I’m confused between what you can read on calorie deficit vs. what you can read on fasting.
Let’s take a male with a TDEE of 2.000 kcals who wants to lose weight.
Scenario A:
Eats 1.000 kcals every day for a week and do some of exercises and burn 3.000 kcals a day.
Calorie deficit of 2.000. So for one week: 14.000 kcals.
According to everything I could find online, this is bad.
It’s an extreme calorie deficit, you shouldn’t eat under a certain amount, you shouldn’t have a calorie deficit above a certain amount etc….
Scenario B:
Fast for a week but do nothing.
Calorie deficit of 2.000. So for one week: 14.000 kcals.
Fasting ? Well you see praise everywhere. It’s going to boost this and that….suddenly the extreme calorie deficit is not a problem.
Why is that ?
The only difference I could find online is that everybody says that fasting for a long period must be medically controlled.
Does that mean that under the right circunstances Scenario A is perfectly acceptable for certain individuals ?
Who are these people saying that scenario B is perfectly acceptable? Eating nothing and doing no activity beats eating food and exercising?
A 2000 calorie deficit is steep any way you slice it. The scenario here that is the “healthier” of the two is the one where the person is eating food without a doubt.
The fasting rabbit hole goes deep and the people you meet down there might tell you some crazy things.
Let’s go through out the idea of losing ‘Weight’ for a start, that means you’re going to lose Body Fat, Muscle, Water, Glycogen etc. You primarily want to lose Body Fat.
Starting on too High of a Calorie Deficit doesn’t give you anywhere to go weeks down the line to create a bigger Deficit. And I should add, you’re going to lose barely any Pure Body Fat for a while.. it’s a long process.
Don’t start lowering your calorie intake first.. start exercising whilst your Calories are High or at Maintenance levels (2000-2500) these are VERY rough estimates. Your food intake is your energy, you want to create a Deficit by using your Output (Exercise) first, then as the weeks go on, monitor your weight, if no changes after 7-10 days of daily checks, then slightly lower your calories or add an additional day of exercise in.
Honestly Fasting is daft imo. There is some evidence to show its helps with Cell Autophagy etc. But if you’re wanting to lose weight/body fat actually look at who does this the most optimal.
With a big deficit it isn’t easy to go get you marcros but the bigger problem ist, that most people won’t last long on a big deficit. You may (but I don’t think so) manage a week or two but you would be able to go for month with around 500 kcal deficit… So your Net benefit is higher and afaik you loose less muscles
I personally go with a weekly deficit…
Well first off - a calorie deficit of 2000 is a very aggressive, and unsustainable way to approach weight loss.
But I’m having trouble understanding the rest of your question, are you asking if fasting somehow negates a calorie deficit? Why would you fast for a week? For what purpose?
Basically, you have to look at the average. How many calories does someone average, per day. That’s going to be what determines you weight. If your TDEE is 2000, all you’d have to do (strictly in terms of losing scale weight) is eating in a deficit. You don’t want to be in a 1000 calorie deficit, 2000 calorie deficit, just a deficit.
If that means being in a 300-400 calorie deficit, that’s perfectly fine… in fact, you’re probably a lot more likely to see longer term success with a deficit like that, versus a deficit of 1000-2000.
Neither scenario is acceptable with the casting scenario probably being much worse. Fasting is a method like any other diet which helps people achieve a calorie deficit. It is not necessary as long as the end result is the same. Start with a small deficit gradually making it bigger as necessary.
You should do a deficit of 200-400 calories a day, above this your body is going to spend less calories and won’t be an effective deficit. Sorry for any misspelled word, English is not my first language.
Who’s promoting fasting for a full week? I’ve seen people make cases for fasting for 1, 2, maybe 3ish days, but a week is extreme.
The difference between the two is fasting isn’t meant to help you lose weight. You’re trying to do some specific goal (challenge yourself, develop ketones, whatever), but that’s for a short period of time. Not eating for a week won’t kill you, but you won’t have energy to do your daily tasks, and any weight you lose short term will come back after a week or two of regular eating. It’s not meant to be sustainable, and it’s not meant to help you lose long term weight. Caloric deficits are meant to help you lose weight. They’re small deviations from the calories you need to maintain your weight. Since they’re small, you can sustain them overtime. By maintaining a caloric deficit for a while, you lose weight while still having the energy to workout (helping you lose weight), stay healthy, and live your live.
A general rule of thumb is a 500 calorie deficit. Determine your maintenance calories (TDEE, or use a calculator), a deduct 500 calories from that. Track it, and you should lose like 1lbs a week.