The 90% Rule

[dillytl]

Something to think about when looking at the "90% rule" for diet compliance.....

The "rule" is that 90% is generally the lowest acceptable level of dietary adherence that you can get away with without compromising your hard work for the week. The more you fall below this 90% figure, the greater the liklihood that your progress will stall or simply be non-existent.

So on a 42 meals-per-week plan, that basically means 38 of the 42 meals have to be perfect. On a 35 meals-per-week plan, it’s about 32 meals. That seems easy enough doesn’t it? However, what about the size of these ‘off plan’ meals? What if your free meals are on the order of say 1500 calories? It’s really not that hard to do. And let’s say you have two of them a week. Well, I think it’s pretty easy to see that causing a problem even though technically on a 42 meals-per-week plan, that’d still be 95% adherence to your plan.

Instead of looking at this from a ‘meals position’, let’s look at it from a ‘calories position’. Let’s say your total weekly calories consumed is 11200 (1600 calories x 7 days). Technically, a 10% deviation (resulting in 90% adherence in terms of caloric intake - which is really what matters for progress), is only 1120 calories.

So, you’d basically have a maximum of 1120 calories to ’screw up’ with, and still remain at 90% adherence. That’s it. That might be two meals that add up to 1120 or perhaps just one bigger meal. And the lower your calories the smaller the free meals need to be. If this person who has 11200 calories per week to consume, has two 1300 calorie free meals (very easy to do), that’s 2600 calories of off-plan eating. That equates to only 76.8% adherence and that is unfortunately much too low.

When we know our weekly caloric intake, we can see what 10% deviation equates to and set that as a top limit. Again, that’s not to say that one has to take all those calories, as 95% is better than 90% and 100% is better than 95%.

[PerfectMartini]

Originally Posted by dillytl

Something to think about when looking at the "90% rule" for diet compliance.....

The "rule" is that 90% is generally the lowest acceptable level of dietary adherence that you can get away with without compromising your hard work for the week. The more you fall below this 90% figure, the greater the liklihood that your progress will stall or simply be non-existent.

So on a 42 meals-per-week plan, that basically means 38 of the 42 meals have to be perfect. On a 35 meals-per-week plan, it’s about 32 meals. That seems easy enough doesn’t it? However, what about the size of these ‘off plan’ meals? What if your free meals are on the order of say 1500 calories? It’s really not that hard to do. And let’s say you have two of them a week. Well, I think it’s pretty easy to see that causing a problem even though technically on a 42 meals-per-week plan, that’d still be 95% adherence to your plan.

Instead of looking at this from a ‘meals position’, let’s look at it from a ‘calories position’. Let’s say your total weekly calories consumed is 11200 (1600 calories x 7 days). Technically, a 10% deviation (resulting in 90% adherence in terms of caloric intake - which is really what matters for progress), is only 1120 calories.

So, you’d basically have a maximum of 1120 calories to ’screw up’ with, and still remain at 90% adherence. That’s it. That might be two meals that add up to 1120 or perhaps just one bigger meal. And the lower your calories the smaller the free meals need to be. If this person who has 11200 calories per week to consume, has two 1300 calorie free meals (very easy to do), that’s 2600 calories of off-plan eating. That equates to only 76.8% adherence and that is unfortunately much too low.

When we know our weekly caloric intake, we can see what 10% deviation equates to and set that as a top limit. Again, that’s not to say that one has to take all those calories, as 95% is better than 90% and 100% is better than 95%.

I agree 100%. Every time someone talks about a certain compliance rate I have always thought it should be calorie weighted and not meal weighted.

Eating 4 snickers as cheats instead of a healthy snack is much different than eating 4 huge plates of pasta and 4 desserts instead of 4 healthy meals. Obviously one represents far worse compliance than the other.

[Lost Dog]

Unfortunately, you are correct. A lot of people claim to stick to 90% compliance, but that 10% of meals contains enough extra calories to wipe out any progress made in the 90% good part.

For me, a 10% meals is a meal that deviates from optimum, but it's totally removed from reality. The cals might be higher, but not a thousand calories higher. They might be a couple of hundred higher.

Another 10% meal might be a dessert. If I have a cheesecake for dessert and make it one of my meals, I'm usually good. That's a lot different from having a cheesesteak, fries, two beers, and then cheesecake for dessert and counting that as one 10% meal. One must be realistic.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by dillytl

That equates to only 76.8% adherence and that is unfortunately much too low.

Why is that much too low?

If I'm eating 1600 kcals/day as a 200+ lb guy, which can happen, then that same 11200 calories yields a 9800 kcal deficit for the week. A pound of fat is ~3500 kcal.

If I veer off that as in the example, and eat 2600 calories extra, well damn....I might only drop 2 lbs this week instead of three.

In other words, this takes no account for the person's size or needs. Whoever wrote this seems to be confusing "adherence" with "calorie intake". I'd consider the calorie total to be more important than some arbitrary percentage of "adherence".

[RacerBill]

Absolutely right, Tracey.

There was some discussion of this a while back in the PN forums. Quite a few people said, "Just enjoy that 10% and don't worry about it. A cheat is a cheat."

A few of the folks struggling recounted just what they ate for those cheat meals and I don't think the "enjoy the cheat" people realized just how much one person could eat in one sitting. Eating two pints of ice cream goes WAY beyond what would normally be expected of a 10% meal. Do that four times a week, and you are unlikely to see much progress.

[Frank.S]

ive had 2 cheat meals since i got back from my trip in february. One was a subway sub and the other was a big ass sandwhich i made.

Sure, im concerned about making a certain weight class right right now, so having cheat meals would just make me worry about making weight that much more. But I think the key is, I enjoy my daily diet, I eat foods I like for most meals (sure, im sick of chicken, tuna, whey etc.. but i eat them for the sake that they are easy).

I probally could go several years without a 'cheat meal' because i enjoy my diet is what im trying to say, will I? i highly doubt it.

[dillytl]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

Why is that much too low?

If I'm eating 1600 kcals/day as a 200+ lb guy, which can happen, then that same 11200 calories yields a 9800 kcal deficit for the week. A pound of fat is ~3500 kcal.

If I veer off that as in the example, and eat 2600 calories extra, well damn....I might only drop 2 lbs this week instead of three.

In other words, this takes no account for the person's size or needs. Whoever wrote this seems to be confusing "adherence" with "calorie intake". I'd consider the calorie total to be more important than some arbitrary percentage of "adherence".

Ok - point taken. OTOH - wouldn't a 200+ lb guy on a 1600 kcal/day diet be AWFUL DAMN HUNGRY????

[cycomiko]

Bleh, I have eaten 1200 or so at 250lbs and didnt feel hungry,

ya just gotta know how to hold em

know when to fold em

know when to walk away

and know when to run

[AFI82]

Ok, maybe 1600 isn't appropriate for someone that size (not saying it couldn't happen though). But if your goal is to drop 2 lbs a week, that's 7000 cal.

If you eat 2600 over in cheat meals, you've still got over a pound of fat loss to look foward to. And that's progress.

Also, let's say my standard meal is 700 cal. I want to cheat twice a week, using your 2600 number. That's an additional 1300/meal. So that's 2 times that I could eat 2000cal in a sitting. Or I could divide it up and eat 4-1000cal meals. You need to remember to factor in what the standard meal would have been. A 2000 cal meal could be just a 1300 cal cheat.

[JoshDunn]

I too hate the adherence policy however I think people along the way have confused what was originally meant by the 10% cheat. Berardi's cheats are having carbs when you haven't exercised or a slice of apple pie after a compliant meal. Over time people have taken that to be 2 large pizza and a bottle of coke in a meal fair game.

[Defiant1]

This topic, as with about 99.99% of any fat loss topic, has too many variables to be a general guideline. Results will vary depending on how far below maintenance you are consistently eating, how much fat you need to lose, what time you eat your cheat meals in relation to working out or waking up, intensity of weekly exercise sessions, etc., etc.

Some people might be able to stick to an aggressive fat loss goal while also cheating a bit too much.