Two Meal Muscle
First circuit breaker.
To lose fat, you have to consistently feed less energy than you need. This matters more than eating two meals per day. Eating two meals per day isn't important (until it is). More on this later.
Feeding less energy than you need is the first fat-loss circuit breaker in a long line of linked circuit breakers; if the first breaker trips, the subsequent ones don't matter. If you don't feed less energy than you need, you won't lose fat unless you're a magical wizard.
In real life, I don't meddle with math, but throwing around some numbers will make everything that follows easier to understand, especially if the energetic aspect of our existence is foreign to you.
You can get an estimate of how much energy your body needs on a daily basis using a simple equation:
BW [POUNDS] x 13-15
AVERAGE DAILY CALORIE NEED
SYMBOLIZED AS (=)
If you weigh 180 pounds and you’re mildly active, you can assume your body needs around 2340-2700 calories per day to perform essential physiological functions. This amount of calories is known as your maintenance intake, which I'll symbolize as (=). Unless you're undergoing wild hormonal fluctuations (puberty, etc…), you're safe to assume eating at maintenance will maintain your current body composition in the short term.
Calories.
The amount of energy your body needs is measured in calories. Calories are not “fattening” or “sugar.” Calories are simply a unit of measurement for heat energy, much like degrees are a unit of measurement for temperature. There are no good or bad calories, just as there are no good or bad degrees… although I’m sure many liberal arts majors would disagree.
Calorie deficit.
To lose fat, you need to eat less than maintenance. The rule of thumb is that one pound of fat “contains” 3500 calories worth of energetic material, which is to say: once you've created a 3500 calorie deficit, you'll lose one pound of fat.
Calorie deficits can be created in many different ways; there are better ways and worse ways to create a calorie deficit. The worse ways ignore the consequences of a calorie deficit.
During a calorie deficit, you're not giving your body enough energy to perform its most basic survival functions. As a result, your body has to use body fat (stored energy) to survive. This is good news for your six-pack abs. This is bad news for your body. Body fat is like a savings account. It's a reservoir of excess to be used when you have no income — a bridge between life and death — but you don't have infinite body fat. If you run out of body fat, you die. Your body doesn't want to die.
Suffice to say, a calorie deficit isn't a yellow-brick road to a singular destination. Beyond losing fat, many other things can happen when you're feeding less energy than you need. For instance, your body can break down and use muscle tissue for energy instead of body fat. Body fat isn't your only form of stored energetic material. Your body can also slow down your metabolism, which makes sense. If you lost your job and couldn't pay your bills, you'd try to lower your monthly expenses, wouldn't you?
There are a few things you can to do minimize the undesirable consequence of creating a calorie deficit. The first, and arguably most powerful thing you can do: keep your calorie deficit sane. In other words, don't starve yourself.
Conservative.
To lose fat, most people use what I refer to as a conservative calorie deficit, which I'll symbolize as (-). A conservative calorie deficit equates to eating around 500 calories below maintenance on a daily basis, which is what the following equation will calculate:
BW [POUNDS] x 10-12
CONSERVATIVE DEFICIT
SYMBOLIZED AS (-)
This hypothetically results in losing one pound of fat per week.
- Sunday: (-500)(-500)
- Monday: (-500)(-1000)
- Tuesday: (-500)(-1500)
- Wednesday: (-500)(-2000)
- Thursday: (-500)(-2500)
- Friday: (-500)(-3000)
- Saturday: (-500)(-3500)
Daily deficits.
Conservative daily deficits are commonplace and a good place to start, but you don’t need a daily deficit in order to lose fat. You can lose fat using a harsh(er) calorie deficit less often.
Say your maintenance intake is 2000 calories. Instead of eating 1500 calories every day, you eat 1000 calories three days per week and 2000 calories the other four days. You'd still lose fat over time.
- Su: 2000
- M: 1000 (-1000)
- Tu: 2000
- W: 1000 (-2000)
- Th: 2000
- F: 1000 (-3000)
- Sa: 2000
This strategy might not sit well in your stomach after my “don't starve yourself” public service announcement, but, when it comes to calorie deficits, you have to consider the macro and the micro.
When using a conservative deficit on a daily basis, the micro impact is 500 calories and the macro impact is 3500 calories across the week. When using a harsher deficit, like in the previous example, the micro impact is 1000 calories and the macro impact is 3000 calories across the week. The micro is harsher, but the macro isn't.
The second circuit breaker.
Once the calorie-deficit circuit breaker is secure, you can take a closer look at subsequent breakers, like the fact that not all calories are created equally. Calories come from the macronutrients, of which there are three: proteins, carbohydrates, and fats.
- Proteins: 4 cals / grams
- Carbs: 4 cals / grams
- Fats: 9 cals / grams
Based on the gram-per-calorie breakdown of the macronutrients, you’d be inclined to eat proteins and carbs in order to minimize energy intake in serve of fat loss; they have less than half the energy as fats.
You’re correct.
You’re also incorrect.
Overt calorie yield doesn’t tell the whole story.
For instance, the chemical soup leftover after your body digests proteins isn’t ideal energy recycling material. Your body can and will use the broken bits and bytes for energy when necessary, but, when given the choice, your body would rather use carbohydrates and/or fats for energetic purposes.
Proteins also have a higher thermic effect than both carbs and fats, which is to say: proteins require more energy to digest. In other words, fats and carbs yield more calories than proteins, even when eaten in the same (exterior) caloric quantity.
Mysterious macros.
Eating plenty of proteins will help you control your energy intake. Unfortunately, you can’t eat proteins. Macronutrients aren’t foods. There’s no such thing as “protein.” There are only foods.
Some foods contain proteins. Many of these same foods also contain “other.” Proteins may not be easily converted to body fat, but “other” probably will be. Peanut butter is a great example.
Wellness websites with pastel color schemes often list peanut butter as a good source of protein, but the overwhelming majority of peanut butter ISN’T protein. Here are the specific nutrition facts, according to Google, per one serving (two tablespoons):
Fat: 16 grams
Carbs: 6 grams
Protein: 8 grams
In order to get 100 grams of protein via peanut butter, you’d have to eat around 12 servings (two tablespoons is one serving), which would also amass 192 grams of fat and 2256 total calories.
Peanut butter contains protein, but it’s not protein-dense. In order to keep energy yield low and food intake high(er), you should stick with lean proteins.
Lean proteins.
Foods that contain mostly proteins are lean proteins.
Here are examples of lean proteins: white meat chicken breast, tuna, lean turkey (breast), buffalo, elk, mahi-mahi, pork tenderloin, venison, scallops, shrimp, 90% lean or higher beef, greek yogurt, etc…
Chubby proteins.
Foods with a decent amount of proteins alongside a decent amount of energetic material are chubby proteins.
Here are examples of non-lean proteins: pulled pork, dark meat turkey, cottage cheese, dark meat chicken, sardines, salmon, plain unsweetened yogurt, eggs…
Purgatory proteins.
Foods that contain a small number of proteins alongside a decent amount of energetic material are purgatory proteins.
Look at black beans:
- Serving: 1/2 cup
- Calories: 114
- Protein: 8 grams
- Fats: 0 grams
- Carbs: 20 grams
Look at almonds:
- Serving: 1/4 cup
- Calories: 170
- Proteins: 6g
- Fats: 15g
- Carbs: 5g
Eating these foods for proteins is rather silly from the outside looking in, although it may not be as silly as it appears on paper thanks to fiber.
Fiber.
Fiber is a type of carbohydrate your body can’t digest, which means fiber can't be used for energy-recycling purposes. There are 20 grams of carbs in 1/2 cup of black beans, but 7 of those 20 grams come from fiber. In other words, black beans only have 13 grams of “useable” carbs, which means they don't yield as many carbs (and thus, calories) as the raw numbers suggest.
Truth.
Even after accounting for fiber, black beans are still a non-lean protein.
Carbs.
Since you're (now) familiar with fiber, this shouldn't be surprising: not all carbs are equal. When you think of “carbs,” you probably think of starchy-sugary carbs.
Examples of starchy-sugary carbs: potatoes, oats, rice, grains, starches, pasta, bread, flour-based products, corn, apples, bananas, oranges, lemons, limes, kiwis, grapefruits, kumquats, berries, pears, pineapples, grapes, etc…
There’s a big difference between starchy-sugary carbs and non-starchy carbs.
Examples of non-starchy carbs: broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, cabbage, lettuce, tomatoes, peppers, celery, eggplant, onions, asparagus, sprouts, lettuce, mushrooms, spinach, zucchini…
Non-starchy carbs are complex fibrous carbs with a skewed volume-to-energy ratio.
Check this out:
- 200g raw broccoli = 68 cals.
- 200g red potatoes = 178 cals.
You can eat three times the amount of broccoli (in volume) as you can potatoes, for the same caloric yield without even factoring out fiber. Chances are, if you go H.A.M. on broccoli, you’re going to hit a substantial point of fullness (or boredom) before you’re able to amass a bunch of energy.
Most non-starchy carbohydrates follow the same trend: They have a low energy yield per their volume and they’re loaded with fiber and other beneficial nutrients. You can eat a lot of them without worrying about amassing excess energetic material.
Cheat code.
If you eat lean proteins and non-starchy carbs you will keep your energy consumption to a minimum. Sort of like how you'll automatically keep your spending on a leash if you shop at DollarTree instead of Best Buy.
This is my cheat code, for fat loss.
Here's how it fits into the bigger picture of Two Meal Muscle:
FIRST: Proteins.
First, there are proteins. Proteins aren't ideal for energy recycling, which makes them good for fat loss. They are also important for muscle growth and muscle retention.
As mentioned, muscle loss is often a consequence of a calorie deficit. It's difficult to build muscle during a calorie deficit, but if you want a chance of it happening, you need to eat plenty of proteins. The good news is that, even if you don't build muscle, eating plenty of proteins will better preserve the muscle tissue you currently have; eating plenty of proteins helps preserve muscle tissue during a chronic calorie deficit.
The old-school recommendation: eat one gram of protein for every pound you weigh. Current research says you only need 0.7-0.8 grams of protein for every pound you weigh. Whatever. I'm wasting hours of my life in the gym every week trying to build muscle. I don't care about eating a pinch more protein than what's physiologically necessary, especially considering there's no downside (unless you have a pre-existing medical condition; protein won't damage your kidneys or whatever).
I weigh 205 pounds.
I eat 205 grams of protein.
One hockey-puck-sized portion of protein-rich foods (lean proteins and chubby proteins) contains around 25 grams of protein. Since I weigh 205 pounds, I need to eat 7-10 hockey pucks every day.
Let's make this a bit more tangible:
🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩
There's my protein intake. Each hunk of meat represents around 25 grams of lean protein.
SECOND: Non-starchy carbs.
Second, there are non-starchy carbs. Non-starchy carbs are filler. They keep you full, and they keep your energy intake low. I eat as many non-starchy carbs as I want.
♾️🥦
There's my non-starchy carb intake.
THIRD: Energy.
Third, there's energy. Energy comes from fats, starchy-sugary carbs, and non-lean proteins. I'm not really concerned about where the energy comes from. I'm not anti-fat or anti-carb. For fat loss, the only thing that matters is keeping your energy under control, to the point of creating a consistent calorie deficit.
In order to symbolize this, we have to do a tiny bit of math. Again, I don't actually meddle in the math, I just think displaying this information symbolically is useful. (I could be wrong. You tell me.)
- Proteins: 4 cals / gram
- My protein intake: 205 grams
- My protein energy yield: 205×4 = 820 calories
- My conservative deficit: 205×12= 2460 calories
This makes my “leftover” energy allotment after accounting for proteins:
2460-820= 1640 calories
I have 1640 calories worth of energy I can potentially consume, but there are two caveats:
First, even though non-starchy carbs have a low energy yield, they have some energy yield. So, to make it more likely that I reach a deficit, I'm going to say my non-starchy carb intake will take up at least 1/3 of my total energy intake.
1640x.66= 1082 calories
This leaves me with around 1000 calories of “energy” I can use however I want. Let's say each of the symbols below represents 100 calories worth of energy.
⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡
This energy intake assumes I'm eating 100% lean proteins, which I may not be. This is the second caveat. Chubby proteins contain energy, so we just have to remember this:
LEAN PROTEINS = 🥩
CHUBBY PROTEINS = 🥩⚡
Chubby proteins, at their worst, contain just as much energy as they do proteins, so this symbolization is rather accurate. For every 25 grams of proteins (100 calories), you'll get around 100 calories of energy.
FOURTH: Fat loss.
Below represents the amount of food I can eat on a daily basis and still lose fat, in accordance with a conservative calorie deficit.
🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩
⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡
♾️🥦
Eating this amount of food on a daily basis matters more than anything else, even eating two meals per day. Speaking of which…