Body recomp surplus or deficit?

[Going2KillMyself]

I can still do recomp because I am considered a beginner. The hard part about recomp, however, is calculating appropriate macros is figuring out the bf% to figure this shit out.

If you are at, say 24% or 20% bf, should you recomp for muscle gain with slight surplus or maintenance and try to take advantage of losing fat and gaining some muscle?

 

[siliconvalleycel]

"Recomp" is a meme imo, at that bf the best results will come from lifting (don't forget to lift) and eating at a deficit, as a beginner you will progress no matter what since most noob gains are neurological adaptations.
20% is quite fat tbh (been there), so you should follow some program (any program with a progression template, ie +X lbs per week on each lift, repeat weight if fail), then start reconsidering when you fail progression three weeks in a row.

 

[Legendarywristcel]

JFL if you're 24% and being in a surplus. You got enough fat to gain muscle while cutting calories.

Get on a 300 kcal cut.

 

[TITUS]

Slight deficit until you are ripped, else you will become obese in no time.

 

[Wallenberg]

I can still do recomp because I am considered a beginner. The hard part about recomp, however, is calculating appropriate macros is figuring out the bf% to figure this shit out.

If you are at, say 24% or 20% bf, should you recomp for muscle gain with slight surplus or maintenance and try to take advantage of losing fat and gaining some muscle?

lol at 20-24% you should be on deficit.

Cut until 10%
Bulk until 15%
Cut until 10%
etc

That way you stay lean all the time, even during the bulk.

 

[Going2KillMyself]

I revised my estimate I could be 18% or 20-24 regardless I'm not lean at all so I will cut.

"Recomp" is a meme imo, at that bf the best results will come from lifting (don't forget to lift) and eating at a deficit, as a beginner you will progress no matter what since most noob gains are neurological adaptations.
20% is quite fat tbh (been there), so you should follow some program (any program with a progression template, ie +X lbs per week on each lift, repeat weight if fail), then start reconsidering when you fail progression three weeks in a row.

I was thinking maybe go for 15% cut and follow a popular program that incorporates the big lifts with progression as you mentioned. Will it be possible to overload each consecutive week thru weight or reps with a cut? I feel like the bench, which I'm really weak in, will be tough.

JFL if you're 24% and being in a surplus. You got enough fat to gain muscle while cutting calories.

Get on a 300 kcal cut.

Yeah I'm probably below 24% but still not lean so I will cut anyway until I reach below 15% ideally. At least until I see my abs and obliques more visibly.

Slight deficit until you are ripped, else you will become obese in no time.

I was thinking 15% deficit is enough.

lol at 20-24% you should be on deficit.

Cut until 10%
Bulk until 15%
Cut until 10%
etc

That way you stay lean all the time, even during the bulk.

I like this idea tbh. Brief cut/bulk periods instead of one long session will be better.



Right now I'm at around 180lb and 5'10, but with high bf at least in 17% range. I will cut as all of you have mentioned. Is 2250 calories a good cut at this weight?

 

[siliconvalleycel]

Will it be possible to overload each consecutive week thru weight or reps with a cut?

I started benching and squatting with just the bar, deadlifting with 10s on each side. I wasn't weak, but I felt it was important so I could nail form and get into the groove of weekly increments, I progressed linearly up to a (tested) 2 plate 1 RM for bench. I can do 2 plate for 8 now but I added 5lbs each week every week from 0 to 2 plates. Workouts took literally 15 minutes at the beginning lol but I think it's worth pushing yourself.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

If you are a beginner and not particularly lean, just go in a moderate deficit, train with intensity, and if you have the time, take some walks too. The fat will melt off and you will gain a fuckton of muscle in first 6 months its actually insane.

 

[Going2KillMyself]

If you are a beginner and not particularly lean, just go in a moderate deficit, train with intensity, and if you have the time, take some walks too. The fat will melt off and you will gain a fuckton of muscle in first 6 months its actually insane.

You think 15% below maintenance is good? Or maybe begin with 10% and progress downward to 20% until I hit 13% bf or something?

 

[Deleted member 5185]

You think 15% below maintenance is good? Or maybe begin with 10% and progress downward to 20% until I hit 13% bf or something?

My opinion is this:

When it comes to fat loss, in physiological terms, it probably doesn't matter at what rate you lose weight - i.e, 10% or 20% isn't going to matter in physiological terms, except obviously 20% reduction leading to quicker fat loss than 10% reduction. Obviously at some point, it will matter. A 50% reduction will probably be severely unhealthy after a while.

Obviously when discussing recomp, it becomes a bit more complex, but lets assume its the same.

The place where the percentages will differ is in terms of behavior - and it wildly depends on the individual which approach is the best. For any diet to ever work beyond the scope of mere weeks, it will have to be followed for a long term (spanning years, realistically). This is the case both for cutting, bulking and recomping. But beyond that, consistency is the most important thing, and clearly the hardest to master.

So theoretically, you could say that a 10% decrease would be best, because it allows for more food, which is easier to follow both short and long term, and stay consistent with. In addition, it allows for further decreases down the line to up weight loss without having already struggled with a harsh diet. In practice however, some individuals may prefer a quicker rate of weight loss.

Now, that is for weight loss specifically. When recomping, we have to value 1. total protein intake 2. total carbohydrate intake and 3. total energy intake for the sake of muscle growth and energy for heavy weight lifting sessions. So considering those factors, I think the 10% number makes a lot more sense.

However, another factor to consider is 1. current bodyfat percentage and 2. your personal relationship to how fat you are, i.e how desperate you are to get it off. The number one thing is to stick to whatever diet and program you choose, so if you get more out of faster weight loss, reducing calories further will still net you muscle gain while getting rid of the fat - however obviously at the expense of total muscle gained during the 6 month (give or take) period you can recomp as a beginner.

Considering this is a long term project that will only be worth it if you make both dieting and training a routine for years to come, I think being patient and getting the most out of this period is your best bet. So I would reduce by 10%, and create any additional deficit by simple low impact walks. This way you ensure maximal caloric intake for training and recovery, while creating a deficit that will illicit fat loss at an acceptable rate.

 

[Going2KillMyself]

My opinion is this:

When it comes to fat loss, in physiological terms, it probably doesn't matter at what rate you lose weight - i.e, 10% or 20% isn't going to matter in physiological terms, except obviously 20% reduction leading to quicker fat loss than 10% reduction. Obviously at some point, it will matter. A 50% reduction will probably be severely unhealthy after a while.

Obviously when discussing recomp, it becomes a bit more complex, but lets assume its the same.

The place where the percentages will differ is in terms of behavior - and it wildly depends on the individual which approach is the best. For any diet to ever work beyond the scope of mere weeks, it will have to be followed for a long term (spanning years, realistically). This is the case both for cutting, bulking and recomping. But beyond that, consistency is the most important thing, and clearly the hardest to master.

So theoretically, you could say that a 10% decrease would be best, because it allows for more food, which is easier to follow both short and long term, and stay consistent with. In addition, it allows for further decreases down the line to up weight loss without having already struggled with a harsh diet. In practice however, some individuals may prefer a quicker rate of weight loss.

Now, that is for weight loss specifically. When recomping, we have to value 1. total protein intake 2. total carbohydrate intake and 3. total energy intake for the sake of muscle growth and energy for heavy weight lifting sessions. So considering those factors, I think the 10% number makes a lot more sense.

However, another factor to consider is 1. current bodyfat percentage and 2. your personal relationship to how fat you are, i.e how desperate you are to get it off. The number one thing is to stick to whatever diet and program you choose, so if you get more out of faster weight loss, reducing calories further will still net you muscle gain while getting rid of the fat - however obviously at the expense of total muscle gained during the 6 month (give or take) period you can recomp as a beginner.

Considering this is a long term project that will only be worth it if you make both dieting and training a routine for years to come, I think being patient and getting the most out of this period is your best bet. So I would reduce by 10%, and create any additional deficit by simple low impact walks. This way you ensure maximal caloric intake for training and recovery, while creating a deficit that will illicit fat loss at an acceptable rate.

What do you think a good protein intake per lb bodyweight is for a cut like this? 1.0? I've read above 1.0 because of protein's thermic effect and that it's critical to avoid lots of muscle loss.

I think a slower cut at first is better to get accustomed to training at a deficit and then see how it goes.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

What do you think a good protein intake per lb bodyweight is for a cut like this? 1.0? I've read above 1.0 because of protein's thermic effect and that it's critical to avoid lots of muscle loss.

I think a slower cut at first is better to get accustomed to training at a deficit and then see how it goes.

I want to preface this by saying that the exact macros probably matter a lot less than we think it does.

I think the g per lb depends a lot on your bodyweight and preferences. I think the gram per centimeter is better, because it accounts for overall lean size moreso than the per lb/kg.

But another factor is the thermic effect and muscle retaining qualities, plus the fact that it makes you feel fuller, which is an argument for increasing protein. On the other end however, it might make it harder to stick to the diet cause very high protein = likely boring / unsatisfying foods.

I think anything above 180g / day is acceptable for a recomp unless you are absolutely massive. And even that I think is higher than you probably strictly need.

 

[entropy137]

I can still do recomp because I am considered a beginner. The hard part about recomp, however, is calculating appropriate macros is figuring out the bf% to figure this shit out.

If you are at, say 24% or 20% bf, should you recomp for muscle gain with slight surplus or maintenance and try to take advantage of losing fat and gaining some muscle?

Keep it simple and eat a surplus on the days you lift and a deficit on the days you don't.