I started a thread relatively recently about my starting to lose some weight. We recently restocked on food, and with what we have I made a rough diet plan consisting of 5 meals spread throughout the day. The total calories are 2175, which will give me a 6000 calories deficit per week, which should be 2lbs of fat. That all, from what I know, seems correct, but then I started thinking about how that changes for a 16 year old. Is that enough calories to not just burn fat, but still provide enough energy for me to be gaining strength as I go along? I don't necessarily want to sacrifice strength gains any more than I need to. Here's the specifics of those 2175 calories:

41.5g of fat (17.1%), 193.5g of carbs (40%), and 206.9g of protein (42.8%)

Considering the amount of protein is consistent with the 1g per lbs of lean body mass (roughly), will I still be at too large a deficit to promote strength gains?

Hi could you tell us your height, starting weight and BF% if you know it?

No idea about the BF%, but it's undoubtedly high considering I'm 5'8 and at least 225lbs (the scale read 225, but wen I had checked not too long ago it was 240, and I'm not really physically stronger, nor do I look any different now).

I would suggest letting your exercise/activity make up the defecit that you need, rather than reducing calories too much. So I would probably bump things to around 2500, lift 3-4x a week with some cardio if you feel inclined to do it. :)

I would suggest letting your exercise/activity make up the defecit that you need, rather than reducing calories too much. So I would probably bump things to around 2500, lift 3-4x a week with some cardio if you feel inclined to do it. :)

I agree with Foley, as although I hear you on wanting to lose some fat, you also don't want to get in the way of all those great teenage hormones and your continued natural growth or strength progress, as you mention yourself. Go with what Foley suggests and keep your calories pretty clean and lift hard :)

Hm, at 2500 calories a day I'd still be at over a pound a week deficit, so I guess I can deal with that. My main goal is to gain strength, so I'd be willing to take a hit on fat loss to keep my muscle growth in line.

Also, the food I'm eating should all be relatively clean. There's no high fructose corn syrup in any of the foods, and there's not much fat in there either. The ratio of fat:carbs:protein looked pretty good though, eh?

Edit: How does 2400.3 calories with 51.5g of fat, 203g of carbs, and 227.4g of protein sound?

That comes to 2185.1 ? :confused:

I would do something like 230g protein, 250g carbs and 65g fat. Then you can always experiment with those as you go along. It's not how much you eat (well it is) but it's what you eat when and why. :D

More importantly is how does it look to you?

Can you build around the numbers you're taking about with food/meal choices that appeal to you, are practical, and you can stay consistent with?

Don't look at dieting as one calorie range you stick with everyday, for the complete duration of your recomposition. Past the obvious level of reduction that becomes necessary to continue fat loss as your BF% and total decreaes, there's still a level of daily/weekly flexibility in all of this, and a good chunk of it comes down to what type of system fits your situation.

You are wise to recognize the possible shortcomings of throwing the conventional "middle age man's guide to fat loss" at your teenage body.

That comes to 2185.1 ? :confused:

I would do something like 230g protein, 250g carbs and 65g fat. Then you can always experiment with those as you go along. It's not how much you eat (well it is) but it's what you eat when and why. :D

2185.1? 203g of carbs plus 227.4g of protein is 430.4g, times 4.5 calories per gram gives you 1936.6 calories. Then 51.5g of fat at 9 calories per gram for 463.5 calories. Add them together and you get 2400.3.

More importantly is how does it look to you?

Can you build around the numbers you're taking about with food/meal choices that appeal to you, are practical, and you can stay consistent with?

Don't look at dieting as one calorie range you stick with everyday, for the complete duration of your recomposition. Past the obvious level of reduction that becomes necessary to continue fat loss as your BF% and total decreaes, there's still a level of daily/weekly flexibility in all of this, and a good chunk of it comes down to what type of system fits your situation.

You are wise to recognize the possible shortcomings of throwing the conventional "middle age man's guide to fat loss" at your teenage body.

The numbers I posted are taken from a rough five meal plan, using only food I know I have a good supply of. And I like all of it quite a bit. As a matter of fact, I just bought a bunch of food I like and knew was healthy (whole wheat bread, shrimp, chicken), took down the calories per serving, and then for each meal used that to get the totals. And yes, I made sure to account for me eating more than the recommended serving. I weighed any food that I thought the recommended serving either wasn't enough or too much, found the calories for that amount, and used it for the meal plan.

The numbers I posted are taken from a rough five meal plan, using only food I know I have a good supply of. And I like all of it quite a bit. As a matter of fact, I just bought a bunch of food I like and knew was healthy (whole wheat bread, shrimp, chicken), took down the calories per serving, and then for each meal used that to get the totals. And yes, I made sure to account for me eating more than the recommended serving. I weighed any food that I thought the recommended serving either wasn't enough or too much, found the calories for that amount, and used it for the meal plan.

If it sounds good to you, then it sounds good to me. :tucool:

You'd be amazed at the amount of people that will design a diet entirely in a "spreadsheet" type mindset, with no regard if they'll actually be able to follow the damn thing. :doh:

Oh...I used 4.5 calories per gram for protein and carbs, but I guess 4 calories is more accurate. I added some stuff in, and now there's 218g of carbs, 258.4g of protein, and 58.5g of fat, which is 2432 calories. The protein keeps getting further and further ahead both calorie and amount wise, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

So I weighed myself using what I think is a more accurate scale, and I weigh 231lbs (it was consistent). What I'm wondering is, what multiplier should I use when considering BMR and the Harris Benedict equation? 1.375 is for "If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week)," but I do around 30 minutes of heavy lifting three days a week, plus 45 minutes of cardio (the Cardio X from P90X is what I've been using), so would that still be considered "light excercise 1-3 days a week," or should I use: "If you are moderatetely active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.55"

I always found those multipliers very difficult to discern and never felt like I get a good answer from people.

I went with with moderately active since I lift weights four days per week (two leg days two upper body days) and I incorporate 1-3 days of cardio (1 mandatory LISS day on Sunday and HIIT sessions post-upperbody workout if I'm down for it that day).

I wouldn't make it any more complicated than 12-13 calories per lb of bodyweight, and go from there. This should put you somewhere close to your lower activity multiplier.

Harris Benedict with a 1.55 multiplier is more likely to overestimate your maintenance point because of bodyweight/BF%.

With a higher bodyweight/BF%, while still meeting reasonable nutrient intake, you have some room to play with at this point in how you mange your deficit, and some of this becomes what sort of deficit are prepared to take on, what sort of daily meal plan can you live with while maintaining productive workouts, and what will increase overall adherence to your plan (to be viewed big picture, not micromanaging every meal). Activity multipliers can't predicts all of that.

Make sure your workouts stay strong, and overall energy throughout the day doesn't go to crap, and you should be fine.

So far, 2400 seems to be working pretty well. If I don't see very good gains in three weeks, I'll bump it up maybe. Come to think of it, I might be eating less than (or, I guess, more than), 2400 calories. The food scale is completely worthless as it turns out. I'm considering buying another after I get a new scale.