Burning muscle

petethedrummer

longshank wrote: »

Why do you say don't invoke the laws of thermodynamics and then link to 2 websites that invoke the laws of thermodynamics?

Both sites are dismissing the overly simplisitic use of the first law of thermodynamics to justify the calories in vs calories out argument for weightloss.

longshank

petethedrummer wrote: »

Both sites are dismissing the overly simplisitic use of the first law of thermodynamics to justify the calories in vs calories out argument for weightloss.

so the fundamental laws do apply (as I said) and it is the interpretation of how those calories are burnt that is the big question (as I said). Why do people go all fundamentalist on this topic and not willing to actually read what people are posting?

petethedrummer

kuro_man wrote: »

The first law of thermodynamics is relevant...it says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

.............in a closed system. Your body is not a closed system.

kuro_man wrote: »

If you gain weight then it must come from food. If you burn more calories through exercise and don't loose weight, then you are eating more

Kind of. It depends on the food consumed and your individual response to the food. Your body does not necessarily put each and every calorie over your BMR + energy expended in to fat storage. And you can be under the quota and still not lose weight.

kuro_man wrote: »

It is extremely easy to underestimate the calorie content of food and drink,

The calorie content of food, Basal Metabolic rate and calories burned during exercise are so wildly inaccurate that calorie counting is a cruel joke to play on people struggling to lose weight. IMO.

kuro_man wrote: »

and this is far more likely than some biology reason.

On the face of it, that logic seems correct and I would have believed it until I started reading up on it. Hormones play a huge part in weight gain/loss and where fat accumulates around the body. Men gain it predominantly around the belly. With women it tends to be below the waist. After women go through menopause and their hormone profile starts to look more like a male, the weight starts to accumulate around the belly.

Hormones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghrelin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin

If you accept that 1000kcals from Crisps, Chocolate & Cola is more fattening than 1000kcals from a Tuna Salad then you can't dismiss the hormonal and metabolic effect of different types of calories.

petethedrummer

longshank wrote: »

so the fundamental laws do apply (as I said) and it is the interpretation of how those calories are burnt that is the big question (as I said). Why do people go all fundamentalist on this topic and not willing to actually read what people are posting?

Yes they do apply when you look at a closed system but your body is not a closed system.

It can and does poop out excess fat consumed.
It quickly breaks down and absorbs refined carbohydrate and sends it to the fat (potential energy) to mainain blood glucose levels.
Over consumption of refined carbohydrate can turn off the fat burning pathways. Though they get turned on at night after a good sleep.
It expends more metabolic energy trying to get the energy out of protein than carbohydrate.
If you restrict food too much your body can go into a fat storage mode your BMR slows down and you can end up feeling cold,lethargic and driven to eat.

Again this is all about Metabolic and Hormonal effects governing energy in and out. And responses are individual.

Saying it's just calories in vs calories out is like saying to a beggar that Warren Buffet is richer than him because he has more money going in to his account than going out. It ignores all the reasons why the money is going in and not out of Buffett's bank account.

petethedrummer

longshank wrote: »

so the fundamental laws do apply (as I said)

Sure everything in the entire universe can be looked at using the laws of thermodynamics.

i_surge

petethedrummer wrote: »

Yes they do apply when you look at a closed system but your body is not a closed system.

It can and does poop out excess fat consumed.
It quickly breaks down and absorbs refined carbohydrate and sends it to the fat (potential energy) to mainain blood glucose levels.
Over consumption of refined carbohydrate can turn off the fat burning pathways. Though they get turned on at night after a good sleep.
It expends more metabolic energy trying to get the energy out of protein than carbohydrate.
If you restrict food too much your body can go into a fat storage mode your BMR slows down and you can end up feeling cold,lethargic and driven to eat.

Again this is all about Metabolic and Hormonal effects governing energy in and out. And responses are individual.

Saying it's just calories in vs calories out is like saying to a beggar that Warren Buffet is richer than him because he has more money going in to his account than going out. It ignores all the reasons why the money is going in and not out of Buffett's bank account.

Nice summary. Are there any good discussions of metabolic "signals" I can find somewhere without too much LCHF or die propaganda?

I read some stuff about the amount of certain amino acids needed to stimulate muscle growth before and found it interesting.

Budawanny

longshank wrote: »

You want to cycle long distance and have big muscles? Sounds like you and your personal trainer need to read a few books! (That's not a smart arse reply, what your asking is too much to put in a post)

have you seen James Cracknell?

petethedrummer

i_surge wrote: »

Nice summary. Are there any good discussions of metabolic "signals" I can find somewhere without too much LCHF or die propaganda?

You could try the Ben Greenfield fitness podcast. Though I don't agree with everything he says or every guest he has on. Particularly when it comes to supplements, "unipolar" magnet sleeping mats and compression socks. But he does discuss hormones, metabolic pathways, sleep and stress.

longshank

Budawanny wrote: »

have you seen James Cracknell?

Imagine what he would be like if he tried to bulk up!!!
Have you seen Chris Froome?

longshank

petethedrummer wrote: »

Saying it's just calories in vs calories out is like saying to a beggar that Warren Buffet is richer than him because he has more money going in to his account than going out. It ignores all the reasons why the money is going in and not out of Buffett's bank account.

I'd say the beggar wouldn't give a f**k about the reasons why the money is going in and not out of Buffett's account

kuro_man

petethedrummer wrote: »

.............in a closed system. Your body is not a closed system.

eh, yeah, the "open" system is the intake of energy i.e. food, so you cannot gain weight (stored energy) without it!

petethedrummer

kuro_man wrote: »

food, so you cannot gain weight (stored energy) without it!

I wouldn't argue the opposite.

It's when you start adding in the food that this energy/calorie balance model starts to fall apart.

i_surge

petethedrummer wrote: »

I wouldn't argue the opposite.

It's when you start adding in the food that this energy/calorie balance model starts to fall apart.

Not really to be fair....

A thought experiment - if you don't eat at all (zero calories), you'll waste away losing muscle, fat, bone density... the lot. Ever seen a fat famine victim?

The hormonal stuff is only important once at a relatively healthy weight and trying to improve body composition imo. Food quality or CHO/Protein/Fat ratios may help with willpower, cravings, satiety and all that stuff but that's to do with practical application of a calorie deficit not the principle itself.

Reduce calories less than expenditure over a long enough period ( Food In < BMR + Energy expenditure), balanced over say 3 months and it's impossible not to lose weight (not the same as fat loss) - do you not agree?

On a daily/weekly basis the food composition may matter more due to the hormonal effects you've mentioned but it will average out over time if a calorie deficit is maintained.

petethedrummer

i_surge wrote: »

A thought experiment - if you don't eat at all (zero calories), you'll waste away losing muscle, fat, bone density... the lot. Ever seen a fat famine victim?

Gary Taubes often cites the example of the PIMA Indians in the mid-1800s. Widespread obesity on very low calorie highly refined carbohydrate government rations.

i_surge wrote: »

The hormonal stuff is only important once at a relatively healthy weight and trying to improve body composition imo.

Why would hormones only matter around a normal weight. Would it not make more sense that someone overweight is more likely to have hormonal issues than someone at the correct weight?

i_surge wrote: »

Food quality or CHO/Protein/Fat ratios may help with willpower, cravings, satiety and all that stuff but that's to do with practical application of a calorie deficit not the principle itself.

Cravings and satiety are regulated by.......drumroll......HORMONES!

Even if it is calories in calories out, it's useless information. I could give people financial advice by saying its money in vs money out. Totally useless. If you get the food quality, macro nutrient content, sleep and stress levels right then there is no need to count calories. 1000 kCals from Coke, crisps and chocolate is more fattening than 1000 kCals from Tuna Salad. Calorie content is irrelevant.

If I wanted to blow up a building would I use 1,000,000 KCals of Dynamite or 1,000,000 kCals of Cornflakes? After all a calorie is a calorie! Surely the cornflakes would work. Energy is energy.

i_surge wrote: »

Reduce calories less than expenditure over a long enough period ( Food In < BMR + Energy expenditure), balanced over say 3 months and it's impossible not to lose weight (not the same as fat loss) - do you not agree?

Not necessarily. It may work temporarily. It may work permanently for someone who is just a little over weight. It depends on the type of food consumed. If it's low fat food, breads, fruit juices, cereals or any of that weightloss cardboard; your BMR will probably go down, which you can't help. Your inclination to expend energy will probably go down also. Mood may also suffer. High levels of endurance exercise (the type that is usually prescribed) will just make it worse.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe the body is a simplified calorie burning furnace. It's complex, full of bacteria(2Kg!), viruses, fungii, enzymes, hormones, has a powerful complex brain and an elaborate digestive system. All of which can become dis-regulated.

petethedrummer

BTW: Cals in Vs Cals out is another area where I disagree with Ben Greenfield! Still a good show though.

detones

Just back to the OP's original question (if there still around). It has been my experience that cycling does reduce your muscle mass.

I posted a thread a while back about the issue:

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056801685/1/#post81639318

I got some useful and very amusing insights. Today I have lost around 8kg (90kg to 82) since I started cycling. It's not all been fat but my gym work has also dramatically decreased . I believe maintaining or increasing muscle mass while partaking in essentially an endurance type activity is a hard task to achieve. It's not impossible but would take a huge amount of discipline, diet and effort for minimal gains. You're essentially trying to merge two disciplines that don't really coexist well together. I have found myself focusing more and more towards the cycling and compared to what I was, I feel like skinny whippet. I can be a bit of a vain fooker and miss having a "big" build but on the plus side I'm now a sh1t cyclist too ;-)

kuro_man

petethedrummer wrote: »

If you accept that 1000kcals from Crisps, Chocolate & Cola is more fattening than 1000kcals from a Tuna Salad then you can't dismiss the hormonal and metabolic effect of different types of calories.

Actually, I believe the 1000 kcals effect on weight will largely be the same - the difference in metabolic overhead is too small to be bothered about. The human body has evolved to assume food is scarce (or may be) so stores any excess calories very efficiently. This does not vary greatly between healthy individuals.

petethedrummer

kuro_man wrote: »

Actually, I believe the 1000 kcals effect on weight will largely be the same - the difference in metabolic overhead is too small to be bothered about.

Well then we'll never agree. So there's no point debating anymore

kuro_man wrote: »

The human body has evolved to assume food is scarce (or may be) so stores any excess calories very efficiently.

For a lot of human existence, glucose and fructose were not available all year round. Only late in summer when you would need to fatten up to get through a winter. Maybe from beehives, if you were brave enough. And the fruits were very different to the farmed varieties we eat now. Sure they can't even give monkeys bananas any more because they are so sugary. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monkeys-banned-from-eating-bananas-at-devon-zoo-9058856.html

Wheat has only been available widespread since the beginning of farming 10,000 years ago. I think it only arrive in Ireland 1000 years ago(open to correction). This dwarf wheat stuff we eat so much of was only developed in the 1950's. The GI load is as high as sugar. Higher depending on how it has been processed.

I'll never see weight as symptom of general over consumption. More a specific over consumption of refined carbohydrate. It appears to me to be protection mechanism against types of foods which humans are not adapted to consume in the current high volumes and a distortion of normal hormonal/metabolic regulation.

kuro_man

Weight gain is caused by a increase in calorie intake...the reasons why we consume more calories may be complicated and related to food contents/hormones but, at the end of the day, you can't gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn.

petethedrummer

kuro_man wrote: »

Weight gain is caused by a increase in calorie intake...the reasons why we consume more calories may be complicated and related to food contents/hormones but, at the end of the day, you can't gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn.

I don't agree. damnits i wrote a long response but my browser crashed.

Brian?

Check this thread out:

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057176277/1

Large man who does Ironmen(or is it Ironmans?). This is very relevant to the OP.

He actually looks like he eats Ironmen.

i_surge

petethedrummer wrote: »

I don't agree. damnits i wrote a long response but my browser crashed.

Let's apply a big enough difference to very easily account for thermogenic/hormone effects of one type of food vs. another and inaccuracies of calorie counting (which is not the point...)

Are you saying if someone eats 2000kcal less than they need per day on average for 3 months that they won't lose weight even if all they eat is pop tarts?

i_surge

petethedrummer wrote: »

I'll never see weight as symptom of general over consumption.

Two identical twins:

Twin A eats a typical western diet and is a healthy weight.

Twin B eats the exact same meals but double the portion size.

Who weighs more?

Redmond101

i_surge wrote: »

Two identical twins:

Twin A eats a typical western diet and is a healthy weight.

Twin B eats the exact same meals but double the portion size.

Who weighs more?

The heavier one.....sorry couldnt resist

longshank

petethedrummer wrote: »

Gary Taubes often cites the example of the PIMA Indians in the mid-1800s. Widespread obesity on very low calorie highly refined carbohydrate government rations.

Well there we have it the PIMA Indians in the mid-1800s are proof we have all been looking for, you can't argue with science like that...as they say in Dragons Den 'I'm out'.

DaithiMC

kuro_man wrote: »

Weight gain is caused by a increase in calorie intake...the reasons why we consume more calories may be complicated and related to food contents/hormones but, at the end of the day, you can't gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn.

I think you have two different thoughts going on there that should be pulled apart. Take extreme examples, so for instance, if you eat a completely lean, sugar free protein meal with 1000 calories three times a day for a week, will your weight increase to the same extent (or at all) if you ate a diet of 1000 calories composed of sugar? That's the first point, i.e., it is the quality of the calories that matter with weight gain.

The second point is that you are correct, you can't gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn, if you eat fewer calories than you burn, no matter what the food composition is, you are likely not to put on weight, but not guaranteed, the body is very efficient as a self-correcting mechanism.

One last point - using calories as a comparison always causes a rathole to form in any debate. Calories are defined as energy units and they used to be measured by burning substances in a very controlled environment and measuring an associated temperature rise - your body does not burn calories in the same way for each of the foods you eat, some it cannot burn, so it excretes them. The modern system does take into account the differences in food groups but this alone illustrates that the food industry recognises the difference between calories from fats, proteins, and carbohydrates.

duffyshuffle

i_surge wrote: »

Let's apply a big enough difference to very easily account for thermogenic/hormone effects of one type of food vs. another and inaccuracies of calorie counting (which is not the point...)

Are you saying if someone eats 2000kcal less than they need per day on average for 3 months that they won't lose weight even if all they eat is pop tarts?

I don't think that's relevant to what he is saying. If someone eats pop tarts and 2,000kcals less than 'needed' they will be massively unhealthy and lacking energy.

Kcals in kcals out just doesn't hold up. Weight is effected by lots of things, glycogen stores, water, salt, eating less will lower in weight in general, but judging by most weight watcher style failed attendees it doesn't seem sustainable, and lowering kcals might lower weight, but low weight doesn't equal high health.
If twin A ate 2,000kcals from pop tarts and coke
Twin B ate 2,000kcals from salmon and brussell sprouts
After a month who will look and feel and function better? Who will have more muscle/better body comp? Will a leaner body weigh more or less than a soft higher body fat body? Kcals only contribute to that, no one is saying they've no influence on weight, but eating unprocessed food is likely to lead to better satiety and less likelihood of over eating IMO

I think what other posters are suggesting, and it's also what I think, is that if people focused on what they were eating rather than how much they were eating, then calories would largely cease to be relevant.

i_surge

duffyshuffle wrote: »

I don't think that's relevant to what he is saying. If someone eats pop tarts and 2,000kcals less than 'needed' they will be massively unhealthy and lacking energy.

Kcals in kcals out just doesn't hold up. Weight is effected by lots of things, glycogen stores, water, salt, eating less will lower in weight in general, but judging by most weight watcher style failed attendees it doesn't seem sustainable, and lowering kcals might lower weight, but low weight doesn't equal high health.
If twin A ate 2,000kcals from pop tarts and coke
Twin B ate 2,000kcals from salmon and brussell sprouts
After a month who will look and feel and function better? Who will have more muscle/better body comp? Will a leaner body weigh more or less than a soft higher body fat body? Kcals only contribute to that, no one is saying they've no influence on weight, but eating unprocessed food is likely to lead to better satiety and less likelihood of over eating IMO

I think what other posters are suggesting, and it's also what I think, is that if people focused on what they were eating rather than how much they were eating, then calories would largely cease to be relevant.

I agree 1 million percent, food quality is very very important for good health, performance and body composition and if you eat well you don't crave sh*te.

That's not the argument though... anyone who thinks calories in vs. calories out as a principle doesn't hold true is just plain wrong!

duffyshuffle

i_surge wrote: »

I agree 1 million percent, food quality is very very important for good health, performance and body composition and if you eat well you don't crave sh*te.

That's not the argument though... anyone who thinks calories in vs. calories out as a principle doesn't hold true is just plain wrong!

Calorie in calorie out principle for what though? Just the number on a scale?
Different exercise will have different responses also to metabolism, high intensity training and resistance training will make your body 'burn' more calories post training.
When you eat will effect what your body does with the food. Do you think Eating 1,000kcals of carbs for breakfast, then training at 6pm or training at 6pm then eating 1,000kcals of carbs post training will have the exact same response on that person?

If twin A eats 3,000 kcals, protein and veg and fruit, and does '500kcals' of resistance training
And twin B eats 3,000kcals of pop tarts and curly wurlys and does '500kcals' of easy cycling...
Do you think they will weigh the exact same weight a month later?

i_surge

duffyshuffle wrote: »

Calorie in calorie out principle for what though? Just the number on a scale?
Different exercise will have different responses also to metabolism, high intensity training and resistance training will make your body 'burn' more calories post training.
When you eat will effect what your body does with the food. Do you think Eating 1,000kcals of carbs for breakfast, then training at 6pm or training at 6pm then eating 1,000kcals of carbs post training will have the exact same response on that person?

If twin A eats 3,000 kcals, protein and veg and fruit, and does '500kcals' of resistance training
And twin B eats 3,000kcals of pop tarts and curly wurlys and does '500kcals' of easy cycling...
Do you think they will weigh the exact same weight a month later?

I agree with everything you're saying.

For the sake of correctness though we can't have quacks disputing simple thermodynamics for a few blog hits. If you eat too much food every day you'll get fatter - no matter what that food is. FACT.