Treat obesity as physiology, not physics


(Bunny) #2

Treat it as both (physics/mathematics & physiology):

Mechanical, Thermal Dynamic (electrical) & Chemical

Muscle to adipose mass in ratios if you have a lot of adipose tissue; slightly increasing muscle which is not going to be the same as in the volume of adipose fat (if you have a lot of it) will burn fat and at the same time oxidize sugar/carbohydrates when you eat it or right after you eat it especially when you do the ketogenic diet.

Muscle volume is like the inertia of physics, the more you have, the more you increase the acceleration of oxidation along with low insulin and less accumulation of lipid droplets to replenish pre-existing adipose cells (fatty acid turnover-pool) and the creation of new ones from left over stem cells of previously oxidized fat cells which are created from excessive sugar/carbohydrates and sometimes dietary fats[1]!

Fed or fasted it does not matter, skeletal muscle volume does matter exponentially?

References:

[1] “…For regular dietary fats, once they are digested, they enter the circulation and participate in what is called ‘fatty acid turnover.’ Whether fed or fasted, the body is always releasing, burning, and storing fat. When insulin is high, storage predominates, but turnover continues. When insulin is low, release and oxidation predominate. If you eat fat along with a lot of carbohydrates, it is prone to be stored. When fat is consumed in the context of a well formulated ketogenic diet, it — along with fat released from adipose stores — is prone to be burned. But once digested and absorbed, dietary fat and stored fat enter the ‘turnover pool’ and are in a constant state of mixing. …More

Note: “prone to be burned” skeletal muscle volume?


(Bob M) #3

It’s too bad NuSI was a failure. As is CICO.


(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #4

As Taubes often points out, we know that teenagers don’t grow because they eat their parents out of house and home, they eat their parents out of house and home because they are growing. Their growth is regulated by hormones. It’s interesting that fat storage is not understood as also being hormonally regulated.


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #5

Thank you for linking that post! It has helped me understand the relationship between simultaneous carb and fat burn discussed here and subsequent comments in the same thread with @anon24390425.


#6

Could you elaborate on the skeletal muscle volume question? I just want to be sure of what you’re asking.


(Bunny) #7

I love to elaborate on questions: It is kind of like this; even on a ketogenic diet any little carbohydrate (that includes excessive dietary fat[1]) you eat and if you go over a certain individual threshold; it might be getting stored rather than oxidized in contrast to muscle volume which controls your metabolism; basal metabolic rate and resting metabolic rate or the entire metabolic homeostasis of your individual physiology. In other words when you put your body into ketosis your placing the mitochondria in your liver in such a state that is in-fact oxidizing fat however it is oxidizing more dietary fat than your own body fat in contrast to muscle volume; so increasing muscle volume is switching/tipping the balances on the scales towards more adipose tissue being burned for fuel (especially when your in a rested state) in the fatty acid turn-over pool and additionally immediate oxidation of the few carbohydrates/sugars you just recently ate, thus avoiding insulin storing it as a lipid droplet in adipose storage cells once muscle, adipose and liver glycogen storage has been in a state of being depleted and replenished.

References:

[1] 70% calories of dietary fat does not equal 70% volume

[2] Effects of glucose or fructose feeding on glycogen repletion in muscle and liver after exercise or fasting.

[3] Fundamentals of glycogen metabolism for coaches and athletes


#8

If you gain one pound of muscle, you’re looking at an increase in calories burned by about 50 kcals per day.

“They” say that a person can add one pound of muscle per week. Something to note before going further, the longer you are exposed to a stimulus, the smaller your response will be.

But, a beginner to resistance training will have about a 2 or 3 week period when they first start that is more of a neurological adaptation phase. During this time the motor system is making connections in order to recruit more and more motor units. After this they’ll notice their strength increasing and soon after they’ll see an increase in “muscle mass.” Some of this is just the muscles learning how to store glycogen and an increased amount of water. They’ll be able to put on muscle more easily than one who has been working out. Their body is adapting to exercise and the stress it is putting on the body. Somebody who has adapted to exercise is not pushed out of their body’s “normal” set level of homeostasis as easily.

Does that help any?


(Doug) #9

This! :sunglasses:


(CharleyD) #10

This is consistent in what I read in Body by Science. Whether you’re actually getting bigger or just better at recruiting more motor groups, the effect is the same metabolically, at least at first, eh?


(Bunny) #11

Some nice free college tutorials on the anatomy of skeletal muscle if folks are interested:

[1] How myosin and actin interact to produce mechanical force. Muscular system

[2] 19.4 Muscle Contraction and Locomotion


(Bob M) #12

“They” are wrong. That would be 52 pounds in one year. Although I can’t find a great citation against this, here’s one:

Men training appropriately for muscle gain can expect to put on about 1 pound per month, while those with 3 years of dedicated training will likely only be able to add about half a pound per month.

According to DEXA scans, I gained about 4 pounds of muscle…in ONE YEAR. That’s doing training to failure one day per week per body part.


#13

Everybody’s physiology is different. 18-24 year old males are creating a ton of testosterone and can put on muscle easily. In older males it is more difficult.

Muscle mass can be added under the right conditions no matter the person, that ranges from nutrition, genetics, to the correct rep, set, percentage, rep cadence, and rest intervals.


#14

This https://www.verywellfit.com/how-many-calories-does-muscle-really-burn-1231074 appears to call that figure into question. Do you have any better references you could shoot my way? :slightly_smiling_face:


#15

I probably can find some, Exercise Science classes were a long time ago.


(Doug) #16

A pound of muscle burns ~7 calories per day, versus ~2 for fat. Definitely better to have the muscle, but not a license to go out and eat 18 cheeseburgers without recompense.

And on the “how much muscle can we gain” - I’ve seen that 15 or 20 lbs. per year is pretty good, and often relegated to the first year of weight-training, i.e. after you ain’t been doin’ much of nuttin’ at all. :smile:

After that, it generally gets harder, and slower. Unless you’re like Arnold Schwarzenegger, of whom it was said, “Arnie could gain a pound by walking around the block…” :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


#17

That research said 6 or 7 kcals per day while you’re at rest. My post was wrong. That’s not many extra calories to burn in a day.

We need to look at longevity over the course of the rest of our lives. 6kcals extra burned per day over a year comes out to 2,190 extra burned. And that was just with one pound of muscle.

Acutely, it’s not statistically significant. Over the long haul, it’s worth it to add some muscle.

And pertaining to The Terminator, he was chemically assisted. If I wasn’t afraid of the repercussions I’d consider it.


(squirrel-kissing paper tamer) #18


(Robert C) #19

Following on from the “not physics” part of the title - since the body is striving for homeostasis - if it thinks it has enough fat stored - extra calories might go toward increasing body temperature. If the body instead thinks long term survival is being risked by too little fat stored, it might decrease body temperature and store incoming calories as fat. So, adding muscle might not change fat storage at all (i.e. the stressed out, under-slept person’s body might be the body that wants more survival fat - regardless of muscle).

Isn’t that pretty much why Keto works - manipulate hormones so that your body can deal with a lot more calories than your beaten down over-dieted old metabolism ever could - and manipulate hormones so that your body can get at its own stored fats - eat less frequently and let the (body) fat burning begin.


#20

No doubt :slightly_smiling_face:


#21

I’ve not gotten out of the habit of looking at CICO as independent without hormone influences. Not seeing the forest for the trees.

I’m heading to speak with a professor in Bioenergetics next week. Curious as to hear what he says about the subject.