Total Marcos (rounded, sorry if I'm a little off):
Take ideas from my thread and join me if you want!
Thoughts, expected results, suggestions extremely appreciated! thanks for reading! (:[/QUOTE]
I would make a few changes.
I'd switch up fish for beef. Red meat is more anabolic than fish due to the fatty acid profile. Since fish is high in PUFA and low in SFA, it'll produce less testosterone than beef, which is high in SFA and extremely low in PUFA.
Protein numbers look good.
I'd flip your fat and carb macros significantly. I'd cut fats to around 40g and take those 50g of fat and add 200g of carbs in its place. You will see far better success cutting calories, especially at your level of leanness, by removing fats than carbs. Fats are the #1 enemy of fat loss because they are directly stored as fat. You can cheat fat gain with carbs by glycogen partitioning. Fat does not have this advantage.
I don't like your calories, 1600-1700 may be too low. I'd cycle those calories - have high days and low days. You'd be better off doing 3 workout days at, say, 2200 kcal, and 4 rest days at 1400 kcal. You'll come out to a net average kcal of 1740 each week, but it won't be like starving every day. Your thyroid is less likely to downregulate and drop your metabolic rate when you cycle calories than when you're constantly hungry.
That is a pretty heavy cut for a 19 year old kid. Are you SURE your kcals are that low? I'd think an 1800/2400 split would still be a deficit by you, especially if you lift or do any cardio. Severe caloric restriction with chronic fasting can screw you up really fast, especially if you try to be active while doing it. If you just cut calories heavy without weight lifting, you'll lose a lot of muscle my friend. ESPECIALLY if you try and do this keto! Yikes!
[QUOTE=not on the rug;1161383]do you really think a man would have a goal of "shredding facial fat?" that isn't exactly the manliest thing ever posted on the internet. in fact, it might be the least manly thing i've read in a while[/QUOTE]
I certainly do. Guys think they are trying to impress women, but it's the other guys they are actually competing with.
[QUOTE=eKatherine;1161490]I certainly do. Guys think they are trying to impress women, but it's the other guys they are actually competing with.[/QUOTE]
thats really sad to me
Many people totally underestimate how much fat they have. As Martin Berkhan of LeanGains has observed, most people that actually reach single digit body fat (for men) or body fat in the teens (for women) end up weight far less than they expected to. I am male, 5'10", 166lbs. I am stronger now than when I weighed 220lbs. When I weighed 220 would I have guessed that I would need to lose 64 lbs of fat to hit single digits? No way! Conversely, and I think ironically, people who are not into fitness will overestimate a very lean persons weight. At 166, I have been guessed at 180 and even higher. People are not used to seeing muscle definition, striations, and vascularity. If a guy at 150 wants to lose a little, more power to him. I've always thought it wise to lean first, then focus on gaining muscle. At least then it will be very obvious if you are gaining muscle or fat.
How has your program been going? I'm using it as a starting point for my own cutting phase.