Muscle Mass & Metabolism.

Off Topic
1

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/01/26/diet.exercise.reut/index.html

Check out that link and tell me what you guys think.

According to this study, muscle is not metabolically active tissue, you’ll in fact burn less calories the more highly trained you are. Also, they’re stating that you will not lose muscle mass on a lower calorie diet.

“Dieting alone also did not appear to cause the volunteers to lose muscle mass along with fat, Ravussin’s team found.”

Of course, it doesn’t say that the subjects in the study lifted weights, only that some of them exercised. Who knows if it was just energy system work w/no strength training.

Personally, it sounds pretty ludicrous to me.

2

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

Check out that link and tell me what you guys think.

According to this study, muscle is not metabolically active tissue, you’ll in fact burn less calories the more highly trained you are. Also, they’re stating that you will not lose muscle mass on a lower calorie diet.

“Dieting alone also did not appear to cause the volunteers to lose muscle mass along with fat, Ravussin’s team found.”

Of course, it doesn’t say that the subjects in the study lifted weights, only that some of them exercised. Who knows if it was just energy system work w/no strength training.

Personally, it sounds pretty ludicrous to me.

[/quote]

First, that wasn’t a link to a study. That was a link to a guy talking bout a study and then talking about other studies he has done while providing very loose information that a journalist then piled all together into an article.

If you use that to come to a conclusion that muscle is not metabolically active (which goes against everything we have learned up to this point), you make a pretty huge mistake.

Post a link to the actual study and we can discuss that, but there is nothing to discuss here at all but why journalism sucks so bad.

Also, just one question…how hard do you think “overweight people” exercise in the first place?

If an obese woman in her 40’s loses 10lbs at the same rate by dieting or by “running” (LOL), how does that relate to the physical effects and changes someone much more serious in the weight room attains?

Question the study. Don’t ever read an “article” and take it as FACT.

3

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Also, they’re stating that you will not lose muscle mass on a lower calorie diet.[/quote]

Of course not. That’s easily demonstrated by looking at pictures of concentration camp survivors, where they all clearly look like Mr. Olympia competitors…

4

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Question the study. Don’t ever read an “article” and take it as FACT.[/quote]

I hear you Prof, but I thought I was pretty clear in my initial post that I did not believe anything in the article.

So, yes I agree with you, but that was my point all along. : )

5

Here’s a link to DL the PDF of the original study.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/search?sortspec=relevance&journalcode=jcem&author1=Eric+Ravussin+&fulltext=&pubdate_year=&volume=&firstpage=

And I agree Pookie. The whole thing sounds ridiculous.

6

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Question the study. Don’t ever read an “article” and take it as FACT.

I hear you Prof, but I thought I was pretty clear in my initial post that I did not believe anything in the article.

So, yes I agree with you, but that was my point all along. : )[/quote]

That really wasn’t aimed at you but anyone reading. very often someone posts an “article” as proof of something when it isn’t. I wasn’t trying to make it seem like you didn’t know what you were talking about.

7

Once you read the study -

Looks like it was just energy system work.

The diet was 30% fat, 15 % protein and 55 % carbs.

They also admit that exercise has “other important cardiovascular and metabolic implications.”

I think this study just reaffirms what bodybuilders already know. Mainstream science seems to know little to nothing about the true benefits of training.

What else is new, right? ; )

8

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That really wasn’t aimed at you but anyone reading. very often someone posts an “article” as proof of something when it isn’t. I wasn’t trying to make it seem like you didn’t know what you were talking about.[/quote]

Yep - I understand. I figured you meant that in a more general way. I just wanted to make sure you guys didn’t think I was trying to pass that as fact, or agree with it at all for that matter.

It just makes me angry when they publish bullshit studies like this and suddenly everyone is like “See!! You bodybuilders don’t know shit. This is a medical doctor saying you’re wrong!”

Meanwhile, if you think every doctor on the planet is automatically right about everything, or even competent in certain cases, then you’re just a
sheep.

Not to mention the fact that the article doesn’t even get into any of the actual parameters used in the study.

If you wanna read the original we can discuss it further. Right now I’m going downstairs to hit the weights and then head to the all you can eat sushi buffet.

I love re-feeds… : )