General fat loss question . . . need advice

[Karen411]

This is a little rambly, but I need some thoughts and help here on what to do next. Here's the background for those of you who haven't read my log:

I've been doing OPT and am in week 11. I've lost 8 pounds (5 this month) and proven yet again that the battle is won (and lost ) in the kitchen, not with activity and workouts. I am close to reaching my fat loss goals--although I'm not set on a certain weight, I'm at 130.6 right now and I honestly don't think I could maintain anything less than somewhere in the mid-120s. I'm not set on a scale weight, though, as I'd rather have lean muscle mass at 130 than be skinny at 120, just as an example.

Anyway, the question is whether it would be better for me (as in better for reaching my goals) to go with another round of OPT, or would it be better to start a strength training program (such as Power Training), less harsh deficit, and lighter cardio? I'd like to do a little more strength training for my open challenge goals (squats, DLs, and chin-ups), but I still have a little wiggle room left for that, so I could let go of that for a little while. Basically, I don't want to run into a conflicting goals issue, but I don't want to be doing fat loss forever either. Thus the confusion.

I realize that this is maybe not a one-answer-fits-all question, but I'd love some thoughts and opinions because I've been over and over this and haven't come up with a definite plan yet. I need some help .

[Lost Dog]

In the spirit of getting it done quickly, I'd take the break, then go back on OPT. At least from the diet perspective, you've had a lot of success with OPT.

As to maintaining at 120 vs 130. That's about a 150 calorie a day difference at maintanence. It's not huge.

That being said, after you've met your fat loss goal, going for strength, adding some muscle, and adding more physical activity will allow you to eat a bit more during that period.

You can add muscle, then lose fat in short cycles, but I think it's more satisfying when you start adding at an already acceptable (to you) leanness level.

[Karen411]

Thanks, Lost Dog. From a logical standpoint that does make sense. I've probably been overthinking and rethinking it too much. I didn't do the math on maintenance of 120 vs. 130, though, so that was really helpful.

[LaraT]

Originally Posted by Lost Dog

As to maintaining at 120 vs 130. That's about a 150 calorie a day difference at maintanence. It's not huge.

Not necessarily, for me the difference in maintaining at 120 vs 130 is more like 300-400 cals/day. Formulas are just guesstimates.

[Lost Dog]

Originally Posted by LaraT

Not necessarily, for me the difference in maintaining at 120 vs 130 is more like 300-400 cals/day. Formulas are just guesstimates.

Then something else is going on because the math does not support that. The guestimate is mostly about guessing your activity and NEAT levels, not how much your body weight and composition play into the figures.

Maybe you're ultra super mega lean at 120 and your body is fighting things, which subconsciously has you slowing down activity to conserve energy.

There can be hormonal changes at über low body fat levels that can slow things down. Depression? That would slow me down.

Maybe you took a long, long time to get to 120, which also lowered metabolic things a bit?

Still the physical changes should not be double or triple the "normal" amount. I still think that the calories below my estimate of 100-150 less are caused by you not burning those calories in your activity anymore.

[LaraT]

Originally Posted by Lost Dog

Then something else is going on because the math does not support that. The guestimate is mostly about guessing your activity and NEAT levels, not how much your body weight and composition play into the figures.

Maybe you're ultra super mega lean at 120 and your body is fighting things, which subconsciously has you slowing down activity to conserve energy.

There can be hormonal changes at über low body fat levels that can slow things down. Depression? That would slow me down.

Maybe you took a long, long time to get to 120, which also lowered metabolic things a bit?

Still the physical changes should not be double or triple the "normal" amount. I still think that the calories below my estimate of 100-150 less are caused by you not burning those calories in your activity anymore.

My NEAT and activity levels are pretty constant. In thinking back, that calorie range is more the difference of maintaining 115 vs 130. I can maintain 115 on 1500 calories. I can maintain 130 on 2000. I am short, 115 is not uber low for my frame and build. True, there could have been some lowered metabolism (plus I have thyroid issues) but I can honestly say that activity levels being that is the range of calories it takes for me to maintain the weights. I have been tracking for ages (weighing everything etc) so have a good sense of true intake.