What are your thoughts on going below 1800? I'm 5'3" but am cutting. Tom Venuto says men shouldn't go below 1800. I'm on a severe platuae and I am seriously thinking on going 1800 on lifting days and 1600 on non lifting days. I'm on 7 days of cardio. To me 1600 seems low. I lost 2.5 pounds lastweek eating 1800 and 2000. Give or take 50cals. But I'm thinking most of that was water. You can check out my food log here...I'm just so ready for SGX. Tired of all the guess work :rolleyes: :confused:

http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/showthread.php?t=20957&page=4

I know I'm eating clean...I'm just wondering about the calories...Mick

How about experience going below 1800? For me to reach ultra low body fat (less than 8 - 9 percent) I have to decrease my calories to as low as 1500. When I'm inactive, they might dip closer to 1200. I'm 5'10".

I know .... the trend and general consensus is to cry "starvation, dead metabolism" rah rah rah. For me, however, I was probably getting more nutrition at 1200 calories than most get at 2000 because most people go for the convenience foods ... shakes, bars, etc ... I was eating all whole foods, mostly vegetables, low-calorie fruits, and of course lean proteins. Only difficulty with getting lower calories is balancing the healthy fats, and I'll only cut those back for maybe 2 - 3 weeks right before a shoot.

So, I've gone well below 1800. I didn't turn green, lose any limbs or suddenly become weak and sick. In fact, I benched some of my heaviest weight during my lower calorie intake.

The truth is, I respect and admire Tom very much but I also don't think you can create a blanket statement about 1800 calories for men. It really has more factors and in fact older men naturally have lower metabolisms and might be closer to a 1200 - 1500 calorie diet consistently. YES, AND still be able to train and maintain muscle.

Jeremy

What are your thoughts on going below 1800? I'm 5'3" but am cutting. Tom Venuto says men shouldn't go below 1800. I'm on a severe platuae and I am seriously thinking on going 1800 on lifting days and 1600 on non lifting days. I'm on 7 days of cardio. To me 1600 seems low. I lost 2.5 pounds lastweek eating 1800 and 2000. Give or take 50cals. But I'm thinking most of that was water. You can check out my food log here...I'm just so ready for SGX. Tired of all the guess work :rolleyes: :confused:

http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/showthread.php?t=20957&page=4

I know I'm eating clean...I'm just wondering about the calories...Mick

How about experience going below 1800? For me to reach ultra low body fat (less than 8 - 9 percent) I have to decrease my calories to as low as 1500. When I'm inactive, they might dip closer to 1200. I'm 5'10".

I know .... the trend and general consensus is to cry "starvation, dead metabolism" rah rah rah. For me, however, I was probably getting more nutrition at 1200 calories than most get at 2000 because most people go for the convenience foods ... shakes, bars, etc ... I was eating all whole foods, mostly vegetables, low-calorie fruits, and of course lean proteins. Only difficulty with getting lower calories is balancing the healthy fats, and I'll only cut those back for maybe 2 - 3 weeks right before a shoot.

So, I've gone well below 1800. I didn't turn green, lose any limbs or suddenly become weak and sick. In fact, I benched some of my heaviest weight during my lower calorie intake.

The truth is, I respect and admire Tom very much but I also don't think you can create a blanket statement about 1800 calories for men. It really has more factors and in fact older men naturally have lower metabolisms and might be closer to a 1200 - 1500 calorie diet consistently. YES, AND still be able to train and maintain muscle.

Jeremy


Wow! I've never heard this before. Thanks Jeremy. If someone your size can dip so low, then absolutely, I can too and mantain muscle. I may break this plataue yet. :tu:
I'm thinking about 1700 and 1500.

What are your thoughts on going below 1800? I'm 5'3" but am cutting. Tom Venuto says men shouldn't go below 1800. I'm on a severe platuae and I am seriously thinking on going 1800 on lifting days and 1600 on non lifting days. I'm on 7 days of cardio. To me 1600 seems low. I lost 2.5 pounds lastweek eating 1800 and 2000. Give or take 50cals. But I'm thinking most of that was water. You can check out my food log here...I'm just so ready for SGX. Tired of all the guess work :rolleyes: :confused:

I know I'm eating clean...I'm just wondering about the calories...Mick

Dr. Ellington Darden based on studies done at Fla state University feels 1200 is the low side for men, 1000 for women. He also suggest you move up and down the ladder on a weekly basis. Say 1st week at 1800, 2nd at 1600, 3rd at 1400, 4th at 1200, then turn around with 5th week at 1400, 6th week at 1600 and 7th week at 1800.

The above sounds right to me. Why is there confusion? because there is no set way when it comes to humans, we differ like snowflakes. You can't set things in concrete, there can only be estimates (guesses) on what works for the individual.

Watch cheat meals/days.:cool:

Dr. Ellington Darden based on studies done at Fla state University feels 1200 is the low side for men, 1000 for women. He also suggest you move up and down the ladder on a weekly basis. Say 1st week at 1800, 2nd at 1600, 3rd at 1400, 4th at 1200, then turn around with 5th week at 1400, 6th week at 1600 and 7th week at 1800.

The above sounds right to me. Why is there confusion? because there is no set way when it comes to humans, we differ like snowflakes. You can't set things in concrete, there can only be estimates (guesses) on what works for the individual.

Watch cheat meals/days.:cool:

Thank's Richard. The reason there is confusion is, after a year and a half, I'm still at around 20% fat.:mad: :mad: :mad: That anger isn't directed at you...:lol:

I started this journey in January of '04.

While I agree with and respect many of Venuto's opinions, he can officially blow it out his ear with generalizations such as that. I can exist (not very happily or comfortably due to lack of carbs in my macros) at around 1,500 to 1,600 kcals per day, maintain lean mass and drop body fat at those calorie levels. I am low on energy during long stretches of that amount of calories and in truth, haven't done it in a long time because of how it makes me feel. I'd rather have a couple hundred more calories a day and just up my cardio output.

Consider, if you will, that we're probably statistical outliers, Mick. We're smaller in stature (I top out around 146-lbs. after a blowout cheat day) so 1,600 kcals may not be all that low, comparatively, for guys our size. For Jeremy, I'd venture a guess that that's pretty low. Jeremy - how did you feel at that low a calorie level? I'm lucky I can type at such low calories.

-R

I just wanted to say that I think Tom made a very good suggestion that men should stay above 1800 calories.

Yes, those of us that have spent months/years, etc learning about nutrition know how to make the most of our calories. However, your average joe reading his book does not and if he didn't place a recommended minimum, you'd have plenty of 200+ pound men eating 1000 calories/day and getting nowhere fast. When you're talking to such a large audience at once, sometimes you need to make generalizations and I think 1800, in general, is the floor for most men, especially those looking to take on weight lifting and cardio.

That said, Mick, I think you could dip below 1800 for a few weeks/months. However, make sure those 2.5 lbs you lose were in fact water. If they were also fat, going too low may be counterproductive.

It's interesting ... I can actually consume higher calories (1700+) if I'm on higher protein (thermic effect) but I feel MISERABLE, irritated, angry, and am not fun to be around.

On the other hand, if I'm eating more of a carbohydrate-dense diet, basing my menu on lots of vegetables, low calorie fruits, whole grains, beans, legumes, and then having a few servings of lean protein (so I'm getting more carbs than protein) then I feel absolutely fine.

It's also more of how you get there ... I agree with the suggestion above about ramping calories. Some people go from 3500 to 1500 and then wonder why they're starving. Much better to go from 3500 to 3300 then 3100 then 2900 ... etc and ramp it down, then actually ramp it back up and not be afraid to maintain a bit to reset the metabolism before ramping down again.

Jeremy

While I agree with and respect many of Venuto's opinions, he can officially blow it out his ear with generalizations such as that. I can exist (not very happily or comfortably due to lack of carbs in my macros) at around 1,500 to 1,600 kcals per day, maintain lean mass and drop body fat at those calorie levels. I am low on energy during long stretches of that amount of calories and in truth, haven't done it in a long time because of how it makes me feel. I'd rather have a couple hundred more calories a day and just up my cardio output.

Consider, if you will, that we're probably statistical outliers, Mick. We're smaller in stature (I top out around 146-lbs. after a blowout cheat day) so 1,600 kcals may not be all that low, comparatively, for guys our size. For Jeremy, I'd venture a guess that that's pretty low. Jeremy - how did you feel at that low a calorie level? I'm lucky I can type at such low calories.

-R

Dr. Ellington Darden based on studies done at Fla state University feels 1200 is the low side for men, 1000 for women. He also suggest you move up and down the ladder on a weekly basis. Say 1st week at 1800, 2nd at 1600, 3rd at 1400, 4th at 1200, then turn around with 5th week at 1400, 6th week at 1600 and 7th week at 1800.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. How is your target amount of calories sex-dependent? I think Dr. Darden must be confusing height and weight with sex. Surely a six foot tall woman needs to eat more than a 5 foot 3 man.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. How is your target amount of calories sex-dependent? I think Dr. Darden must be confusing height and weight with sex. Surely a six foot tall woman needs to eat more than a 5 foot 3 man.

It was just one of those "estimates" of a calorie level for men and women where your body wouldn't draw nutriments from your muscles or organs for being too low. As I said it was based on studies. While studies certainly beat net lore in validity, They aren't the last word.

We all differ and are looking for just a estimate as a starting point. Women may require less calories because of higher %BF than men in general, no matter what their height.

Right now the net is pushing a higher level of calories usually trying to avoid a starvation mode, but that one has been hard to prove it exist.

"Success comes from good judgement. Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Arthur Jones

Or We learn from the experience of making and correcting mistakes. Diet is certainly one thing that requires openness to ideas.

Yes, darden's diet plan for men is about 1400 calories, BUT - you have to look at the macros he recommends.

from what i can remember, he says something like 70% carb, 15% protein, 15% fat.
and he shows numerous results of clients GAINING lean mass.

if you were to do 1400 calories with macros like 50% protein, 25% carb, 25% fat, based on my personal experiences - you would probably lose lean mass.

Yes, darden's diet plan for men is about 1400 calories, BUT - you have to look at the macros he recommends.

from what i can remember, he says something like 70% carb, 15% protein, 15% fat.
and he shows numerous results of clients GAINING lean mass.

if you were to do 1400 calories with macros like 50% protein, 25% carb, 25% fat, based on my personal experiences - you would probably lose lean mass.


Wouldn't you retain mass with the extra protein? Like 48* or so comming from protein?

Wouldn't you retain mass with the extra protein? Like 48* or so comming from protein?
no - not if your calories are too low.
i dont have the magic number, and i cant explain it other than my personal experiences.

i think i've seen jeremy post something about this.

no - not if your calories are too low.
i dont have the magic number, and i cant explain it other than my personal experiences.

i think i've seen jeremy post something about this.

:confused:

:confused:
either take my word for it, or try it for yourself. :gl:

basically, from what i've seen, the lower your calories go, the higher carb% you should be to spare any amino acids you can.

or if you want - go for 8 weeks at 1750 cal, 48%p, 25%c, 27%f and see if you like the result.
you probably wont - i know i sure didnt.

either take my word for it, or try it for yourself. :gl:

basically, from what i've seen, the lower your calories go, the higher carb% you should be to spare any amino acids you can.

or if you want - go for 8 weeks at 1750 cal, 48%p, 25%c, 27%f and see if you like the result.
you probably wont - i know i sure didnt.

Thanks. Eztra carbs would ve great!:claplow:

I'm about 5'4 - 5'5 and I can cut at 1400 or even 1200 with very little muscle loss. I'm not really sure what my maintenance level is, because I'm very impatient and can't be bothered to find out, but 1400 or 1200 seems to work fine.

The problem comes when I start doing cardio intensive martial arts work outs for 2 hours 5 times a week.

I'm curious why you should raise carbs the lower you go w/cals? It sounds fascinating. I'm an endomorph in some respects...so I keep my carbs low...

Thanks. Eztra carbs would ve great!:claplow:
Get them with vegatables and grains, not simple sugars.

I strongly disagree that most people who are losing muscle on a diet with a given percentage of protein (assuming carbs are not EXTREMELY low) at a given number of calories will start retaining muscle if they increase their carbohydrates. But I do agree that there's more than one way to skin a cat and that some people do better (even thrive) on diets that are lower in calories and/or have a higher percentage of carbs than the traditional lifter's diet.

i strongly agree with your disagreement.
what i said was based on my experiences with 50%p 25%c 25%f, 1800 calories a day, as well as assuming carbs have a protein-sparing effect.

i was getting thinner, but looking worse in the mirror every day.

It would be a personal thing. Obviously, in jeremey's case low cals worked. I've found they work well for me, though I've not tried below 1700. Going that low isn't particularly enjoyable, though, especially if cardio is introduced to the mix. Without using drugs to dull the appetite (which i disagree with) it requires a very strong focus on the goal.

As long as you're tracking all numbers (weight, strength, calories), then gently experiment with various things and I'd not have a particular number in mind like _never go below 1800_ or something like that.

I do feel that jacking up cardio and keeping calories where they are is preferable to maintaining output and decreasing calories. If you can put in an awful lot of cardio you'll not be constantly in a state of hunger (like I am when I am below 2500/day) and I think it allows you to take in more nutrition over the day.

There is actually a strong scientific basis for this. However, if you look closely, you'll find you are right in a sense, jsbrook ...

Here is a great resource to understand protein:

Protein Info (http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid07e04.htm)

It is highly technical and scientific but cuts to the chase.

Click on the 3rd link, amino acid oxidation during periods of positive or negative energy balance.

The key sentence is:

"In hypocaloric situations (second equation), the extent to which amino acid oxidation will rise above the minimum obligatory rate is determined primarily by the extent to which energy needs can be covered by oxidation of glucose, FFA and KB. In hypercaloric situations (third equation), amino acid oxidation increases in direct proportion to further increments in protein intake, regardless of carbohydrate and fat substrate availability (Figure 1)."

Essentially, in hypocaloric situations (when you are bulking or taking in enough calories to gain weight) protein turnover is more related to your body's ability to meet energy demands through glucose. This means you can essentially increase carbs without touching protein (yes, LOWER your protein percentage) and still build muscle.

On the other hand, in hypercaloric situations (when you are losing weight or taking in less calories than needed) there is a direct correlation between protein turnover and protein intake.

This supports a lot of ideas of having sufficient protein when cutting. It doesn't mean that the protein is magic because this is only effective to a point for your ability to synthesize protein. However, the surplus scenario is very interesting because many people add a lot of protein when bulking and this says they could achieve the same by adding carbs.

That's just one snippet, there are dozens of pages and you'll find a lot of interesting points of fact.

For example, even on a caloric deficit, if you consistently take in little protein, your body will become more efficient at using protein for synthesis and other functions. On the other hand, if you consistently take in large amounts of protein, the body becomes extremely inefficient with using protein just for synthesize and actually ends up oxidizing (using for energy) much of the protein.

What's more interesting is what happens when you switch. It takes a few days for the body to adapt, so if you are on low levels of protein and suddenly switch to high levels, you will increase nitrogen balance/protein turnover for a short period while the body is still being highly efficient at processing the protein. Then, it becomes less efficient and uses more for energy.

On the flipside, if you are taking in high amounts of protein and switch to lower amounts, you most certainly stand risk of losing some muscle because the body takes several days to increase its efficiency at utilizing the lower intake.

These are just a few of the quirks that you will find ... it's not cut and dry or simple, but you will find quite a body of evidence to suggest that we don't need nearly as much protein as the mainstream suggests. The entire purpose of the studies on the page I linked to was to understand protein because it is the most expensive macronutrient, so that they could create solutions for faminished and impoverished countries to maintain positive nitrogen balance while keeping expenses low. And, sorry to say, while vegetables and grains and rice factor highly into the solutions, protein shakes aren't on the manifest.

Jeremy

I strongly disagree that most people who are losing muscle on a diet with a given percentage of protein (assuming carbs are not EXTREMELY low) at a given number of calories will start retaining muscle if they increase their carbohydrates. But I do agree that there's more than one way to skin a cat and that some people do better (even thrive) on diets that are lower in calories and/or have a higher percentage of carbs than the traditional lifter's diet.

There is actually a strong scientific basis for this. However, if you look closely, you'll find you are right in a sense, jsbrook ...

Here is a great resource to understand protein:

Protein Info (http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid07e04.htm)

It is highly technical and scientific but cuts to the chase.

Click on the 3rd link, amino acid oxidation during periods of positive or negative energy balance.

The key sentence is:

"In hypocaloric situations (second equation), the extent to which amino acid oxidation will rise above the minimum obligatory rate is determined primarily by the extent to which energy needs can be covered by oxidation of glucose, FFA and KB. In hypercaloric situations (third equation), amino acid oxidation increases in direct proportion to further increments in protein intake, regardless of carbohydrate and fat substrate availability (Figure 1)."

Essentially, in hypocaloric situations (when you are bulking or taking in enough calories to gain weight) protein turnover is more related to your body's ability to meet energy demands through glucose. This means you can essentially increase carbs without touching protein (yes, LOWER your protein percentage) and still build muscle.

On the other hand, in hypercaloric situations (when you are losing weight or taking in less calories than needed) there is a direct correlation between protein turnover and protein intake.

This supports a lot of ideas of having sufficient protein when cutting. It doesn't mean that the protein is magic because this is only effective to a point for your ability to synthesize protein. However, the surplus scenario is very interesting because many people add a lot of protein when bulking and this says they could achieve the same by adding carbs.

That's just one snippet, there are dozens of pages and you'll find a lot of interesting points of fact.

For example, even on a caloric deficit, if you consistently take in little protein, your body will become more efficient at using protein for synthesis and other functions. On the other hand, if you consistently take in large amounts of protein, the body becomes extremely inefficient with using protein just for synthesize and actually ends up oxidizing (using for energy) much of the protein.

What's more interesting is what happens when you switch. It takes a few days for the body to adapt, so if you are on low levels of protein and suddenly switch to high levels, you will increase nitrogen balance/protein turnover for a short period while the body is still being highly efficient at processing the protein. Then, it becomes less efficient and uses more for energy.

On the flipside, if you are taking in high amounts of protein and switch to lower amounts, you most certainly stand risk of losing some muscle because the body takes several days to increase its efficiency at utilizing the lower intake.

These are just a few of the quirks that you will find ... it's not cut and dry or simple, but you will find quite a body of evidence to suggest that we don't need nearly as much protein as the mainstream suggests. The entire purpose of the studies on the page I linked to was to understand protein because it is the most expensive macronutrient, so that they could create solutions for faminished and impoverished countries to maintain positive nitrogen balance while keeping expenses low. And, sorry to say, while vegetables and grains and rice factor highly into the solutions, protein shakes aren't on the manifest.

Jeremy

So if you eat less protein, its still ok? Awesome!

i strongly agree with your disagreement.
what i said was based on my experiences with 50%p 25%c 25%f, 1800 calories a day, as well as assuming carbs have a protein-sparing effect.

i was getting thinner, but looking worse in the mirror every day.

Ok, but you can't generalize. That's your particularly body. I've had great results on similar calories and macro split [perhaps 30% carbs] (when I would dip below 2000). My results were not as good at 1800 calories on a higher carb diet.

Good post, Jeremy. Agreed. Indeed, it's not cut and dry. However, I would not expect someone to stop losing muscle if they are indeed losing it by switching to a higher carb diet and keeping their calories the same unless they really have an inappropriately low amount of carbs

i strongly agree with your disagreement.
what i said was based on my experiences with 50%p 25%c 25%f, 1800 calories a day, as well as assuming carbs have a protein-sparing effect.

i was getting thinner, but looking worse in the mirror every day.

And you had better results when you kept your calories and training exactly the same but switched to a higher percentage of carbs?

Well, right now, I'm at 1500 cals (1700 on days i workout but I have an injured shoulder) and keeping my carbs down around 25%. Like yesterdays looked like 48/25/25 I think p/c/f

My ring is loose and I'm down from 138 Monday to 136.5 now...

Well, right now, I'm at 1500 cals (1700 on days i workout but I have an injured shoulder) and keeping my carbs down around 25%. Like yesterdays looked like 48/25/25 I think p/c/f

My ring is loose and I'm down from 138 Monday to 136.5 now...

Sounds good. 1500 seems awfully low to me, but it might be appropriate for some people. And you might be one of them! I don't think you are really 20% bf though from the last picture I say. Keep up the good work.

Sounds good. 1500 seems awfully low to me, but it might be appropriate for some people. And you might be one of them! I don't think you are really 20% bf though from the last picture I say. Keep up the good work.

what do you think I look like in those photos? %wize?

Jeremy, many of us have read how you went on "low protein" while cutting, near the end. I think you were on sub 100 grams of protein and yet did a good job with maintaining muscle, by ensuring you had sufficient carbs.

That article backs that up, but did you find that article or learn of this approach before your success, or afterwards? It is interesting to see whether you discovered it on your own, or applied what you'd read, the idea being that no subconscious bias would have been built into your successes if you found success with a "low protein" approach before reading much to support it.