficit

or 500 calories. You burned 750, so you are going to eat an extra 250 calories around your workout to achieve a net 500 calorie deficit. This should produce about .5 pound fat loss per week (working out every other day).

Not a lot but this will preserve muscle mass.

 

Wrong. (Not about the muscle mass, but the fat loss). How so, you ask?

 

Because if you weren't doing those two hours of exercise, and you would have been shuffling papers, playing video games and browsing on the computer - and you would have burned (approximately) 120 calories an hour, or twice the rate you do during sleep. In other words - you didn't burn 750 calories during exercise, you burned 750 minus 250 calories or only 500 calories during 2 hours of exercise. This works out to only .25 lb/week or about 1 pound per month.

 

The moral of this story is if you use long-duration (1 hour or more) moderate intensity exercise for weight loss, only count it for half of its caloric burn. Otherwise, you will overestimate your burn, and consume more calories than necessary for even moderately fast fat loss. Even calipers won't be able to detect the change for several months. If you expect to see change and you don't it's more likely you will give up the effort.

 

Warning: many online calorie/activity counters do not take this into account.

 

Note: some people "poo-poo" this because there is an "afterburn" effect to exercise that isn't factored in either. However, in the case of moderate intensity work, it is relatively small, perhaps 10% or 35 calories per hour. Plus, if you are putting on some muscle at times while losing fat at other times, some of this extra caloric expenditure may be going to building muscle. Also NEAT (random body movements) following exercise also is reduced for a longer period than afterburn.

 

Truth: exercise is a great way to lose the fat and keep the metabolism going, but just be aware that it may not count for as much as it appears to at first glance.

FredInChina

Interesting Futureisnow, thank you :)