LBM retention on diet induced caloric deficit vs exercise caloric deficit

[omaniphil]

I didn't see any discussion about this earlier, but I didn't look that hard, so apologies if this has already been hashed out.

Assuming all other factors are similar, total LBM, programming, macro-breakdown, age, etc, is there any difference in lean body mass retention when in a caloric deficit that is primarily achieved via dieting, vs one that is achieved via exercise?

Assume you have a Basal Metabolic Rate = 2600 calories/day. Good macro breakdown, with high protein, low fat, medium carbs

Scenario #1: You try to lose weight by dropping calories to 2200cal/day.
Scenario #2: You try to lose weight by increasing calories to 2700cal/day, but introduce cardio exercise roughly equivalent to 500 calories for a similar overall caloric deficit to scenario #1.

Forget the specific numbers (unless there's nuance there I'm not seeing) - I'm just curious about whether you can expect to retain more LBM in a caloric deficit if you are achieving the overall deficit via changing the output instead of the input. Ie. can you trick your body into being more anabolic by feeding it more, even if the overall caloric balance is in a deficit because you are doing a lot of light cardio (e.g., walking).

Any thoughts on this?

[soulsidejourney]

I think the difference (if any at all) is too small to be reliably and consistently measured in order for someone to claim either is better.
I hope I'm wrong though.

Also, it's very hard to keep things equal. Similar to when eg. calories from protein to calories from carbs on a diet are compared. (In general) more protein = moe muscle retention and then things aren't held constant anymore. Maybe short term. But then differences are too small to be measured. And I derailed it. Sorry.

[SeanHerbison]

I'm just curious about whether you can expect to retain more LBM in a caloric deficit if you are achieving the overall deficit via changing the output instead of the input.

So far as I've seen, and so far as I've understood from listening to guys like 3DMJ (Helms et al.), there's not much of a difference.

[FredM]

1. Get enough protein
2. Get enough sleep
3. Resistance train

Everything else is a rounding error according to everything I've listened to/read that's informed by data/studies. And given too much cardio has well documented negative effects on strength training, I'd guess if anything, the pure deficit group is going to perform slightly better -- although again, I doubt the difference could even be measured.

EDIT: assuming both groups have a decent cardiovascular base to start. The cardio might actually help strength outcomes, and therefore potentially LBM retention, if the individual is significantly "undertrained" there.

[quikky]

I don't think creating a ~3,500 cal/week deficit via extra exercise is a good idea if you are not used to that level of conditioning work. One of the important aspects of the cut is to be able to train consistently and productively through its duration. Burning that much a week would be roughly a 220lb dude jogging a 5k every day. Hard to imagine that wouldn't cause issues with fatigue and maybe even some mild catabolic effects.

I view extra exercise as an additional tool for helping create a bigger caloric deficit. So, maybe go for a 2,000-2,500 cal/week deficit a week + 2-3x a week of conditioning to get an extra ~1,000 cals.

Nuckols and Trexler talked about this in a recent podcast. Can't seem to find which one exactly.

[omaniphil]

Thanks all, I think your thoughts confirmed what I suspected - I just had no basis for that determination before hand.

[Cellist]

... issues with fatigue and maybe even some mild catabolic effects.

...and appetite

[BenM]

OK, so it's observational, but I remember listening to a podcast a little while ago (I think it was Revive Stronger.. one sec, will look... yes... I _think_ it was episode 152 with Andrew Chappell)

He went through a bunch of data that they'd collected on competitive bodybuilders in the UK, and comparing between those who placed higher in the competitions (I think it was top 5 placegetters, but don't quote me) versus those who placed lower. The competitors who placed higher tended to report, on average, that they dieted on higher calories, and they used more cardio as a tool to increase energy output than those who placed lower. This tends to suggest that they came to the stage either better conditioned or carrying more LBM (or both).

See also - G-Flux - https://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-about-g-flux

Make of that what you will, but I definitely think there is a small positive difference between dieting on as little calories as possible versus dieting on higher calories and increasing energy output.

[FredM]

Make of that what you will, but I definitely think there is a small positive difference between dieting on as little calories as possible versus dieting on higher calories and increasing energy output.

Ehhh, huge jump in logic there.

1. Guessing sample size is pretty small
2. Body builders are typically >200 lb men who need to eat about 1400 calories/day before a meet

Even if proven scientifically true, the results probably don't apply to normal natties for a variety of reasons. Weird shit starts happening when you try to get that lean -- shit that doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a competitive body builder on drugs.

[BenM]

Make of that what you will, but I definitely think there is a small positive difference between dieting on as little calories as possible versus dieting on higher calories and increasing energy output.

Ehhh, huge jump in logic there.

1. Guessing sample size is pretty small
2. Body builders are typically >200 lb men who need to eat about 1400 calories/day before a meet

Even if proven scientifically true, the results probably don't apply to normal natties for a variety of reasons. Weird shit starts happening when you try to get that lean -- shit that doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a competitive body builder on drugs.

They were natties. Some more info - https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... reparation

Like I said, it's observational and yeah the sample size is small but I don't see why it would automatically not apply to others....

[platypus]

The competitors who placed higher tended to report, on average, that they dieted on higher calories, and they used more cardio as a tool to increase energy output than those who placed lower.

This pretty much checks out based on the bodybuilders I know. Prepping for a contest means continuing to eat staggering amounts of chicken breast, broccoli, and brown rice, while doing hours of treadmill walking every day. It works well for them, although I'm too lazy for such an approach.

[FredM]

Make of that what you will, but I definitely think there is a small positive difference between dieting on as little calories as possible versus dieting on higher calories and increasing energy output.

Ehhh, huge jump in logic there.

1. Guessing sample size is pretty small
2. Body builders are typically >200 lb men who need to eat about 1400 calories/day before a meet

Even if proven scientifically true, the results probably don't apply to normal natties for a variety of reasons. Weird shit starts happening when you try to get that lean -- shit that doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a competitive body builder on drugs.

They were natties. Some more info - https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... reparation

Like I said, it's observational and yeah the sample size is small but I don't see why it would automatically not apply to others....

My point about low bf% still stands though.

The point is kind of moot though -- I'm not trying to argue against cardio. I think there are obvious benefits regardless of whether it helps retain LBM in a caloric deficit.

E.g., eating really low calories makes it pretty hard to get your micronutrients, and there are plenty of people who think (I'm one of them) that your body can't really absorb the ones in supplements. So personally, if I were competing in bodybuilding, I'd be doing cardio so I could eat more anyway.

[izzynarvaez]

At low enough caloric intakes, sufficient/optimal micro intake becomes an actual issue. Adding cardio can prevent this by giving a bit more room to eat the variety/quantity necessary to still hit all your micros. Of course, for whatever weird reason, most people in the strength community completely dismiss micronutrient intake or minimize it to “just eat some fruit/veg” but I digress. IMO, as long as micro intake remains sufficient, additional work is just adding additional fatigue debt. This is really only a concern for someone pushing calories really low and/or someone who has a shit diet that puts no consider towards micros (a surprisingly huge % of strength athletes fall into this category).

[OrderInChaos]

Is there a primer or TL;DR on micro optimality you'd recommend? Finding non-Woo recs is a bit tough, unless you're just talking standard RDA/RDI numbers? Do you think strength folks have additional and unique needs beyond those values due to the nature of their training, or strict dieting, or just that they neglect to even meet those thresholds and that matters more in severe deficits?

[izzynarvaez]

They neglect to even hit RDA minimums in my experience. I’d recommend simply logging a few days of your diet into Cronometer (it is free). I don’t think there is enough data to actually pinpoint optimal amounts of each micro for strength athletes at this point. However, unlike with pills, it is almost impossible to overdo your micros when they’re coming from real food. In the case of sodium/potassium, I feel a little more confident suggesting higher amounts especially if you eat a carb heavy diet. It takes a certain amount of potassium to store carbs as glycogen (~17mg per g off the top of my head) and you can obviously fuck your hydrogen up if you have WAY more sodium than potassium. If you’re not eating a good amount of potatoes or spinach, and you add salt to all your food, you might be under doing potassium. I could say more but that’s a good start. Can’t really argue with tracking your micros just to make sure you’re hitting the RDA minimums.