Caloric Restriction - Pros and Cons ?

[Eric Hanst]

Something has been nagging at me as I Crossfit and quickly approach the best shape of my life. I am on a rather strict Paleo diet, and trying to cut down on my body fat. I am 74" 197lbs. and sitting at right about 12% body fat, and eat anywhere from 1800 to 2600 calories a day. From what I have read and know from personal experience, fat loss is simple math. More Calories out than in.

The way I see it i probably burn around 1800 callories a day just being alive. With this being said, combined with working out, i would obvisouly be burning more. While i want to loose fat by creating this deficit (eating <2000 Cal. a day) i feel weak and not nearly as able to push myself on the WOD. Is that normal? I've been trying for a couple months to find a "sweet spot" and have as of yet been unable to.

Am i doomed to being uncomfortably fatigued during workouts from creating this deficit for wanting to burn fat? What are some other options?

Thanks for any help

[John S Park]

you probably have a bigger calorie deficit than you think

[Derek Franks]

Originally Posted by Eric Hanst

From what I have read and know from personal experience, fat loss is simple math. More Calories out than in.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...61765149&hl=en

[Benjamin Walsh]

I'm 5'10" 180. I eat 3000 to 3500 calories a day, avoiding processed sugar. Since I started crossfit 5 weeks ago I've lost about 1 pound a week while gaing a ton of strength (and considerable muscle mass) and endurance. I'm never hungry (I don't allow it), and rarely tired despite 5-6 hours sleep a night. When I don't eat enough my intensity during workouts suffers.

I wrestled for many years (not recently or I wouold weigh 180), so I have experience with caloric restriction and cutting weight. It sucks. I can't imagine under-eating without the pressure of making weight, especially knowing its adverse effect on performance and that I can lose weight without starving myself. I think a deficit of more than 5% is not a great idea. Good luck.

[Robert Callahan]

Originally Posted by Eric Hanst

From what I have read and know from personal experience, fat loss is simple math. More Calories out than in.

WRONG

Not to be to harsh, but that is simply not correct, I started a thread after watching the link posted above and in the first post discuss how that simple math equation is very missunderstood! here is a link to the thread:
http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=30900

check it out, also watch the video, it is very informative and usefull

End result it is WHAT you eat, not how much of it you eat

-Robert

[Gerhard Lavin]

Originally Posted by Robert Callahan

WRONG

End result it is WHAT you eat, not how much of it you eat

-Robert

Actually as always the result is a combination of both. Taubes has it only partially right. He oversimplifies. Eades addresses this on his blog somewhere. A calorific deficit is required. It's just easier to do on a low carb diet because of the insulin blunting effect.

The Zone is basically a reduced carb, calorifically restricted diet. It's the combination of both factors that make it successfull for fat loss.

[Robert Callahan]

the Zone has you eating 40% of your dietary calories from carbs, i would not call that a carb restricted diet...
and it is saying you must have a caloric deficit that is oversimplified and missunderstood, how do you think people starve to death while getting fatter?? i suggest reading the post i linked too, it explains more clearly than i care to here

-Robert

[Scott Clark]

A caloric deficit is the only way one is going to lose weight. It's possible to recomp while not being in a big deficit, but if someone maintains their current weight on 2,700 calories a day (after activity figured in) they will sure as hell not lose weight eating 2,900 calories.

The deficit can be induced via calorie restriction or via activity, but a deficit is still needed.

[Geoff Sallee]

Originally Posted by Robert Callahan

the Zone has you eating 40% of your dietary calories from carbs, i would not call that a carb restricted diet...
and it is saying you must have a caloric deficit that is oversimplified and missunderstood, how do you think people starve to death while getting fatter?? i suggest reading the post i linked too, it explains more clearly than i care to here

-Robert

It's carb restricted compared the the RDA recommendations, as well as compared to the typical American/Western diet. I do believe you have to have a defecit, as I notice that when I eat more than about 2400 calories a day my weight loss stops (even though it's all good, clean food). Under that and my weight loss is steady at about a 1 - 1.5 pounds a week. I'm 5'10", 205, 18% body fat. I try to eat Zone ratios as well. There's no way I could eat 3500 calories a day of Paleo/Zone and continue to lose weight, I know this for a fact.

EDIT: I also have not suffered in my WODs, although I've been cutting fat the whole time I've been CFing, so I don't have much to compare it to. I feel strong, not tired, it's my cardio that's the worst, but that's always been the case.

[Gerhard Lavin]

Originally Posted by Robert Callahan

the Zone has you eating 40% of your dietary calories from carbs, i would not call that a carb restricted diet...
and it is saying you must have a caloric deficit that is oversimplified and missunderstood, how do you think people starve to death while getting fatter?? i suggest reading the post i linked too, it explains more clearly than i care to here

-Robert

It is restricting you to 40% total carbs as well as restricting your total calorie intake using the block count, so yes definitely restricted.

Could you point me to a link on some one starving to death while getting fatter. Malnutrition and starvation are two different things.

I've watched the lecture. Some good stuff but as I said over simplified. Eat 7000 kcal of lard and report back on your weight loss.