It is still being taught, but there are no studies which back this up. It was refuted in 1997 with this study; in fact, it has never been supported through any properly designed studies - because it is not true.
Still gets taught though. I have NO idea why. It's very helpful for weight GAIN though!
Either way works. You just have to remain comfortable; for many of us, this means eating less frequently.
If you walked for an hour a day, you created a small deficit of maybe 100-150 calories and likely helped settle down appetite (appetite often settles down when we walk, through a variety of mechanisms). This can not be said for higher intensity activity with any consistency: in women, higher intensity activity often increases appetite (although it may sometimes decrease it in males).
Thankfully, no.
I was 170 lbs with about 100 lbs lean mass. I was 130 lbs with 111 lbs lean mass in my avatar and in my profile pic. No steroids then either - just a caloric deficit for many years, heavy lifting in low-volume workouts using low-rep sets (under 8 reps), and minimal cardio. 14% bodyfat, confirmed by DEXA.
That's plump-to-obese for a woman. I'm 5'7" tall and I wore a size 12-14 when I was 38 years old. That's not quite "plus size".
20% is athletic- lean for a woman. The mythical "toned" look is about 25%, if the fat-distribution is even (it rarely is).
At 20%, I wear a size 4. (I'm about that now, with 119 lbs lean mass at about 148 lbs).
At 14%, size 2 fit me and wasn't snug.
Most fashion models are about 30% bodyfat - the industry doesn't want any visible muscle or definition; just skinny and smooth (aka "skinny-fat").
Female figure competitors are usually 9-12% on stage.
Female bodybuilders are usually 8-10% on stage.
By definition, you had to be. A deficit means you burned more calories than you ate. There is no other way to lose weight. You have to run a deficit.
Thermodynamics isn't just a good idea - it's the law.™
You ate foods which you found to be more filling, and subsequently lost weight because you consumed fewer calories than you required in order to maintain your weight.
Nothing unusual about you. You dropped 30 lbs in 12 weeks, and if you did a lot of activity while you did this, not all of it was fat.The photos you see in my profile are the after shots of this very meal plan and 12 week WO. Very strange to hear this. Maybe it's my geneticsoh'well
If it WAS all fat, you ran a deficit of 1250 calories a day - and given you didn't think you were restricting, you likely ran much less of a deficit than this - which means you dropped muscle.
I'll explain.
A pound of bodyfat stores 3500 calories, but a pound of muscle is basically a pound of sirloin, and stores about 500-600 calories.
Thus a deficit of 3500 calories will net you the loss of ONE pound, if it's from fat, or about SIX pounds, if it's from muscle.
If you ran a deficit of say 630 calories a day because you moved more and ate less, you should have lost about 15 lbs of fat over this time. Since you lost 30, you may have dropped 15 lbs of fat (a daily deficit of 500 calories) and 15 lbs of muscle (a daily deficit of 128 calories).
Weight loss through fat alone is long, hard, slow, and requires a large deficit relative to weight loss through muscle, which is fast, easy, and requires only insufficient calories and protein coupled with excessive high-rep exercise.
Awesome - you'll fit right in. Do some reading and educate yourself.
My studies weren't geared for the BB community either. I was just a fat, middle-aged woman who wanted to get the fat off her ass.
Mainstream fitness put that fat ON me.
Info geared to the bodybuilding community got it off me - finally - when I was middle-aged. Ten years later, my weight remains my choice.
Take this information out to the general fitness community and you'll be doing the world a service.
Last edited:
