Calling all /fit/izens who actually know their shit

Don't call me an asshole, fucking asshole.

No way to know how much muscle you will lose. Just eat a shit ton of protein and lift at least 3 times a week (like you already are). If you've been at a calorie deficit/haven't lifted in a while, I doubt you have significant muscle to lose.
Steroids are another option, if you've been bulking but gained a little fat during bulking. I've been on steroids (medicinal) for a while, and I can easily maintain muscle when cutting. But that's cause my steroids

>>40474564
if you are working out Im pretty sure 95% of it will be fat

>>40474631
where do you get your roids from

>>40474564
I wouldn't start at 2000cals. Eat at maintenance(assuming you didn't do cardio before) you'll lose weight, then slowly drop 100-150 cals as your fat loss stalls. If you take it slow you shouldn't lose any muscle until you get in the low teen bf%

>>40474564
POST A PHOTO YOU DUMB FUCK
HOW DO WE KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY MUSCLE AT ALL
WHY DO PEOPLE ASK "how do I acheive X" WITHOUT SHOWING THEIR STARTING POINT
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Ummmm brap

>>40474631
Trying not to fuck with gear until I've somewhat made it but I appreciate the response.
>>40474685
Well my priority is losing fat and I'm not concerned with losing muscle. The only reason I'm asking what the ratio might be is so I have an estimate of how much weight (as opposed to fat) I have to lose to be 12%. I wanna just have a number to strive towards. Kinda dumb but if I have a goal weight it makes the goal more tangible and makes it easier to keep going.

>>40474719
I don't know why I'm replying since you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Regardless, I gave enough info to determine how much muscle I have.
>24% bf
>76% lbm
>76% of 200 lbs is 152 lbs
>152 lbm
But math is hard, I guess

>>40474564
Well, it would be incredibly hard to tell how much LBM you would lose, as hormones, genetics, and dietary structure would all play a role in that. I just read up on a study recently that compared an intake of 2.3g/kg compared with 1.0 g/kg (control; you seem to be closest to 1.8 g/kg which is often standard in strength athletes). The study showed that there was a significant decrease in LBM loss at 2.3g/kg. So you could increase protein intake. I am not particularly a fan of the study, as I wish they incorporated a comparison at 1.8 g/kg, as well, yet there is always opportunity for a repeat study in the future. The problem at 2.3 g/kg is urea levels and fatigue factors were higher as well, most likely due to a lack of glycogen stores? I would increase protein slightly, and fiber intake if you have not already.

>>40474762
What

>>40474564
3 pounds of fat per pound of muscle is pretty average. If you do better than that count yourself lucky. If it's less, you're gonna have to work hard af.

>>40474822
The most you can improve on your genetic ratio without roids is about 20%

>>40474564
You don't have enough muscle to worry about losing muscle. You're incredibly fat and you don't weigh much. Just lose the weight and do light lifting

>>40474822
Yeah I was reading up on it earlier too and the consensus seemed to be 0.8g/lb so I'm just sticking with that. Thanks for your help.
>>40474835
The other answer I've run across is every 3 pounds you lose, one will be muscle. So I'm guessing somewhere between 25-33% of weight loss will be muscle which seems like a decent estimate

>>40474889
See:
>>40474741
I'm not trying to not lose muscle. Just want a somewhat solid number to work towards

>>40474564
Use DNP, it has a fat loss to muscle ratio of about 9:1 iirc and average is around 3:1 without it

>>40474957
Just googled that shit. Doesn't sound good.

>>40474916
It's in that range and it will vary as you go down in weight and how you're doing in your training and of course your genetics.

You probably need to shoot for 150 and work hard, measure along the way and see if you can beat it.

I personally just get my protein, do a maintenance mode routine and wait until I can eat again before going aggro on the weights.

didn't read a word of your post but hot damn who is that OP

>>40474564
FUCK

BRAP BRAP BRAP BRAP BRAP BRAP BRAP BRAP IN MY FACE PLS

>>40475231
I don't know, but I want her soft lucious ass grinding on my dick now

>>40475157
Yeah I've been doing more research while this thread has been going and I think I'm going to have to go down to 155 or so, hit ~10% then just bulk/cut back and forth between 10% and 15%
>>40475231
>>40475247
>>40475277
I have no idea. I think I found this pic on /fit/ a while back

File: Delet yourself.gif (663KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 480x360px

>>40474762
No that anon is right. Post your own fucking body instead of some brap so we can know whether you're full of shit or not.

>inb4 you don't

Zag3d

>>40474564
Who cares how much you lose, 24% is way to high, I'd just cut bro, over thinking it just causes parlysis

If you are cutting just eating lots of protein will not offset your metabolism switching to katabolism. Try HMB, it was designed for hospitalised patients in order to minimise the muscle loss. Also do not forget about fiber and clocking in 8h of sleep. Tripod: exercise, food, sleep.

File: go on....gif (759KB, 285x171px) Image search: [Google]

759KB, 285x171px

>>40474564

>>40475382
1) My camera sucks dick and I don't feel like taking a picture right now
2) Anyone who would be able to answer this question fully would know enough about nutrition and biology to not need to see a picture of my dough boy ass to help me out
3)I claimed to be 200 lbs and 24% bf. Why in the fuck would I lie about those stats?

>>40475406
Nah I'm definitely cutting and not really worried about how much muscle I lose. Just want a decent estimate of how much weight I'll have to lose (not just fat) in order to hit a good bf%. It's less about me trying to mitigate the damage to my lbm and more about me having a real number to strive towards weight wise instead of some abstract 10-12% bf. Having a goal weight will probably help keep me more motivated as opposed to a goal bf% if that makes sense

>>40474564
Thick assed latinas who look like they're up for a deep dicking. My fave

Let me give you the simplest bullet proof fucking calorie counting on the earth. It's made by Lyle McDonald so you know that shit is legit.

To find your basic TDEE take your weight in pounds and multiply it by 14-16. Smaller or people with slower metabolisms like women should go by 14 people with higher metabolisms and men should go with 16.
Then multiply that number by 10-20%.
That's how many calories you can easily drop and lose weight at a good pace.

To get your RMR multiply your weight by 8-11.

Here's a link to the page if you don't really understand or like my explanation.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-to-estimate-maintenance-caloric-intake.html/

>>40474564
BRAAAP MY DEAR THAT IS IT A NUGGET SNIFF BRAPP OH MY GOODNES

File: 35.gif (796B, 18x18px) Image search: [Google]

796B, 18x18px

>>40475523
>Excuses: The Post

>>40475382
>>40475603
Sage goes in all fields, faggot

http://vocaroo.com/i/s0gPUXkB1QM2

OP, I don't understand why don't you record how many calories you consume on a daily basis, and then gauge what works best to get the numbers to drop?

Eat, write down how many calories/macros you've eaten that day, go to sleep, wake up, and measure how much you weigh after you've evacuated yesterdays food. Once you've done that, you can log it and see if you've dropped weight during the week. If you didn't, then just eat less until your average weight drops.

File: jk6DCdd.jpg (58KB, 650x842px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 650x842px

>>40474564

TFW NO THICC GF

fuuuuuck

File: Fitlectured.png (1MB, 858x1210px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 858x1210px

>>40474564
I'd suggest around 2300 calories, Do intermittent fasting it utilizes that excess fat you have as energy when you are not eating. IF also promotes more growth hormone and testosterone will come along with it.
If you want to further increase fat burning leave carbs to a small amount <50g a day and increase the fat amount to make up for the calories.
So your macros could be like
2300 calories
25% protein
65-80 % Fats
5-10% carbs

This is the best way to burn fat, your body will basically turn your fat into glycogen via ketones and give your muscles and brain energy from your fat. /fit/ is agaisnt keto because they are like sheep following others. Still havent found any reason not to do keto.

File: bully.png (1MB, 815x904px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 815x904px

>>40474762
are you retarded?

>>40477178
You don't "turn fat into glycogen via ketones", you form ketone bodies from fat via ketogenesis and use these as fuel instead of glycogen. But keep saying random shit and calling other people sheep, smart guy.

>>40477200
You are retarded, Brain NEEDS glycogen to survive we would die in 3 days without eating carbs if that was the case but it isnt, our bodies start to convert fat into glycogen after sugar has ran out from liver. Maybe i said it from that it was the ketones to turn fat into glycogen when its the certain fat burning enzymes like lipades. I just wanted to put it simple.

>>40474661
He said he's got medical. Prob trt

>>40474978
You have a brain. Congrats.
Not only is it a dangerous way to lose weight, but DNP fatloss is reversed once you're done with the cycle.