Composed the perfect diet for cutting but torn between two approaches

[Zaq]

I’ve decided to pursue an aggressive cut while staying as mindful as possible. Currently, I’m 90kg (188cm / 6ft2) and aiming to drop to 80kg (175lbs) while training at the gym three times a week and practicing a combat sport twice weekly.

The typical concerns with an aggressive cut are long-term malnutrition, muscle loss, hormonal imbalances, and metabolic adaptation. To counter these, I have built a highly nutrient-dense plan that covers every micronutrient, ensuring I get at least 140g protein and 70g fat daily to protect muscle mass and hormonal health. And I have to say, designing this diet was actually a lot of fun! Take a look at the attached images.

Now I’m weighing two options:

Option 1: Stick with the plan at 1600 kcal, which creates a 1000 kcal deficit from an estimated 2600 kcal maintenance. This should lead to roughly 4kg of fat loss per 31 days, meaning I could reach my goal in about 80 days. I’m confident in my discipline and think this aggressive approach is both time-efficient and effective (using 1kg of fat = 7700 kcal for my math).

Option 2: Add 125g of grass-fed ground beef making it 1900 kcal, boosting my protein to around 170g and fat to 90g. This further supports muscle preservation and testosterone/hormonal health. However, I have already hit every single micronutrient target. This option reduces my deficit to 700 kcal, slowing fat loss to an estimated 2.8kg per 31 days and extending the cut to roughly 110 days.

Given all this, I’m leaning toward the aggressive 1600 kcal plan for 2.5 months, then gradually increasing calories to rebuild maintenance. What do you think about this strategy, and if you disagree, what is your case for the 1900 kcal plan if the concerns of malnutrition, muscle loss, and hormonal imbalances are mitigated?

 

[Zaq]

Bump: you fags never reply to serious threads

 

[Xaus]

Just eat a little less then normal and do more cardio then normal. Very simple bhai get it together

 

[exeswa1]

I’ve decided to pursue an aggressive cut while staying as mindful as possible. Currently, I’m 90kg (188cm / 6ft2) and aiming to drop to 80kg (175lbs) while training at the gym three times a week and practicing a combat sport twice weekly.

The typical concerns with an aggressive cut are long-term malnutrition, muscle loss, hormonal imbalances, and metabolic adaptation. To counter these, I have built a highly nutrient-dense plan that covers every micronutrient, ensuring I get at least 140g protein and 70g fat daily to protect muscle mass and hormonal health. And I have to say, designing this diet was actually a lot of fun! Take a look at the attached images.

Now I’m weighing two options:

Option 1: Stick with the plan at 1600 kcal, which creates a 1000 kcal deficit from an estimated 2600 kcal maintenance. This should lead to roughly 4kg of fat loss per 31 days, meaning I could reach my goal in about 80 days. I’m confident in my discipline and think this aggressive approach is both time-efficient and effective (using 1kg of fat = 7700 kcal for my math).

Option 2: Add 125g of grass-fed ground beef making it 1900 kcal, boosting my protein to around 170g and fat to 90g. This further supports muscle preservation and testosterone/hormonal health. However, I have already hit every single micronutrient target. This option reduces my deficit to 700 kcal, slowing fat loss to an estimated 2.8kg per 31 days and extending the cut to roughly 110 days.

Given all this, I’m leaning toward the aggressive 1600 kcal plan for 2.5 months, then gradually increasing calories to rebuild maintenance. What do you think about this strategy, and if you disagree, what is your case for the 1900 kcal plan if the concerns of malnutrition, muscle loss, and hormonal imbalances are mitigated?

View attachment 3519817View attachment 3519818

opt 2 but with 2k calories and a incline treadmill cardio for 1h/ per day is good

 

[Neucher]

1.6kcal is not aggressive

 

[chadisbeingmade]

1200 calories for 4-6 weeks.


Get it done as fast as possible. Imagine being in a catabolic state for a prolonged period when you can be in one for a shorter period and get more done. You can be back in an anabolic state much faster.

 

[kazama]

I’ve decided to pursue an aggressive cut while staying as mindful as possible. Currently, I’m 90kg (188cm / 6ft2) and aiming to drop to 80kg (175lbs) while training at the gym three times a week and practicing a combat sport twice weekly.

The typical concerns with an aggressive cut are long-term malnutrition, muscle loss, hormonal imbalances, and metabolic adaptation. To counter these, I have built a highly nutrient-dense plan that covers every micronutrient, ensuring I get at least 140g protein and 70g fat daily to protect muscle mass and hormonal health. And I have to say, designing this diet was actually a lot of fun! Take a look at the attached images.

Now I’m weighing two options:

Option 1: Stick with the plan at 1600 kcal, which creates a 1000 kcal deficit from an estimated 2600 kcal maintenance. This should lead to roughly 4kg of fat loss per 31 days, meaning I could reach my goal in about 80 days. I’m confident in my discipline and think this aggressive approach is both time-efficient and effective (using 1kg of fat = 7700 kcal for my math).

Option 2: Add 125g of grass-fed ground beef making it 1900 kcal, boosting my protein to around 170g and fat to 90g. This further supports muscle preservation and testosterone/hormonal health. However, I have already hit every single micronutrient target. This option reduces my deficit to 700 kcal, slowing fat loss to an estimated 2.8kg per 31 days and extending the cut to roughly 110 days.

Given all this, I’m leaning toward the aggressive 1600 kcal plan for 2.5 months, then gradually increasing calories to rebuild maintenance. What do you think about this strategy, and if you disagree, what is your case for the 1900 kcal plan if the concerns of malnutrition, muscle loss, and hormonal imbalances are mitigated?

View attachment 3519817View attachment 3519818

Why all always tryna lose weight fast?the plans fine and doesnt last long, so u wont mess up ur body too much. But dont go back to eating ur usual calories; increase them little by little after the 2 months and stay at maintenance. Get tests done if needed.

 

[Zaq]

1.6kcal is not aggressive

It is a 1000 kcal deficit for someone of my size and activity. I would say it is aggresive.

1200 calories for 4-6 weeks.


Get it done as fast as possible. Imagine being in a catabolic state for a prolonged period when you can be in one for a shorter period and get more done. You can be back in an anabolic state much faster.

The trade in for going with 1200 calories is that it is impossible to get all micronutrients. Or atleast I wasnt able to compose a diet lower than 1600 kcal hitting every nutrient, making sure I wont get a deficit anywhere.


1400 kcal deficit for 6 weeks / 42 days = 58800 calories.

/ 7700 (1kg of fat) = 7.6 kg lost.

It would take 55 days if I did your approach.

So in short it would take 22 days less, but the trade in would be that I would be in a state of malnourishment for 55 days versus 78 days of getting all nutrients.

Why all always tryna lose weight fast?the plans fine and doesnt last long, so u wont mess up ur body too much. But dont go back to eating ur usual calories; increase them little by little after the 2 months and stay at maintenance. Get tests done if needed.

Losing weight fast, but not malnourising yourself seems ideal to me. The sooner you lose the fat the sooner you can go back to being in a muscle building state. I am ofcourse going to slowly up my calories and not eat like a total swine when I reach my goal.

 

[chadisbeingmade]

The trade in for going with 1200 calories is that it is impossible to get all micronutrients. Or atleast I wasnt able to compose a diet lower than 1600 kcal hitting every nutrient, making sure I wont get a deficit anywhere.

Cut the carbs out, they are nutritionally empty and eat meat and liver. Remeber it’s only for a month also.

 

[kazama]

It is a 1000 kcal deficit for someone of my size and activity. I would say it is aggresive.

The trade in for going with 1200 calories is that it is impossible to get all micronutrients. Or atleast I wasnt able to compose a diet lower than 1600 kcal hitting every nutrient, making sure I wont get a deficit anywhere.


1400 kcal deficit for 6 weeks / 42 days = 58800 calories.

/ 7700 (1kg of fat) = 7.6 kg lost.

It would take 55 days if I did your approach.

So in short it would take 22 days less, but the trade in would be that I would be in a state of malnourishment for 55 days versus 78 days of getting all nutrients.



Losing weight fast, but not malnourising yourself seems ideal to me. The sooner you lose the fat the sooner you can go back to being in a muscle building state. I am ofcourse going to slowly up my calories and not eat like a total swine when I reach my goal.

Yeah, u have a point. If you're not super overweight, theres no need for a long deficit. Keep going, and good luck

 

[Zaq]

Cut the carbs out, they are nutritionally empty and eat meat and liver. Remeber it’s only for a month also.

Cutting out carbs entirely isn’t the best option in my view. If I were to eliminate my top four carb sources, my overall nutrient intake would drop significantly.

I don’t subscribe to the idea that all carbs are nutritionally empty. The carb sources I’ve chosen are whole foods that are low on the glycemic index, nutrient-dense, and contain little to no pesticides.

Also its 55 days, thats closer to 2 months. Being is such a big deficit seems too risky for me. The gain of being done 22 days sooner doesn't seem to be worth it. I rather sitll cut aggresive but for 78 days while not being in a malnourished state.

Yeah, u have a point. If you're not super overweight, theres no need for a long deficit. Keep going, and good luck

Thank you for your input in my thread.

 

[chadisbeingmade]

View attachment 3520005

Cutting out carbs entirely isn’t the best option in my view. If I were to eliminate my top four carb sources, my overall nutrient intake would drop significantly.

View attachment 3520013

I don’t subscribe to the idea that all carbs are nutritionally empty. The carb sources I’ve chosen are whole foods that are low on the glycemic index, nutrient-dense, and contain little to no pesticides.

Also its 55 days, thats closer to 2 months. Being is such a big deficit seems too risky for me. The gain of being done 22 days sooner doesn't seem to be worth it. I rather sitll cut aggresive but for 78 days while not being in a malnourished state.




Thank you for your input in my thread.

Thoes nutritional values are bs. For example without carbs you don’t need high vitamin c because glucose and vitamin c compete for the same receptors, so when you have 0 carbs there is no competition for the receptors so only very little vitamin c is needed. only an example. meat and eggs provide all the nutrients you need

 

[kazama]

View attachment 3520005

Cutting out carbs entirely isn’t the best option in my view. If I were to eliminate my top four carb sources, my overall nutrient intake would drop significantly.

View attachment 3520013

I don’t subscribe to the idea that all carbs are nutritionally empty. The carb sources I’ve chosen are whole foods that are low on the glycemic index, nutrient-dense, and contain little to no pesticides.

Also its 55 days, thats closer to 2 months. Being is such a big deficit seems too risky for me. The gain of being done 22 days sooner doesn't seem to be worth it. I rather sitll cut aggresive but for 78 days while not being in a malnourished state.




Thank you for your input in my thread.

Great topic, I intend to do a diet at this level of detail

 

[Zaq]

Thoes nutritional values are bs. For example without carbs you don’t need high vitamin c because glucose and vitamin c compete for the same receptors, so when you have 0 carbs there is no competition for the receptors so only very little vitamin c is needed. only an example. meat and eggs provide all the nutrients you need

While there is some technical truth to the idea that glucose and vitamin C share transporters (such as GLUT transporters)—potentially reducing competition when carbs are absent—the notion that you need far less vitamin C simply by cutting out carbs is an oversimplification. Vitamin C remains critical for collagen synthesis, immune support, and antioxidant defense, regardless of your carbohydrate intake. So even if the mechanism has a kernel of truth, it doesn’t translate into a significantly lower practical requirement for vitamin C.

Moreover, eliminating carbs can introduce broader nutrient gaps that meat and eggs alone often can’t fill. For instance, cutting out nutrient-dense carb sources can lead to suboptimal levels of vitamins B1 (thiamine) and E, as well as minerals like magnesium, potassium, and manganese. These shortfalls can affect everything from muscle function and bone health to energy metabolism and immune function.

Thus, while a low-carb approach may work for some, it’s an oversimplification to say that “carbs are empty” and that meat and eggs alone supply all essential nutrients. A balanced diet with a variety of foods typically provides more comprehensive coverage of the vitamins and minerals your body needs to function optimally.

Great topic, I intend to do a diet at this level of detail

Cronometer desktop version is free and a great tool.

 

[kazama]

Cronometer desktop version is free and a great tool.

Thanks broh, you are a nice guy

 

[chadisbeingmade]

Moreover, eliminating carbs can introduce broader nutrient gaps that meat and eggs alone often can’t fill. For instance, cutting out nutrient-dense carb sources can lead to suboptimal levels of vitamins B1 (thiamine) and E, as well as minerals like magnesium, potassium, and manganese. These shortfalls can affect everything from muscle function and bone health to energy metabolism and immune function.

A diet consisting of Meat, eggs, butter, fish, liver, will most definitely full fill all nutritional requirements. and can be fit into a low calorie diet easily. and don’t spike blood sugar making it hard to feel satiated for long times.

 

[Zaq]

A diet consisting of Meat, eggs, butter, fish, liver, will most definitely full fill all nutritional requirements. and can be fit into a low calorie diet easily. and don’t spike blood sugar making it hard to feel satiated for long times.

I honestly believe it’s impossible to create a 1200 kcal diet that meets all nutritional requirements, especially if it's zero-carb. If you have the time, I’d love to see a Cronometer log that proves me wrong it would be truly impressive.

Edit: Even a 1600 kcal diet that is low/ close to zero carb that meets all nutritional requirements would be impressive. I don't think it can be done.