Why are calorie deficit/surplus so overrated anyways?Nobody knows their actual maintainance level, only roughly at best, and if they do that doesn't stay the doesn't stay the same at all times. Additionally it differs from person to person so discussions regarding that are pointless.Shouldn't the percentage of bodyweight lost/gained be the standard when cutting/bulking?Of course you have to watch your calories while dieting but isn't it way more important to watch the number on the scale and adjust course day by day?If I wanna lose 10 kg in 5 month I make sure to lose 0,5kg every week. It's nice and simple. I can't possibly know the deficits arbitrary fantasy number beforehand. And if it's a long diet with significant weightloss the number will shift as well.
>>77185109weight loss is slow, "adjust your calories day by day" is an easy way to get zero results because you're fucking with your inputs when it's a game of weeks and months not days.Maintenance is very easy to calculate. Eat a certain amount of measurable calories, did my weight go up or down? wow fucking hardYou are 16.
>>77185136What I meant by that is that by looking at the scale daily you get a grasp of wether your diet is on track or not. And of course you should roughly know your calorie intake and not eat a shit ton one day then nothing the next. I'm assuming whoever is doing the cut/bulk isn't a fucking retard here. But you have bad reading comprehension and missed what I'm ultimately getting at.Gaining/Losing weight is the easiest thing in the fucking world I just don't get why people obsess over calorie NUMBER when it should be % bodyweight lost/gained NUMBER when you're planning a cut/bulk.If someone wants to lose 20 kg in the next 10 month. He should weigh himself daily and diet in a way where he loses 2kg a month, or 0,5kg a week. You're using the daily deficit he would have, which he can't possibly know (and which will change over the course of the 10 month). It's hindsight logic. This applies to any target range you want to reach. You only know the actual calorie deficit/surplas after the fact. So looking at your weight is a way more accurate way of going about it, assuming you have a proper routine and know how to weigh yourself.It's not that crazy but npcs just repeats what they hear online and delude themselves. Can't be helped I guess. Metric for weight lose discussion should be weight not calories.
>>77185205are you fat? if yes, leave the thread and kys
>>77185205i actually kind of agree, but calculating your TDEE and adding/subtracting a surplus/deficit based on that is a good starting point. ultimately, if the weight on the scale isn't reflecting expectations based on that calculated caloric intake, you have to adjust accordingly. TDEE calculators are always ballpark estimates, but that doesn't make them useless.
>>77185109Yes of course, but what your doing is just the most accurate method of finding out your bodies caloric maintenance/deficit/surplus. Weigh everyday and if the same, what you've eaten is the maintenance for your body and activity level, losing weight? Thats a deficit. Gained weight? Thats a surplus (or depending on changes to carb and salt intake could be transient water retention, but that's by definition short term)Its the same thing as counting calories but the standard to which you are counting is your weight rather than a guessed TDEE.
>>77185109>If I wanna lose 10 kg in 5 month I make sure to lose 0,5kg every week.Ok, and how would you go about that?>Eating lessEating less what?>Less caloriesLess calories than what?>Less calories than needed to maintain my weightAnd how would you figure that out?>By determining the calories needed for maintainence then eating less than thatEating in a caloric deficit?>Yeah, eating in a caloric deficitDamn, that's crazy.
>Believe the CICO model>Continue to eat junk food and slop, just eat less of it>Never get satiated>Body enters starvation mode>Base metabolism is lowered>Constantly feeling like shit>Loss of motivation to work out, end up skipping days>Go to bed hungry and have trouble sleeping>Lose 5 kg and then plateau when the body adapts>Psyche wears down and you eventually give in>Give up and return to your normal diet and go up 10 kg>Blame yourself for not sticking to your diet
Dont bother bro. This board is too fucking low IQ to even understand you. They are religious about CICO and think they alone understand the second law of thermodynamics.
>>77185136Fpbp op is mentally not capable of accepting CICO. Many such cases. Unfortunate.
>>77185109You are approaching weight loss incorrectly. You don't set a temporary system to work towards a goal, you create a permanent system and after several months analyze it and see if it need changing. If you say "I want to be X weight on Y day so I need to eat Z fewer calories" it will be very hard to maintain. If you say "from now on I am going to eat X calories per day" and weigh yourself everyday you will find that your body will approach a new weight and then level off. That weight is the maintenance weight for you for that number of calories. You then just ask "am I okay with this weight or do I want a different one?" If you are okay you change nothing and that is your diet forever. If you want a different weight you change your diet again and wait for your weight to hit a new plateau before analyzing it again. I used this method to lose 70lbs nine years ago and have kept it off. The reason so many people gain the weight back after losing it is because after they hit their goal weight they change their diet.
>>77185460I'm not. Like I said, controlling your body weight is the easiest thing in the world.>>77185559I don't even count my calories though. I roughly track in my head so I know where I'm at but I'm not chasing a number at the end of every day. Because I simply don't need to.If I want to do a slow bulk, I don't get why I wouldn't just look at my body weight trend to determine if I'm eating right. Do you fags actually know how much weight you gain based on the surplus? Like how fast do you gain weight on a 200 calorie surplus? How much with 400?Maybe you do but if the goal is a certain body weight, shouldn't the metric to track and observe your progression be your bodyweight?>>77185729Reading comprehension of a grade schooler. Look at my posts again.I'm saying that calories are a stupid metric for planning/discussing a cut/bulk.>>77185741Guess my approach is simply different, because weight lose/gain aren't a problem to me.I'm more interested in controling the pace and staying steady in the diet.You're taking the stairs I'm on a slope.
>>77186075"I don't even count my calories though"What do you mean? Aren't you weighing yourself everyday and adjusting food intake based on scale weight?
>>77186078Yes. I can eat a little less than the days before without counting calories. Just eyeball it. Might sounds stupid but if you have a proper routine and weight yourself daily you'll have a trend to roughly follow. Unless you're a slop who can't control himself it's simple.I'm not saying calories aren't real. I'm saying looking at your body and scale is more important than the arbitrary made up number some people religiously follow (needlessly when it could be much easier and chill).
>>77186075Do you think people who manage a cut/bulk on the basis of calorie intake don't take weight fluctuations into account?
>>77185205daily weight measurements are gay. it goes up and down based on numerous factors - reduce calories from TDEE 300-500. measure every week. don't cheat. work out hard, get 10k steps or close to it daily. GG
>>77185109CICO isn't necessary but it does work. You just weigh in regularly and track your calories. Then put that data into a spreadsheet that automatically calculates your TDEE for you. If it sees that you aren't gaining/losing at the targeted rate, it auto-adjusts.Ball-parking it by just looking at the scale from day-to-day can be alright if you're good at estimated how many calories you're eating, but most people aren't.
