Re: Possible to lose fat and gain muscle simultaneously?

[Guest guest]

Thanks to those of you who commented on my post. I have a particular

interest in this topic because I believe so many people are duped by the

exaggerated claims for fat loss and muscle gain put out for this or that

product. I would love to see widely published, scientifically valid

guidelines that help people form realistic expectations about what can be

accomplished with a well-designed program of exercise and nutrition over a

set of baseline time intervals.

I did find a study in which overweight police officers, placed on a

hypocaloric, high protein diet, along with a program of resistance training,

did lose fat and gain muscle mass. My guess is that these police officers

had not been working out regularly; so their bodies probably responded to

resistance training by increasing muscle mass at a faster rate than would be

the case for someone who was years (or decades) into training. Also, I

noted that they were given 1.5g/kg/day of protein (casein for one group and

whey for another), equivalent to 3.3 g/pound bodyweight. That's a lot more

protein than I have ever seen recommended and more than the body can use

according to some studies. Moreover, 3.3 g of protein/pound bodyweight/day

would imply 2,442 calories/day just in protein for a 185 pound individual.

It is hard to see how that reconciles with a hypocaloric diet (80% of

predicted needs). At any rate, if anyone is interested, here's a link to

the abstract:

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract & ArtikelNr=\

12817 & Ausgabe=224619 & ProduktNr=223977#AC

Pitruzzello, Ph.D.

Chicago, IL

> It's possible, but difficult. People new to weight training can layer

> on muscle pretty quickly, but otherwise, in order to lose weight you

> need to be hypocaloric. Balancing weight loss with the right

> macronutrients at the right time is really tricky.

>

> I think most people have better luck cycling weight loss and

> mass-building over periods of months. Although perhaps it could be

> done in shorter cycles as well.

>

> Lyle Mc has some good writings on this subject at

> http://www.bodyrecompositioning.com

>

> Tony Kenck

> [Mod: Please don't forget to sign your posts with your full name, country

> and city of residence - many thanks]

>

>

> >

> > Hi Everyone,

> >

> > I'm hoping I may elicit comments on the following notion:

> >

> > To build strength and mass, we need an effective exercise program

> supported

> > by an effective nutritional program. An effective total

> program—exercise

> > and nutrition combined—can be " effective " to varying degrees.

> >

> > § Effective: The program generates more muscle than fat; i.e.,

> > muscle mass increases in relation to fat. Put another way, percent

> body fat

> > decreases.

> >

> > § More Effective: The program generates more muscle without any

> > increase in fat.

> >

> > § Most Effective: The program generates more muscle while

> > simultaneously decreasing fat. This implies the greatest decrease in

> > percent body fat.

> >

> > In the real world, I think it is very rare that anyone succeeds in

> > simultaneously building leaning muscle mass while losing fat. Yet,

> it seems

> > that, at least in theory, it would be possible to develop a " most

> effective "

> > program for any given person. Do you think?

> >

> >

> > --

> > J. Pitruzzello, Ph.D.

> > Chicago, Illinois

> >

>

>

>

--

J. Pitruzzello, Ph.D.

Chicago, Illinois

[Guest guest]

Correction on your calculations : 1.5 g/Kg = 1.5g/2.2lbs = 0.7g/1 lb

for 184 lbs-= 128 grams of protein-

One question concerning the study you cited. How did they measure fat mass and

muscle mass before and after to determine the amount of fat lost and amount of

muscle gained?

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

>

> > It's possible, but difficult. People new to

> weight training can layer

> > on muscle pretty quickly, but otherwise, in order to

> lose weight you

> > need to be hypocaloric. Balancing weight loss with the

> right

> > macronutrients at the right time is really tricky.

> >

> > I think most people have better luck cycling weight

> loss and

> > mass-building over periods of months. Although perhaps

> it could be

> > done in shorter cycles as well.

> >

> > Lyle Mc has some good writings on this subject

> at

> > http://www.bodyrecompositioning.com

> >

> > Tony Kenck

> > [Mod: Please don't forget to sign your posts with

> your full name, country

> > and city of residence - many thanks]

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Hi Everyone,

> > >

> > > I'm hoping I may elicit comments on the

> following notion:

> > >

> > > To build strength and mass, we need an effective

> exercise program

> > supported

> > > by an effective nutritional program. An effective

> total

> > program—exercise

> > > and nutrition combined—can be

> " effective " to varying degrees.

> > >

> > > § Effective: The program generates more muscle

> than fat; i.e.,

> > > muscle mass increases in relation to fat. Put

> another way, percent

> > body fat

> > > decreases.

> > >

> > > § More Effective: The program generates more

> muscle without any

> > > increase in fat.

> > >

> > > § Most Effective: The program generates more

> muscle while

> > > simultaneously decreasing fat. This implies the

> greatest decrease in

> > > percent body fat.

> > >

> > > In the real world, I think it is very rare that

> anyone succeeds in

> > > simultaneously building leaning muscle mass while

> losing fat. Yet,

> > it seems

> > > that, at least in theory, it would be possible to

> develop a " most

> > effective "

> > > program for any given person. Do you think?

> > >

> > >

> > > --

> > > J. Pitruzzello, Ph.D.

> > > Chicago, Illinois

[Guest guest]

Hey Steve,

I used to be pretty much where you were. I weighed 240 in my mid and

late 40s. My triglycerides were through the roof, high blood pressure,

occasional gout. I suspect I was on the road to diabetes.

Now about one year after changing my diet I am at 200 and making a run

down to 190. I had lifted weights for some years however.

I suspect that your problem, like many of us is not exercise per se,

but that your body chemistry may be messed up (insulin resistance).

Building muscle will speed up our metabolism some. Weight lifting and

intervals are good exercise, but if you feel hungry all the time

because of insulin resistance, you may still have the same issues.

Taubes in Good Calories, Bad Calories cites many studies that show

that exercise is ineffective for weight reduction. (It can help change

your body composition however.)

Because you are a novice weightlifter, you should be able to slab on

some beef, but you will still need to work on reducing the body fat.

Since you're an engineer, and probably care about how these things

work, I will direct you to a few interesting places.

Taubes Lecture at Berkeley

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216

Lyle Mc's website. He is knows what he is talking about on this

topic, but has a coarse personal style.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com

Emotions for Engineers blog. Several posts on nutrition and exercise.

http://www.emotionsforengineers.com/2008/07/healthful-eating.html

http://www.emotionsforengineers.com/2008/08/emotions-for-engineers-guest-blog-on\

..html

Cutting out sweets and soft drinks is a good start, consider cutting

out grain products too. As far as the zone goes, I think it's ok, but

you may want something a little more carb restricted.

I would guess that metabolism is not your core problem. more like an

inability to use your fat for fuel. Water isn't bad, but it will have

little impact on metabolism.

If you want to really dig into the science, check out some of Lyle's

writings. They're really good.

Cheers,

Tony Kenck

[Mod: Please don't forget to sign your posts with your full name, city and

country of residence - many thanks]

>

> Dr. Pituzzello (and others);

>

> I'm new to the group, having just signed up to learn more about the

> science of weightloss. I'm an engineer with a woefully inadequate

> knowledge of all things medical and biological. I read these

> articles with great personal interest. My background is that I used

> to lift weights in my teens and 20's, but my results were poor

> because my metabolism was too fast for meaningful muscle growth.

> Didn't help that I rode 100 miles a week on a bicycle.

>

> Now I'm in my early 40s, 6'-0 " and overweight (250 lbs)..and after a

> long sedentary period, I'm doing something about it. I absolutely

> hate running, so I've initiated interval training on a bicycle and

> weight lifting. I've also increased my water intake dramatically.

> Other than " obvious " modifications to my diet, which include cutting

> out softdrinks and sweets, I don't plan on changing my diet at all.

> I do try to drink two glasses of water before my last daily meal.

>

> What I'm trying to accomplish is to increase my metabolism by

> increasing my muscle mass. I don't have much time to devote to

> exercise, so my idea is that if I can boost my metabolism, I'll be

> burning more calories when I'm not exercising. My logic is that

> muscle mass burns more calories than fat does.

>

> I read a long time ago that body builders would purposefully gain

> weight (fat) so that they could convert it to muscle. I don't know

> if this is a standard practice or wives tail, but it would be nice to

> maintain my strength and still lose 50 pounds.

>

> With all that background, here are some follow-up questions for

> anyone interested to provide input:

>

> 1. If I weigh 250 pounds and do weight lifting and interval training

> (which I view as a form of weightlifting), will the increase in my

> metabolism cause me to lose weight, or will I replace the fat mass

> with muscle mass and essentially maintain the weight? Or will I lose

> weight only to a point and then begin to gain? Anyone have personal

> experience with this?

>

> 2. The abstract posted used casein protein hydrolysate with

> satisfactory results. Can you recommend some relatively low-fat

> natural protein sources? What about 2% milk?

>

> 3. I don't know how you (or anyone here) feels about " the Zone "

> diet, which tries to balance carbs and proteins to eliminate storage

> of excess of either in the form of fat. But it seems like losing

> body fat and gaining muscle would require a diet similar to the Zone

> for the weight loss component, but additional protein for bulding the

> muscle mass...sort of like " Zone plus protein " ?

>

> 4. Is there validity to getting a metabolic boost from additional

> water intake? From a layman's perspective, it seems like all the

> water is doing is diluting the nutrition and limiting digestion

> by " speeding it through " . Does that sound right?

>

> 5. Do you know of any other safe ways to boost metabolic rate?

>

> 6. Lastly, was there ever a follow-up study with these policemen?

> My belief is that unless you build muscle mass while dieting, a

> caloric restrictions alone would eat away at fat and muscle. Is

> muscle better able to " withstand starvation " than fat in a sedentary

> person?

>

> Again, I'm trying to wrap my brain around the processes involved.

> Any answers to even one of the questions would be helpful.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Reecy

> Tallahassee, Florida

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Steve,

>

> I think it is possible for " a beginner " to loose fat and gain

muscle

> at the same time. However, you won't be able to keep this up for

long.

> I was overweight once (some would say I still am) and like you I

was

> afraid of losing muscle. Looking back, I think that held me back.

> The thing is: nutrients go into your muscle cells and into your

fat

> cells. How much goes where? Well, that depends on what you eat

when

> but also how much fat you have. In short, if you have more fat,

more

> nutrients will end up in the fat cells.

> That makes it easier to build muscle when your fat% is low.

>

> I think loosing fat should be your first priority. If you keep

> training hard, you'll be able to limit the loss of muscle

>

> Regards,

> Johan Bastiaansen

> Hasselt, Belgium

>

Johan,

Thanks for the reply. I especially liked the concept that if you

have little fat on your body, then nutrients can't store there very

well. Had not thought of it that way.

I've been trying to stick to a diet that has more protein than I

normally eat, and far less sweets. Other than that, its a " normal "

diet with no serious restrictions. I've been doing bicycle interval

training on odd days and upper body strength training on even days.

After 2 weeks, I've lost 5 lbs, which I estimate is about 10% of the

weight I need to lose to bring me back from overweight. So I kind

of answered my own question somewhat.

One thing is for certain, after being so sedentary for so long, I'm

feeling great. More energy, and my strength and stamina are

building faster than I thought. I know that I'll start to plateau

soon, but I'm happy I've found a " palatable " program that works. I

think I'll chart the progress so I can try to predict the outcome.

Thanks,

Steve

Reecy

Tallahassee, Florida, USA

[Guest guest]

Tony,

Great and detailed info! I'll spend some time reading it. You're

right...drives me crazy not knowing how things work.

Your thoughts on insulin are interesting. I have to wonder if some

of my problem was insulin rebound from drinking lots of cola and

just being overweight in general. Since I've started this exercise

program and began avoiding the heavy sweets (Cola, Candy), I'm

honestly not as hungry, or craving them as much.

I'll have to try to find articles on appetite suppression. I have

been on a " carb jag " which is a vicious cycle where you are hungry,

so you eat carbs, which makes your insulin go bonkers, so you get

hungry again and eat more carbs. I've learned that if I'm hungry at

night, I try to eat something with a lot of protein, but mostly its

just been 2% milk...which seems to help.

I do have a disproportionate amount of bellyfat, which I understand

is linked to insulin, which is part of my inspiration to lose

weight. Don't want diabetes. I hate needles!

Steve

Reecy

Tallahassee, Florida, USA

> >

> > Dr. Pituzzello (and others);

> >

> > I'm new to the group, having just signed up to learn more about

the

> > science of weightloss. I'm an engineer with a woefully

inadequate

> > knowledge of all things medical and biological. I read these

> > articles with great personal interest. My background is that I

used

> > to lift weights in my teens and 20's, but my results were poor

> > because my metabolism was too fast for meaningful muscle growth.

> > Didn't help that I rode 100 miles a week on a bicycle.

> >

> > Now I'm in my early 40s, 6'-0 " and overweight (250 lbs)..and

after a

> > long sedentary period, I'm doing something about it. I

absolutely

> > hate running, so I've initiated interval training on a bicycle

and

> > weight lifting. I've also increased my water intake

dramatically.

> > Other than " obvious " modifications to my diet, which include

cutting

> > out softdrinks and sweets, I don't plan on changing my diet at

all.

> > I do try to drink two glasses of water before my last daily meal.

> >

> > What I'm trying to accomplish is to increase my metabolism by

> > increasing my muscle mass. I don't have much time to devote to

> > exercise, so my idea is that if I can boost my metabolism, I'll

be

> > burning more calories when I'm not exercising. My logic is that

> > muscle mass burns more calories than fat does.

> >

> > I read a long time ago that body builders would purposefully gain

> > weight (fat) so that they could convert it to muscle. I don't

know

> > if this is a standard practice or wives tail, but it would be

nice to

> > maintain my strength and still lose 50 pounds.

> >

> > With all that background, here are some follow-up questions for

> > anyone interested to provide input:

> >

> > 1. If I weigh 250 pounds and do weight lifting and interval

training

> > (which I view as a form of weightlifting), will the increase in

my

> > metabolism cause me to lose weight, or will I replace the fat

mass

> > with muscle mass and essentially maintain the weight? Or will I

lose

> > weight only to a point and then begin to gain? Anyone have

personal

> > experience with this?

> >

> > 2. The abstract posted used casein protein hydrolysate with

> > satisfactory results. Can you recommend some relatively low-fat

> > natural protein sources? What about 2% milk?

> >

> > 3. I don't know how you (or anyone here) feels about " the Zone "

> > diet, which tries to balance carbs and proteins to eliminate

storage

> > of excess of either in the form of fat. But it seems like losing

> > body fat and gaining muscle would require a diet similar to the

Zone

> > for the weight loss component, but additional protein for

bulding the

> > muscle mass...sort of like " Zone plus protein " ?

> >

> > 4. Is there validity to getting a metabolic boost from

additional

> > water intake? From a layman's perspective, it seems like all the

> > water is doing is diluting the nutrition and limiting digestion

> > by " speeding it through " . Does that sound right?

> >

> > 5. Do you know of any other safe ways to boost metabolic rate?

> >

> > 6. Lastly, was there ever a follow-up study with these

policemen?

> > My belief is that unless you build muscle mass while dieting, a

> > caloric restrictions alone would eat away at fat and muscle. Is

> > muscle better able to " withstand starvation " than fat in a

sedentary

> > person?

> >

> > Again, I'm trying to wrap my brain around the processes involved.

> > Any answers to even one of the questions would be helpful.

> >

> > Thanks,

> >

> > Reecy

> > Tallahassee, Florida

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dan,

My advise was to make fat loss a priority, because skinny people

build muscle faster. I didn't get into the mechanism behind it,

neither did I cite any studies to back my claim, mainly because Steve

identified himself as with " woefully inadequate knowledge of all

things medical and biological. "

Does that make my statement a myth?

I never claimed the number of adipocytes (that's fatcells Steve)

would rise when you get fatter of would decrease when you lean out.

Recent studies have shown that fat is not just some inert mass, it's

active.

Anyway, I do have some studies that back the claim of skinny people

building muscle faster AND fat people breaking down muscle faster.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8498490

Effects of exercise and weight loss on leucine turnover in different

types of obesity.Kanaley JA, Haymond MW, Jensen MD.

Endocrine Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905.

These studies were performed to determine whether protein turnover

during exercise and after weight loss is influenced by obesity and

body fat distribution. Leucine carbon flux was measured before,

during, and after 2.5 h of bicycle exercise in 10 upper body obese, 9

lower body obese, and 6 nonobese, age-matched, premenopausal women.

The obese women then followed an energy-restricted diet for 16 wk,

resulting in approximately 8 kg weight loss. Baseline leucine carbon

flux was greater (P < 0.01) in obese women than in nonobese women but

decreased in a similar fashion in response to exercise in all groups.

There were no differences between upper body and lower body obese

women during exercise. After weight loss, baseline leucine carbon

flux decreased (P < 0.05) similarly in both groups of obese women and

was further suppressed by exercise. Thus obesity phenotype has no

specific effect on either baseline protein turnover or the

antiproteolytic response to moderate intensity exercise or weight

loss. We conclude that the previously observed defect in insulin

suppression of leucine flux in upper body obese women appears related

to insulin resistance and does not represent an inherent abnormality

of protein metabolism.

Leucine carbon flux is a measure for the breakdown of muscle.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1984343

Protein metabolism in obesity: effects of body fat distribution and

hyperinsulinemia on leucine turnover.Jensen MD, Haymond MW.

Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905.

To examine whether moderate obesity and differences in body fat

distribution are associated with abnormalities of protein metabolism,

leucine turnover was measured in three groups of age-matched

premenopausal women. Ten upper-body-obese (UB Ob), 10 lower-body-

obese (LB Ob), and 10 nonobese (Non Ob) women were studied in an

overnight postabsorptive condition (basal) and again during an

infusion of low physiologic amounts of insulin (insulin clamp).

Results showed that basal leucine carbon flux was greater (P less

than 0.05) in UB Ob and LB Ob women than in Non Ob women (2.96 +/-

0.08 vs 3.14 +/- 0.16 vs 2.68 +/- 0.08 mumol.kg lean body mass-1.min-

1, respectively; mean +/- SEM). Leucine carbon flux was not

suppressed during the insulin-clamp study in UB Ob women but was in

the LB Ob and Non Ob women. We conclude that moderate obesity is

associated with increased proteolysis and that insulin's

antiproteolytic actions are impaired in upper-body obesity. These

findings could have implications for future studies of and treatment

of obesity.

And it's just sound medical advice to make fatloss a priority.

Regards,

Johan Bastiaansen

Hasselt, Belgium

>

> The number of adipcoytes is constant with large variation of

bodyfat, because the main mechanicsm of fat storage is hypertrophy.

Those cells can get several times bigger (up to 4-5 times) while

storing fat.

>

> Hyperplasia may exist in cases when storage of fat capacity within a

> single cell is exceed. I dont think its significant in 'normal'

cases.

> You want less adipocytes ? Get surgery.

>

> Please ppl, stop posting myths and your own popular interpretations

on

> physiology and metabolic regulation on this list.

>

> Dan Partelly

> Oradea, Romania

>

>

> > >

> > > Steve,

> > >

> In short, if you have more fat, more nutrients will end up in the

fat

> cells.

> > > That makes it easier to build muscle when your fat% is low.

> > >

> > > I think loosing fat should be your first priority. If you keep

> > > training hard, you'll be able to limit the loss of muscle

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Johan Bastiaansen

> > > Hasselt, Belgium

> > >

> > Johan,

[Guest guest]

>>In short, if you have more fat, more nutrients will end up in the

>> fat cells.

Yes, this is a myth.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

> >

> > The number of adipcoytes is constant with large variation of

> bodyfat, because the main mechanicsm of fat storage is hypertrophy.

> Those cells can get several times bigger (up to 4-5 times) while

> storing fat.

> >

> > Hyperplasia may exist in cases when storage of fat capacity within a

> > single cell is exceed. I dont think its significant in 'normal'

> cases.

> > You want less adipocytes ? Get surgery.

> >

> > Please ppl, stop posting myths and your own popular interpretations

> on

> > physiology and metabolic regulation on this list.

> >

> > Dan Partelly

> > Oradea, Romania

> >

> >

> > > >

> > > > Steve,

> > > >

> > In short, if you have more fat, more nutrients will end up in the

> fat

> > cells.

> > > > That makes it easier to build muscle when your fat% is low.

> > > >

> > > > I think loosing fat should be your first priority. If you keep

> > > > training hard, you'll be able to limit the loss of muscle

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Johan Bastiaansen

> > > > Hasselt, Belgium

> > > >

> > > Johan,

>

[Guest guest]

Dan,

You're wrong.

Had you bothered to read the study, you would have understood that

people with less fat build muscle more easily. Or you could turn it

around and say that people with more fat, have a harder time building

muscle.

It looks like the nutrients aren't as easily absorb by the muscles.

Where do they end up you think?

Regards,

Johan Bastiaansen

Hasselt, Belgium

> > >

> > > The number of adipcoytes is constant with large variation of

> > bodyfat, because the main mechanicsm of fat storage is

hypertrophy.

> > Those cells can get several times bigger (up to 4-5 times) while

> > storing fat.

> > >

> > > Hyperplasia may exist in cases when storage of fat capacity

within a

> > > single cell is exceed. I dont think its significant in 'normal'

> > cases.

> > > You want less adipocytes ? Get surgery.

> > >

> > > Please ppl, stop posting myths and your own popular

interpretations

> > on

> > > physiology and metabolic regulation on this list.

> > >

> > > Dan Partelly

> > > Oradea, Romania

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Steve,

> > > > >

> > > In short, if you have more fat, more nutrients will end up in

the

> > fat

> > > cells.

> > > > > That makes it easier to build muscle when your fat% is low.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think loosing fat should be your first priority. If you

keep

> > > > > training hard, you'll be able to limit the loss of muscle

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Johan Bastiaansen

> > > > > Hasselt, Belgium

> > > > >

> > > > Johan,

> >

>

[Guest guest]

IMO, The only conclusions you can draw from those studies are:

1. Insulin is important in the control of gene expression in muscles

2. Insulin supresses some gene expression of genes involved in amino

acid catabolism

3. Insulin 'resistance' therefore results catabolism

4. Exercise has important influences in suppressing expression of some

genes involved in amino-acid catabolism.

But of course, you can choose to see anything in the results they had.

That doesnt make it true.

Second, a free piece of advice: dont bother to post comments like " Had

you bothered to read the study " . You have no idea what i read or no.

Unless, of course, a study told you what I read.

third, let me reiterate again: you posted a myth

forth , why do you ask such questions like

QUOTE============================

Where do they end up you think?

----------------------------------

Metabolic fate of ingest nutrients is very complex. I have no idea

how the heck you arrived to the conclusion that if a nutrient is not

used to build proteins in the muscle his fate will be to end in a fat

cell. Huh ???

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

> > > >

> > > > The number of adipcoytes is constant with large variation of

> > > bodyfat, because the main mechanicsm of fat storage is

> hypertrophy.

> > > Those cells can get several times bigger (up to 4-5 times) while

> > > storing fat.

> > > >

> > > > Hyperplasia may exist in cases when storage of fat capacity

> within a

> > > > single cell is exceed. I dont think its significant in 'normal'

> > > cases.

> > > > You want less adipocytes ? Get surgery.

> > > >

> > > > Please ppl, stop posting myths and your own popular

> interpretations

> > > on

> > > > physiology and metabolic regulation on this list.

> > > >

> > > > Dan Partelly

> > > > Oradea, Romania

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Steve,

> > > > > >

> > > > In short, if you have more fat, more nutrients will end up in

> the

> > > fat

> > > > cells.

> > > > > > That makes it easier to build muscle when your fat% is low.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think loosing fat should be your first priority. If you

> keep

> > > > > > training hard, you'll be able to limit the loss of muscle

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > Johan Bastiaansen

> > > > > > Hasselt, Belgium

> > > > > >

> > > > > Johan,

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> I will make a very hazardous presumption, that ppl on this list

> understand how a study is done.

>

> The problem is most of the time how ppl interpret a certain study,

> like in your case.

>

> Based on those studies, you posted on this list black on white that

> " ppl with less fat gain muscle faster with ppl with more fat " ,

which

> of course is a myth.

You could be right. Perhaps I am not able to interpret a study.

Enlighten me. How would you interpret the following statement?

" Discussion

The results of these experiments demonstrate that abnormalities

in protein metabolism are present in otherwise healthy,

moderately obese women. Both UB Ob and LB Ob women were

found to have increased whole-body proteolysis, as measured

by leucine carbon flux, compared with Non Ob women. Only

Non Ob and LB Ob women responded to low physiologic

amounts of insulin with suppression of leucine flux. "

> I suggest you read less studies and spend more

> time in a gym with actual human beings to see for yourself how some

> of those things work.

I wonder how it is obvious from my postings that I sit in front of my

computer all day reading but failing to interpret studies and not

spending any time in a gym.

Anyway I followed your advice immediately and this is what I

concluded from my observations there:

" an exercise is more anabolic when performed close to a mirror " .

How am I doing?

You must have been very lucky in the gyms you visit, because the

notion one might actually learn something from observing the people

working out there, well it's simply mindboggling. I'm even tempted to

say, it's a myth, but I won't go that far.

With admirable restraint

Johan Bastiaansen

Hasselt – Belgium

>

> Dan Partelly

> Oradea, Romania

>

> ==================================

>

> >

> > True, but that's how these studies are carried out. One tries to

keep

> > all other factors equal (and this is probably the hardest part)

while

> > changing only one parameter and see how this influences the

outcome.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Look man, dont get me wrong, but I explained you once what

conclusions

> you can draw from your study. Its your choice if you want to

> artificially extend those conclusions to a generality and claim that

> " ppl with less %of fat gain muscle more .... than a person with

more

> %fat "

>

> Let me reiterate again: you posted a myth. your generalization is

WRONG.

>

> >>If you want people to back a claim with a study, simply ask them

to

> >> do so.

>

> this is hilarious. I want you to pay attention to practical

evidence,

> and spend less times searching fro studies which you interpret wrong

> and draw incorrect conclusions.

Practical evidence? Does that mean casually observing random people

in a gym without actually measuring anything. Then concluding, based

on those observations that a study must be invalid.

> If its not clear already for you, let me tell you that I seen ppl

with

> more fat than others gaing muscle much faster. This is called

> practical evidence. I suggest you should spend more time with the

dire

> evidence and results than studies.

Perhaps not all factors were equal? I've seen people grow by simply

smelling the iron. I've seen others working out hard and struggling

for every gram of muscle. What does this prove?

> >>Energy or matter don't disappear into thin air after all. Do you

want

> >> me to back that with a study?

>

> Im glad you realized this. Took you some time. Probably now you

> realize that is a question of energy balance.

The question is, do you realize it? If food is not used to build

muscle, and isn't laid down as fat either, where does it go? Is it

spend it vivid nightmares? Not very likely.

I'm an engineer, so was who posted the original question.

Engineers have to come up with practical solutions while the

scientist keep discussing and questioning. We tend to prefer studies

over casual observations. We also know that if we wait for the

definitive study that puts an end to all discussion, we might be

sitting on our hands for a very long time.

What do we know, what do we really know without any shadow of a

doubt, about any important basics regarding training and nutrition?

Not that much.

Johan Bastiaansen

Hasselt - Belgium