>TFW you've been cutting on 1300 cals for a month with

edgy /wp/ apart, and I'm fashy too, but that's just edgy bro, fucking congrats. Might start wanting to add some calories to that and mix some exercising. Maybe 1700 and start lifting.
Keep this on bro

>>39344411
I do lift though

That's why it's working so well. i lift and do cardio and the weight is just falling off. Whoever made up the "500 calorie deficit" meme was either retarded or dumb

>>39344457
if it isnt broken, don't fix it. I'm only 5 kgs over my desired weight right now, once I hit it, a serious bulk will start.
I do it for )))him(((.

>>39344457
its no meme but you'll slow down in the next 2 months as your body adapts and youll just have less energy

>>39344498
According to pretty much every study and anecdotal experience your body never really "adapts" by slowing down your metabolism anywhere near to the point of you losing fat.

It really is a meme.

>>39344457
>
because its for slow, safe, and steady weight loss, which is proven to be the healthiest.

>>39344532
Why do it prolonged for no reason? Best to just get it out of the way instead of spending 4-5 months "cuting" by eating barely below maintenance.

You won't lose muscle

File: 1474351537402.gif (73KB, 840x514px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 840x514px

>>39344521
>slowing down your metabolism anywhere near to the point of you losing fat

did I read that wrong or has the lack of cal gone to your head

>>39344567
i miswrote it

i meant your metabolism will never be significantly affected even if you're literally starving yourself and losing muscle and in a constant state of hunger

>>39344592

The Minnesota starvation experiment suggests otherwise.

>>39344592
are you saying metabolism can increase but has a bottom line that's near your everyday normal resting cal burn?

>>39344521
I'll hereby ask for a scientific source.

>>39344610
>The Minnesota starvation experiment suggests otherwise.

But the Minnesota experiment showed that their metabolism didn't decrease significantly enough...

And that's for people literally being starved. If you're getting enough protein and lifting, do you really think you're going to be losing muscle?

>>39344613
I'm saying "muh metabolism will slow down" is an incredibly overstated meme that has no real basis and is just used by lazy people to justify their laziness.

Much like "overtraining" when it's a complete beginner who's never held a weight before and can't possibly recruit the CNS required to overtrain.

>>39344639

You must have a very unusual definition of significant then, given how the BMR of the subjects divebombed even accounting for the weight loss.

>>39344639
So what are you saying is the bottom line for the average male? Talking resting rate daily cal burn.

Also lets see if your broscience holds up in the next few weeks youre still experiencing noob losses

>>39344673
I'm not really sure but I don't believe that you have to limit yourself to anywhere near such a strict consumption of around 2k calories. You can go lower and experience no really problems and finish your cut much faster.

Many people seem to also agree with this. Your body by some sort of mechanism becomes incredibly efficient at managing nutrients it seems

>>39344320
>1300 cals
what are you, a midget skeleton?

>>39344692
just saying don't be discouraged when your weigh loss slows down this month

>>39344725
I won't. I don't have much more to cut