Pretty legit post up.

I'd personally would have just skipped the percentage breakdown since you mention 1.7g/kg for protein and almost all the percentages put me well over 1g/lb. I think laying down a minimum would be better overall.

I know Ian has mentioned that 0.25g/lb is the absolute minimum for fat and anything below that is when hormones are effected. That's pretty much why percentages are pointless. It's just (in my opinion) simpler to work off minimums so that way you could essentially manipulate them as you go along and allow for more varying foods. This also avoids hitting way over on specific macros (usually protein).

As for speed of fat loss: this largely depends on how fat an individual is. Obviously the leaner you are, the less fat you can lose per week. The fatter you are the more fat you can lose thus a bigger deficit.

P.S. Somatypes have been bunk for quite sometime. In the words of Lyle McDonald, "Somatotyping is, by and large garbage."

Is the liver unable to synthesize enough CHO via gluconeogenesis if CHO are cut from a diet? What do you think about insulin?

when percentiles account for your direct integer bmr, they're anything but "useless". true, they're not perfectly accurate, but neither are the bmr formulas out there, and yet we all use them.
not gonna get into specific discussions as pointed out at my op, but as for hitting over a specific macro- there are online logs that calculate it for you automatically, like the one i posted- fitday.com
don't be lazy, it takes me 15mins to make a perfect meal plan that's 99.99% accurate to the macros. it may not be as versatile, but the time for childish endeavors is over, if you've decided to undergo a calculated deficit program.

what you wrote about fat deficit is part true, part b.s- the fatter you are, the more inclined is the body to respond to leptin in regulating energy intake and energy expenditure, but it doesn't mean you can increase the deficit beyond a normal 20%. say, a 35%+ deficit is bound to have severe implications on the sarcoplastic mass, even if you're at 50%+ bodyfat. such a violent deficit even has the possibility to cause osteoporosis if lingered with.

somatotypes are a scientific evaluation, they're not bunk. lyle has his derp moments, as well as Ian. don't take much credit from such ppl.





20% being the minimum for any diet (except keto), is enough for carbohydrate synthesis (except maybe for high intensity strength trainers, in which case that won't be even close to enough). if you mean a complete cut of carbs- ketosis is followed by gluconeogenesis until there are is no CHO left and then the body starts depending on ketons and lipid response. in ketosis, there won't be enough CHO.

My point is that they're useless since you can just as easily work out your macronutrients using minimums. In that context, they are useless and, as a whole and to me, it makes them pointless to use. Say, for example, someone who is 155lbs is eating at 1800 calories (this is what they need to lose 1lb a week) and used a 40/30/30. Why would they need 180 grams of protein? There's nothing wrong with it but it puts a restrictive element on their diet. Then, again, what's the sense in consuming 50% of your calories from protein? Yet, a little bit down, you mention 1.7g/kg. The mootness of percentiles are further emphasized by the wide variance presented. With minimums, the dieter is able to tailor the macronutrients to their needs. This allows for more autonomy.



By overshoot, I meant calculate more protein than necessary and, as a result, put restriction on your diet.



I have seen plenty of studies where dieters have undertaken well over 20% deficit and have retained all muscle mass because they were able to meet their protein and were on a reasonable weightlifting program. I have seen this even in people who were consuming 800 calories a day @ 20-22% BF. To suggest someone who is 50% BF should lose only 1-1.5 pounds a week (as a 20% deficit almost never hits 2lbs a week) is preposterous. They would be cutting for an eternity. Many, many people cut at much higher than 20% and do so with excellent result.

Obviously, the leaner someone is the better it is to avoid large deficits since it would be detrimental. Even then, I have seen better results on a smaller deficit.



There is a lot of merit to judging someone based on bone structure (as evidenced by Casey Butt's articles but he does use the somatotype lingo as well) but I haven't seen any particularly convincing stuff that someone who is extremely fat should eat low carb and, similarly, someone who is fairly thin should eat high carbs and low fat. There's too much genetic variance to submit an individual to a specific category. For example, an endomorph is generally fat and fatness may be a sign of insulin resistance, which means lower carbs may be beneficial. Yet there are plenty of exceptions to this. Similarly, there are a thin people who seem to be high-fat phenotypes (do better on high fat). There's a lack of consistency.

The ultimate point Lyle was making is that it doesn't matter in the end. He wrote a great series (one Alan has praised) called "Talent vs. Hard Work." He rarely herps since he's a scientifically driven individual. Even then, just because he said it doesn't mean I hold everything he says in the highest regard.

To end off, a great point by Alan:
"I think it's fundamentally overassumptive to typecast anyone at one of 3 points along a rather broad continuum of genetic capacity for achieving muscle gain and/or fat loss. However, I would not deny that this variance of genetic capacity for 'ease' of physical achievent does exist. The danger lies in making assumptions that you're on one of the extreme ends, & ultimately selling yourself short. "

In the end, diet matters. Endos eat too much, ectos eat too little, and sometimes mesos get it right.

P.S. I'm sure you have your herp moments, too, so should we not take much credit from you either?

percentiles are just as easy, if not easier. true, some of them exceed the minimum requirements, but they don't hamper you in any way. minimums are guide lines, they can be followed or exceeded. 180g is nothing serious, and adds to the person's direct TEF count.

there's no need to restrict yourself in any way. read up.

you're saying a deficit does not come with increased catabolism, which is laughable unless the person was getting down from 30% bf to 20ish, which means from fat to a little less fat, and even then an increment in the gradient of catabolism over anabolism still occurs. the body incorporates ketones/CHO/carbs/AA/triglycerids and more elements when regulating bodyweight. not just fat, or carbs, or what have you, at 1 point of a given time frame.

consuming 800kcal at 20%bf and not losing muscle mass- you're fucking kidding me now. stop embarrassing yourself with this nonsense spewage.
1 thing you've said is true, the fatter you are, the more inclined your body is to relieving triglycerids and reduce %bf. BUT it does not come without increased gradient of catabolism, which means, muscle loss. there are ways to minimize this type of loss, in str training and increased gh/test via natural/unnatural methodologies, and minimizing the deficit itself, but you cannot eliminate the gradient all together. forget about it.

agreed on low carb intake. it doesn't hold merit for increased fatloss, which i stated in the op. if anything ,keeping a high carb intake endorces full strength capacities, meaning greater lifting sessions, which means greater gh/test produced, which means a further increment in the minimization of the catabolism gradient whilst under a deficit.

an endomorph isn't generally fat, don't be misled. the somatotype is generally *inclined* to retain bodyfat, but there are many normal weight endo's that i know of, who simply lead a normal life without eating disorders, which is not a "rare" phenomenon.

read lyle's ultimate diet 2.0, the stuff he writes about lipid and letpin responses via refeeds and roles of several micronutrients in water retention made me laugh like no other. if you think he rarely derps, try reading that book and keeping a straight face, given you're knowledgable at diuretic science and the lymphatic system reciprocity with fatty acids as a private, and APCs as a general.

will I lose muscle if I 20% deficit for several weeks?

yes, just not dramatically. it's subjective to your activities, magnitude of the deficit, and other elements.

Generic noob weightlifting routine, with ~10 minutes worth of cardio, 5 times a day. My calorie burning with that in mind is ~2600, so I plan on floating between 2000-2100.

Muscle loss?

if 2600 is your bmr, 2100 being 80% (20% deficit), yea, but again- not as dramatic. you just become more slightly more catabolic. as you become leaner over time, that catabolic gradient will increase, though.

What's the catabolic gradient?