I was just wondering what you guys think about the calorie consumption while dieting.
According to Will’s new book, a 240lb man with 20% body fat could be taking in 240 g protein, 160 g carbs and only 42 g fat (as 3 tablsepoos flax.) This is 1,978 cals!
In retrospect you (Bill Roberts) along with Mcdonald say 12 times bodyweight is where you should start, which would be almost 1,900 cals for a 240lb man.
Would one lose more fat with Wills lower fat, lower cal aproach?
I am thinking the lower fat will lead to more muscle loss…
1978 calories and 1900 calories are almost identical recommendations and results would be similar either way. Yes, Will’s approach could be marginally faster, in theory perhaps losing an extra pound every 45 days (ignoring extra metabolic slowdown which would make it even longer) and in theory would result in slightly more LBM gain.
Fact is though that a 4% difference, which is what you’re talking about here, amounts to essentially the same recommendation and few people count their calories within 4% accuracy anyway.
But on the fat question, no, I don’t personally agree with Will, I would keep the fat intake up to almost 100 grams per day. Will is a smart guy though and I’m sure his recommendation has worked for many people. It can be expected to result in lower testosterone levels than the approach Lyle and I recommend.
Your first calculation did sound low but I accepted it… your second one is high! A 240 lb man with 20% bf has a LBM of 192 lb, and that times 12 cal/lb, gives 2300 calories. This works very well for fat loss. So the difference compared to what Will is recommending is 400 cal. That will work faster but will also slow the metabolism more. Personally what I’ve seen with many people is that you get at best maybe half the benefit you’d “expect” from dropping the calories, sometimes none, and sometimes even an inverse effect… someone can hit a plateau in bodyfat at which point they simply lose LBM (for example, most anorexic women are about 20% bf I have read! Though at 70 lb, 20% is only 14 lb of fat) and don’t lose fat. Whereas with higher calories, they can continue to lose fat below this plateau. This is not unusual with women, and can happen with men as well. For example, take a look at pictures of male concentration camp survivors… they’re carrying subcutaneous bodyfat just like the anorexic women.
I’m not saying that Will’s formula pushes you way in that extreme because it doesn’t… it’s just moderately more aggressive (still has 82% as many calories as what Lyle and I prefer.)
Oops, actually the difference compared to Will is not 400 cal (2300-1900) but 322 cal (2300-1978). This is not that huge a difference… I’d say the agreement is greater than the disagreement.
A 240 lb man with 20% bf has a LBM of 192 lb, and that times 12 cal/lb, gives 2300 calories. This works very well for fat loss. So the difference compared to what Will is recommending is 400 cal. That will work faster but will also slow the metabolism more. Personally what I’ve seen with many people is that you get at best maybe half the benefit you’d “expect” from dropping the calories, sometimes none, and sometimes even an inverse effect… someone can hit a plateau in bodyfat at which point they simply lose LBM (for example, most anorexic women are about 20% bf I have read! Though at 70 lb, 20% is only 14 lb of fat) and don’t lose fat. Whereas with higher calories, they can continue to lose fat below this plateau. This is not unusual with women, and can happen with men as well. For example, take a look at pictures of male concentration camp survivors… they’re carrying subcutaneous bodyfat just like the anorexic women.