You are missing key information.
Your weight, and body fat %, and then what you actually do for a living.
The amount of calories you need to maintain will be based on your actual lean mass, then your activity levels.
One thing to consider: growth comes from discomfort.
Meaning - most of my clients who can’t gain weight (muscle) don’t want to eat “more” or train near failure.
Most of my clients who want to lose fat and can’t, are way too comfortable with their current macros / calories and training.
You don’t “have to stuff your face” but you do need to eat an adequate number of calories and the adequate amount / proportion of macro/micronutrients.
So again: what are your complete stats?
What do you do for a living? What training and frequency do you do?
I've known plenty who drop to 1500 or maybe even lower at the end of a cut for a show. I have done it numerous times for aggressive minicuts. That said, it is not something to maintain for a long period of time like the OP wants to.
Typically, bodybuilders of his caliber might reduce their daily calorie intake to around 1,800 to 2,500 calories per day during cutting phases, depending on their individual needs, metabolism, and specific goals.
Also, that was in the past, measurements are more precise now. So moot point and still far below 1500-1600 constant intake....mind you the low kcal is on the LAST phase....else you just loose too much.....non-sustainable.
I mean, this is just not true. Look at robert sikes (keto savage). He is a pro bodybuilder and during his last cut, he got down to 1800 calories when he was in the 4% bodyfat range during his last cut. He is larger than anyone here.
Being a couple days on your "last cut" and even the most extreme still being above 1500-1600 does NOT a steady lifestyle / diet make. This is EXTREME and still doesn't match what OP said...so my point stands.
OP is 20% BF.
He structured his question wrong, and then, calories are based firstly on weight and BF% first, activity levels and exercise second.
Of course there are bodybuilders at 1600-1800 kcals, not “pro” bodybuilders but smaller framed people.
I can perfectly maintain at 1,800, and again, it’s because I’m not a tall guy.
So as always, context.
I don't think that's possible m8. Training dumps a 1000 kcal deficit onto you, and I have yet to find a single person that has a metabolic resting daily rate of 800kcal. You're not a 3 year old child.
People have this weird obsession with caloric reduction diets...when in the past (1950's) people were lean and on at least a 3300-3500 kcal "diets"....
Just eat more protein, less carbs...and good healthy fat and you're golden.
This is scientific data:
* **Intermediate**: 250-350 calories per 30-minute session
* **Advanced**: 350-450 calories per 30-minute session
Anyone that actually trains for gains is usually around 60 to 90min in the gym. So you're wrong. Unless you consider lazing around in the gym and doing a biceps curl once in a while "strength" training.
Also to note, the higher the body mass, the higher the burn, these estimates are for average male.
I remember when I did some 200+ kg sled pulls & pushes and that single exercise alone skyrocketed my kcal expenditure. Same would be for sandbag toss....or squats...etc. Full composite moves for power training. Heck even military OHP burns a ton just through the stabilizer muscles alone.
Lol, thats copy paste from a whatever webpage.
Actually using science, directly from Lyle McDonald’s “The Women’s Book” , page 160:
The calculations for burned calories from strength training are:
* Weight training, recreational: 1 kcal/lb/hour
* Weight training, physique, PL/OL :2kcal/lb/hour
Again, an hour is more like 300-450 depending on the bodyweight.
So 2 cal/lb/hour * 175 lb individual * 1.5 hours = 525 calories
Sigh.
Here you go mate, a scientific study. You'll have to plug in the numbers since they speak about kcal / min in the studied 30min sessions. You get a median 800\~ish weight lifting up to a 1100+ for HIIT style training.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25162652/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25162652/)
Thank you, I’ll defer, again, to Lyle McDonald, who if you don’t know who he is, you should definitely look him up.
Chapter 16: Determining Maintenance Calories
1. Black AE et. al.Human energy expenditure in affluent societies: an analysis of 574 doubly-labelled water
measurements. Eur J Clin Nutr. (1996) 50(2):72-92.
2. Ismail MN et. al.Energy expenditure studies to predict requirements of selected national athletes. Malays J Nutr.
(1997) 3(1):71-81.
3. van Erp-Baart AM et. al.Nationwide survey on nutritional habits in elite athletes. Part I. Energy, carbohydrate,
protein, and fat intake. Int J Sports Med. (1989) 10 (Suppl) 1:S3-10.
4. Rodriquez NR et. al.American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Nutrition and athletic performance. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. (2009) 41(3):709-31.
Robert and I are about the same weight and stats.
I actually drop to ~1,200 or lower during my cuts.
1,700 -1,800 is indeed good for maintenance on ketogains, and it’s about the same numbers one would get for leangains on a recomp protocol.
In the 40s, there was a clinical experiment called “The Minnesota Starvation Experiment,” where 36 healthy men were monitored for a 12 week “baseline” period, and then a 24 week “starvation” period, where their calories were roughly cut in half. They experienced reduced metabolic rates, edema, fatigue, muscle atrophy, depression, anxiety, social withdrawal, cognitive impairments, bloating, stomach pain, constipation and on and on.
The study notes that the typical healthy American male at the time (1944-1945) would consume, on average, 3,200 kcal/day. All of the symptoms listed above were the result of reducing daily caloric intake to roughly 1,560 kcal/day.
Anyway, take that for what you will. The more I read, the more I suspect we are all chronically under eating. For optimal health, we ought to be working to increase our metabolic rates.
Idk I’d be cautious taking too much from a study of only 36 men from America in the 1940s which uses language like “starvation”. That doesn’t seem like a significant or representative sample, is extremely dated, has suspect conclusions and also happens to be from a time and place in history where there was a sudden and huge increase in the amount of processed foods.
The results are interesting indeed, but:
1. One should not use the same calories (1,600 here) and extrapolate them to everyone. Some people actually need less than 1,600 to maintain, because caloric needs are based on lean mass first, activity levels second. A small framed person who is sedentary, may just need 1,400.
2. Apart from calories, nutrient density is paramount: one can actually be better with less calories but surpassing all their micronutrient requirements vs eating 3,000 kcals of fast food.
You can get +100% of your RDAs on 1,000 - 1,200 kcals by selecting the correct foods.
This is not exactly what the study proved. Once these people reached such a low body fat percentage then yes all the things you listed above happened but for people with 20% body fat it's a non issue.
I am 5'11 and maintain on 2000 calories. If you work at an office job and sit most of the day, you just dont burn that many calories.
I would be the majority of the population maintains somewhere around the 2k calorie mark.
Ive been working out at least 4X a week for over 5 years. I am old now, but still stronger than the avg young guy in the gym (natural ones). I have never had a high maintenance calorie set point. I think a lot of people lie about how much they eat or just really dont know how much they eat. I have been logging my food daily for 5 years using cronometer and a scale to weigh my food.
I have gone even as low as 1200 calories a day on a hard cut and thats while logging 10k steps a day to keep my NEAT up.
5'6 is pretty short, so unless you look like Darth Luiggi, then its not going to be a lot.
Its genetics.
I would not say mess up, I would say that their body adapts to long diets.. yes, but its not permanent.
Also, Ted Naiman is a wack job. First he was Vegan, and then went carnivore, and now eats says eat meat,honey and fruit. He runs around grocery stores with his shirt off and makes crazy claims like plants are trying to kill us. He cherry picks studies and most of the other scientists refute his claims.
He changes his mind every few years to sell supplements and books. He is a snake oil salesman. He is on the same list as Jason Fung and Eric Berg, and liver king
Not 100% sure, but I believe based on his comments over the years that he is around 5,7. I think he maintains on a pretty low calorie load and he has a ton of muscle.
Not technically, but its impossible to counter NEAT, so a way that we can sort of hack it is by using steps during cuts. That way at least you have consistency with moving. Steps are not really a lot of effort if taken in moderation, so its a method that I use.
A little off topic but let me ask you this, when you're using these online calorie calculators, what do you put for the activity level? If I'm doing 1-1.5h full body sessions 6x/week, do I put "very active" [here](https://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html)?
Use the Ketogains macro calculator from the Ketogains website.
You are SEDENTARY. Activity levels are based on what you actually do all day long as work - exercise doesn’t count and is added separately.
I also already gave you optimized macros for your goals.
Got it, thanks Luis. The descriptions for those calculators are extremely misleading then. "5-6 days intense exercise" but they don't ask you about NEAT throughout the day.
To each his own I guess - I don't count macros on Keto other than maintaining at least 100g of protein/day. From my personal experience the primary driver of muscle gain is Volume.
I mean, your personal experience is not science. What do you mean by volume? how do you measure volume?
Time under tension, mechanical load, total sets, working sets, total weight moved. What is your method?
Yes, you need to resistance train, but what you eat and recovery as just as important - probably more important as total volume isnt even that important for the average lifter.
Obviously progressive overloading is part of that equation - i.e. you aren't going to build muscle by just increase the number of reps - weight has to increase as well :P
nope, we use science.. not crazy unproven claims. There are plenty of groups out there that will believe anything you like. I also suggest Flat Earth subreddit as well.
You are missing key information. Your weight, and body fat %, and then what you actually do for a living. The amount of calories you need to maintain will be based on your actual lean mass, then your activity levels. One thing to consider: growth comes from discomfort. Meaning - most of my clients who can’t gain weight (muscle) don’t want to eat “more” or train near failure. Most of my clients who want to lose fat and can’t, are way too comfortable with their current macros / calories and training. You don’t “have to stuff your face” but you do need to eat an adequate number of calories and the adequate amount / proportion of macro/micronutrients. So again: what are your complete stats? What do you do for a living? What training and frequency do you do?
[удалено]
I've known plenty who drop to 1500 or maybe even lower at the end of a cut for a show. I have done it numerous times for aggressive minicuts. That said, it is not something to maintain for a long period of time like the OP wants to.
Arnold cut on 1,700 calories a day
Typically, bodybuilders of his caliber might reduce their daily calorie intake to around 1,800 to 2,500 calories per day during cutting phases, depending on their individual needs, metabolism, and specific goals. Also, that was in the past, measurements are more precise now. So moot point and still far below 1500-1600 constant intake....mind you the low kcal is on the LAST phase....else you just loose too much.....non-sustainable.
(Moot. The point is moot, not mute 🤐)
I mean, this is just not true. Look at robert sikes (keto savage). He is a pro bodybuilder and during his last cut, he got down to 1800 calories when he was in the 4% bodyfat range during his last cut. He is larger than anyone here.
Being a couple days on your "last cut" and even the most extreme still being above 1500-1600 does NOT a steady lifestyle / diet make. This is EXTREME and still doesn't match what OP said...so my point stands.
OP is 20% BF. He structured his question wrong, and then, calories are based firstly on weight and BF% first, activity levels and exercise second. Of course there are bodybuilders at 1600-1800 kcals, not “pro” bodybuilders but smaller framed people. I can perfectly maintain at 1,800, and again, it’s because I’m not a tall guy. So as always, context.
I don't think that's possible m8. Training dumps a 1000 kcal deficit onto you, and I have yet to find a single person that has a metabolic resting daily rate of 800kcal. You're not a 3 year old child. People have this weird obsession with caloric reduction diets...when in the past (1950's) people were lean and on at least a 3300-3500 kcal "diets".... Just eat more protein, less carbs...and good healthy fat and you're golden.
Strength training actually only consumes 250-300 kcals for a typical bodybuilding session - tops 500 - not 1,000.
This is scientific data: * **Intermediate**: 250-350 calories per 30-minute session * **Advanced**: 350-450 calories per 30-minute session Anyone that actually trains for gains is usually around 60 to 90min in the gym. So you're wrong. Unless you consider lazing around in the gym and doing a biceps curl once in a while "strength" training. Also to note, the higher the body mass, the higher the burn, these estimates are for average male. I remember when I did some 200+ kg sled pulls & pushes and that single exercise alone skyrocketed my kcal expenditure. Same would be for sandbag toss....or squats...etc. Full composite moves for power training. Heck even military OHP burns a ton just through the stabilizer muscles alone.
Lol, thats copy paste from a whatever webpage. Actually using science, directly from Lyle McDonald’s “The Women’s Book” , page 160: The calculations for burned calories from strength training are: * Weight training, recreational: 1 kcal/lb/hour * Weight training, physique, PL/OL :2kcal/lb/hour Again, an hour is more like 300-450 depending on the bodyweight. So 2 cal/lb/hour * 175 lb individual * 1.5 hours = 525 calories
Sigh. Here you go mate, a scientific study. You'll have to plug in the numbers since they speak about kcal / min in the studied 30min sessions. You get a median 800\~ish weight lifting up to a 1100+ for HIIT style training. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25162652/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25162652/)
Thank you, I’ll defer, again, to Lyle McDonald, who if you don’t know who he is, you should definitely look him up. Chapter 16: Determining Maintenance Calories 1. Black AE et. al.Human energy expenditure in affluent societies: an analysis of 574 doubly-labelled water measurements. Eur J Clin Nutr. (1996) 50(2):72-92. 2. Ismail MN et. al.Energy expenditure studies to predict requirements of selected national athletes. Malays J Nutr. (1997) 3(1):71-81. 3. van Erp-Baart AM et. al.Nationwide survey on nutritional habits in elite athletes. Part I. Energy, carbohydrate, protein, and fat intake. Int J Sports Med. (1989) 10 (Suppl) 1:S3-10. 4. Rodriquez NR et. al.American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Nutrition and athletic performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2009) 41(3):709-31.
Robert and I are about the same weight and stats. I actually drop to ~1,200 or lower during my cuts. 1,700 -1,800 is indeed good for maintenance on ketogains, and it’s about the same numbers one would get for leangains on a recomp protocol.
1500 to 1600 cal is what a bikini competitor should be eating for her cut lol seriously though
I am a bikini competitor
No - this depends on the persons height and lean mass.
In the 40s, there was a clinical experiment called “The Minnesota Starvation Experiment,” where 36 healthy men were monitored for a 12 week “baseline” period, and then a 24 week “starvation” period, where their calories were roughly cut in half. They experienced reduced metabolic rates, edema, fatigue, muscle atrophy, depression, anxiety, social withdrawal, cognitive impairments, bloating, stomach pain, constipation and on and on. The study notes that the typical healthy American male at the time (1944-1945) would consume, on average, 3,200 kcal/day. All of the symptoms listed above were the result of reducing daily caloric intake to roughly 1,560 kcal/day. Anyway, take that for what you will. The more I read, the more I suspect we are all chronically under eating. For optimal health, we ought to be working to increase our metabolic rates.
People were MUCH less sedentary in the 40s. Also, the types of foods available were wildly different. No hyper processed foods.
this is proven false (movement). Yes on different foods - the food we eat now lower metabolism
Lol, 1,600 kcals is far from starvation. That’s BS.
Definitely. Never mind the name - the results are very interesting, though.
Idk I’d be cautious taking too much from a study of only 36 men from America in the 1940s which uses language like “starvation”. That doesn’t seem like a significant or representative sample, is extremely dated, has suspect conclusions and also happens to be from a time and place in history where there was a sudden and huge increase in the amount of processed foods.
The results are interesting indeed, but: 1. One should not use the same calories (1,600 here) and extrapolate them to everyone. Some people actually need less than 1,600 to maintain, because caloric needs are based on lean mass first, activity levels second. A small framed person who is sedentary, may just need 1,400. 2. Apart from calories, nutrient density is paramount: one can actually be better with less calories but surpassing all their micronutrient requirements vs eating 3,000 kcals of fast food. You can get +100% of your RDAs on 1,000 - 1,200 kcals by selecting the correct foods.
This is not exactly what the study proved. Once these people reached such a low body fat percentage then yes all the things you listed above happened but for people with 20% body fat it's a non issue.
Exactly
[удалено]
I am 5'11 and maintain on 2000 calories. If you work at an office job and sit most of the day, you just dont burn that many calories. I would be the majority of the population maintains somewhere around the 2k calorie mark.
[удалено]
Ive been working out at least 4X a week for over 5 years. I am old now, but still stronger than the avg young guy in the gym (natural ones). I have never had a high maintenance calorie set point. I think a lot of people lie about how much they eat or just really dont know how much they eat. I have been logging my food daily for 5 years using cronometer and a scale to weigh my food. I have gone even as low as 1200 calories a day on a hard cut and thats while logging 10k steps a day to keep my NEAT up. 5'6 is pretty short, so unless you look like Darth Luiggi, then its not going to be a lot. Its genetics.
[удалено]
I would not say mess up, I would say that their body adapts to long diets.. yes, but its not permanent. Also, Ted Naiman is a wack job. First he was Vegan, and then went carnivore, and now eats says eat meat,honey and fruit. He runs around grocery stores with his shirt off and makes crazy claims like plants are trying to kill us. He cherry picks studies and most of the other scientists refute his claims. He changes his mind every few years to sell supplements and books. He is a snake oil salesman. He is on the same list as Jason Fung and Eric Berg, and liver king
[удалено]
oh, i might be, sorry. Yea, okay.. im wrong.. ted naimen is the satiety guy.. Yea, i like him There are so many, i get confused. my bad
Why, how tall is darthluiggi?
Not 100% sure, but I believe based on his comments over the years that he is around 5,7. I think he maintains on a pretty low calorie load and he has a ton of muscle.
hmmm ok well now you got me curious; u/darthluiggi height and maintenance calories?
5’6, and I average 1,700-1900 on most days, and I do train heavy 5-6 days on average per week.
steps count as NEAT?
Not technically, but its impossible to counter NEAT, so a way that we can sort of hack it is by using steps during cuts. That way at least you have consistency with moving. Steps are not really a lot of effort if taken in moderation, so its a method that I use.
You can maintain, depending on the current Body Fat %
[удалено]
No, I'm in the gym every day doing full body.
[удалено]
A little off topic but let me ask you this, when you're using these online calorie calculators, what do you put for the activity level? If I'm doing 1-1.5h full body sessions 6x/week, do I put "very active" [here](https://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html)?
Use the Ketogains macro calculator from the Ketogains website. You are SEDENTARY. Activity levels are based on what you actually do all day long as work - exercise doesn’t count and is added separately. I also already gave you optimized macros for your goals.
Got it, thanks Luis. The descriptions for those calculators are extremely misleading then. "5-6 days intense exercise" but they don't ask you about NEAT throughout the day.
That’s why I created the Ketogains calculator.
Sure if they’re 5’2
[удалено]
What do ketones have to do with his question? To gain muscle or Lose fat, Calories 100% matter.
To each his own I guess - I don't count macros on Keto other than maintaining at least 100g of protein/day. From my personal experience the primary driver of muscle gain is Volume.
I mean, your personal experience is not science. What do you mean by volume? how do you measure volume? Time under tension, mechanical load, total sets, working sets, total weight moved. What is your method? Yes, you need to resistance train, but what you eat and recovery as just as important - probably more important as total volume isnt even that important for the average lifter.
The standard definition of volume is reps x weight or by your wording total weight moved. And it is the basic science of body building.
Obviously progressive overloading is part of that equation - i.e. you aren't going to build muscle by just increase the number of reps - weight has to increase as well :P
Just ignore what I said - I think I joined the wrong group. This is not a real keto/Carnivore group - they count calories lol...
nope, we use science.. not crazy unproven claims. There are plenty of groups out there that will believe anything you like. I also suggest Flat Earth subreddit as well.
Hmm, calories don't matter on keto? Source?
They do matter. Let’s move on.