I am very interested to read what the T-Nation experts have to say about this new study:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070126/hl_nm/diet_exercise_dc
Some of the conclusions are expected. Others however, are highly questionable, especially in light of what many here (Berardi immediately comes to mind) have experienced.
i’m skeptical about the comments that muscle won’t raise metabolism and about the “fact” that you won’t lose muscle.
Cosgrove has stated similar things about muscle loss, but I don’t have enough personal experience to comment.
As for the “no raise in metabolism”, I think it’s bullshit. If you weigh 200 pounds and have 120 pounds of muscle mass, 120 pounds of you are burning calories.
If, however, you have 170 pounds of muscle mass, 170 pounds of you are burning calories. No matter how much more efficient you are, that’s still 50 pounds of difference there.
[quote]Robert P. wrote:
i’m skeptical about the comments that muscle won’t raise metabolism and about the “fact” that you won’t lose muscle.
Cosgrove has stated similar things about muscle loss, but I don’t have enough personal experience to comment.
As for the “no raise in metabolism”, I think it’s bullshit. If you weigh 200 pounds and have 120 pounds of muscle mass, 120 pounds of you are burning calories.
If, however, you have 170 pounds of muscle mass, 170 pounds of you are burning calories. No matter how much more efficient you are, that’s still 50 pounds of difference there.[/quote]
Easy there, Robbie. First off, if you read the study in question, there is no suggestion that muscle doesn’t raise metabolism. In fact it is completely outside of the scope of that particular piece of research (the exercise in question was stairmaster/stationary bike).
Secondly, you have to ask yourself, why does muscle raise metabolism in the first place? My understanding, and I could well be wrong, is that in order to keep posture etc in your day to day life, a certain amount of muscle is continuously contracting. And that this amount increases with the amount of muscle you have available.* If this is true, even though I don’t personally agree, I don’t see it as unreasonable that greater muscular efficiency could result in no change in metabolic rate.
-Cloth
*I just thought about this as I was writing my reponse:
Q: Assuming that the metabolic effects of muscle are mostly due to postural contraction, would you see an increase in metabolism ONLY if you put on weight with your muscle?
ie. Would someone who simply changes their body composition whilst staying at the same weight need any greater muscular contraction to hold posture?
Tests on overweight people
There’s your answer. Studies done on athletes or trained individuals (like us lot in here) will be totally different. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that this study has been done, but the results not published. You’ll notice that the sponsors of the study don’t get mentioned in this article. This immediately makes me sceptical.
[quote]Woppa wrote:
Tests on overweight people
There’s your answer. Studies done on athletes or trained individuals (like us lot in here) will be totally different. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that this study has been done, but the results not published. You’ll notice that the sponsors of the study don’t get mentioned in this article. This immediately makes me sceptical.
[/quote]
Yeah, except I can’t see anyone who would gain from these results, so I can’t exactly see any need to worry about bias.
Definitely right about the subjects though. You can’t extrapolate those results to people on the lower end of the body fat spectrum.
-Cloth