[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Plus, he said he was 15% body-fat so he’s already in an energy surplus - he doesn’t need more energy - he needs to convert it. That energy surplus can be used to build muscle. [/quote]
Well, whether or not he is truly in a surplus would depend on whether or not the scale is moving. If he has been 275 @ 15% for the past few weeks, then he is at maintenance. He is eating just enough to fully support both his LBM and fat mass such that neither disappears, but neither grows (influenced by training, as well). If the scale is moving up, and his body fat is climbing faster than what he might consider optimal, then I would agree he needs to do something about that. This can be, as suggested, directing it towards muscle (training harder) but, if he is already going balls out, he would need to scale back on calories since his surplus is more than enough for the modest growth stimulus and expenditure of his workouts. I am assuming he is getting decent protein, but I don’t wanna go back to check.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Please be generous with the below hypothesis. I have no supporting evidence but rather am trying to think about muscle building from an evolutionary advantage point of view. It is my belief that the preferred storage medium for fat is muscle tissue - not adipose fat cells. Growing fat on the outside of the body is an indication of sickness.
Think about it this way: adipose fat is an unbalance nutrition source for the body. When times are lean the body needs to be able to break down both protein and fat at the same time. With the ratio of 50/50 fat to protein by weight muscle tissue provides the right proportion of fat and protein even after some of it is converted to glucose.
Eating an abundance of fat will build muscle quicker because muscle tissue will want to synthesize new proteins for fat storage locations. In fact, by weight muscle tissue is only 17% protein. There is no reason why we could not store just enough muscular fat deposits to balance the body’s nutrition needs.
When times are good and there are plenty of healthy calories in abundance, healthy people are supposed build strength and muscle mass by over-eating and exertion (Summer was not about getting fat - it was about getting strong). One can get “fat” and strong at the same time but it won’t show up as flab on the outside of the body - but rather on the inside, in muscle tissue where it belongs.
Sorry if you think this is nonsense - I have been wanting to share this idea without sounding like a lunatic.[/quote]
Hmm, while I don’t want to touch the “are we sick because we’re fat or are we fat because we are sick” argument that I feel this can spin into, I will say I disagree that carrying chub is always an indication of sickness. Slightly overweight people are oftentimes just as healthy as their “normal” weight counterparts; it’s really when the scale tips more and more towards obesity that we see most of the comorbidities emerge. Granted, there is an excellent correlation between things like, say, BMI and T2D for the general population, but assuming one exercises properly it is very possible to keep a small spare tire without jeopardizing your health.
With that being said, I believe you have it backwards – higher levels of IM fat is not, as far as I am aware, a good thing at all, being very strongly associated with IR and T2D.
I’ll get into it tomorrow (/in the early AM), but I need to do some chores and get some shuteye. I worked a graveyard shift last night and it’s tough to talk science when sleepy.
But, why the 50/50 muscle/fat split? And what specific benefits are had from IM fat deposition rather than subq… does it have something to do with keeping the energy source right where it needs to be? How would you propose one channel fat to muscle tissue rather than the usual locations?[/quote]
I go with the 50/50 because that’s what beef typically is. It is just a reference point for other mammals that store IM fat. Not sure what optimal might be but probably roughly the proportion that would be needed to go long durations without food and be able to continue glucose support. 50/50 seems right. A kilo of muscle after water is remove - assuming roughly 70% - would 150g fat and 150g protein (not accounting for trace minerals). If the muscle were fattier it would sustain a man for an entire day.
I think having fat closer to muscle tissue makes more metabolic sense. It has to go through less conversion this way. Muscle tissue is expensive enough as it is. My thought is that adipose tissue gives up fat to muscle tissue when the muscle needs to replace it but if we are in fat storage mode because of insulin resistance, for example, it is probably all going to adipocytes.
I know there isn’t much evidence that IM fat its good for us but I am hoping the evidence that suggest it isn’t good for us is as flawed as the evidence for dietary cholesterol to give us heart attacks is.
I think the body’s muscles will naturally tend to their optimal levels of fat by just consuming mainly good fat calories in the diet. Anyone who needs more than 2400 cal/day can achieve it much easier by adding extra fat rather than potentially toxic, empty calories.
In fact after 2400 calories I stop thinking about macronutrient ratios because I don’t think of protein as an energy source, per se. I eat it like a building material keeping in mind we can only turnover protein so fast and also our body’s ability to recycle it. Any extra protein that cannot be taken up is treated like glucose or fat anyway.
If it were possible to put on 1 Kilo of muscle mass in one month one would only require an extra 6 grams of protein per day over maintenance levels, assuming protein only makes up 17% of muscle mass.
