Is it true?



M

mike

Guest
Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate at which
your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic metabolism
here..

I feel that the more muscle you have, the more your body needs stuff to feed
it.. And fat could get burned off quicker since muscle mass is occupying
more space then before.

any opinions would be great..

thx

John
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"mike" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate at which
> your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic metabolism
> here..

That's the beauty of body building.........

Increased muscle mass increases metabolic rate.
--
Peace!
Om

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a *****"
-- Jack Nicholson
 
I'll wait on Pete to weigh in on this one...but I do know if U add more
LBM then w/out question ur BMR is def gonna be higher. Age, hormonal
level (IGF-1 & 2, GH, Test:E ration) alot of other factors also at play
here.

The REAL genius (not Pete or Curt) is U really need to ask...N O T!!!
 
In article <[email protected]>, john111111_
[email protected] says...
> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate at which
> your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic metabolism
> here..
>
> I feel that the more muscle you have, the more your body needs stuff to feed
> it.. And fat could get burned off quicker since muscle mass is occupying
> more space then before.

Of course. Adding muscle is a great way to boost metabolism.

John Black
 
"mike" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate
> at which your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic
> metabolism here.. I feel that the more muscle you have, the more
> your body needs stuff to feed it.. And fat could get burned off
> quicker since muscle mass is occupying more space then before.

It comes out to 6 to 7 calories per pound for untrained individuals -
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/278/2/E308 (after
converting kJ/kg to calories/lb). For hypertrophied monsters such as
myself (or Steve F. and Pete from Nonlands), the expenditure per lb
should be less than that, because additional muscle result in a lower
resting metabolic rate per unit of mass.

Therefore, the first pound of muscle added by training would burn more
calories than the second etc.

So I wouldn't get too discouraged (or if you're like Om, too excited).
 
"DZ" <[email protected]> schreef:

> It comes out to 6 to 7 calories per pound for untrained individuals -
> http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/278/2/E308 (after
> converting kJ/kg to calories/lb). For hypertrophied monsters such as
> myself (or Steve F. and Pete from Nonlands), the expenditure per lb
> should be less than that, because additional muscle result in a lower
> resting metabolic rate per unit of mass.

> Therefore, the first pound of muscle added by training would burn more
> calories than the second etc.

This is very interesting.

There was a discussion here several years ago, where i pointed out that an
increase in muscle mass would speed up the metabolism a bit, but not as
spectacular as some would like to believe. I noticed myself that despite
putting on a lot of mass, i still had to be carefull not going overboard on
calories.

This whole discussion started when Krissie (Scott-Dixon), adviced women to
train heavy with low reps to lose weight, as the increased metabolism, due
to the increase in muscle mass, would burn calories.

I told her she was wrong because;

1) heavy weights with low reps is anaerobic, and therefore, would not burn
much calories.
2) women do not have much testosterone, so the increase in muscle mass is
insignificant.
3) even in men with increased muscle mass, the metabolism is not working
overtime.

Anyway, despite the fact that i myself encourage women to train
heavy/intense/anaerobic, it is a crappy way to lose weight, and is best
combined with cardio 2-3 times a week.

Thanks for sharing.

----
Pete
 
DZ <[email protected]> wrote:

>"mike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate
>> at which your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic
>> metabolism here.. I feel that the more muscle you have, the more
>> your body needs stuff to feed it.. And fat could get burned off
>> quicker since muscle mass is occupying more space then before.
>
>It comes out to 6 to 7 calories per pound for untrained individuals -
>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/278/2/E308 (after
>converting kJ/kg to calories/lb). For hypertrophied monsters such as
>myself (or Steve F. and Pete from Nonlands), the expenditure per lb
>should be less than that, because additional muscle result in a lower
>resting metabolic rate per unit of mass.
>
>Therefore, the first pound of muscle added by training would burn more
>calories than the second etc.

Yes, but that's just your deceptive statistical magic, Dmitri. ;)

[1] Skeletal muscle has more than twice the resting energy expenditure
(REE)of adipose tissue, but ...

[2] Pound for pound, the REE of your brains and visceral organs is
many times that of your skeletal muscle.

Therefore, skeletal muscle probably has the same REE, no matter how
much you have, but as skeletal muscle becomes a higher percentage of
your fat free mass, the REE/mass decreases.

I'm pretty sure Steve has a much higher REE/kg than Pete.
 
JMW wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>>"mike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate
>>> at which your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic
>>> metabolism here.. I feel that the more muscle you have, the more
>>> your body needs stuff to feed it.. And fat could get burned off
>>> quicker since muscle mass is occupying more space then before.
>>
>>It comes out to 6 to 7 calories per pound for untrained individuals -
>>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/278/2/E308 (after
>>converting kJ/kg to calories/lb). For hypertrophied monsters such as
>>myself (or Steve F. and Pete from Nonlands), the expenditure per lb
>>should be less than that, because additional muscle result in a lower
>>resting metabolic rate per unit of mass.
>>
>>Therefore, the first pound of muscle added by training would burn more
>>calories than the second etc.
>
> Yes, but that's just your deceptive statistical magic, Dmitri. ;)
>
> [1] Skeletal muscle has more than twice the resting energy expenditure
> (REE)of adipose tissue, but ...
>
> [2] Pound for pound, the REE of your brains and visceral organs is
> many times that of your skeletal muscle.
>
> Therefore, skeletal muscle probably has the same REE, no matter how
> much you have, but as skeletal muscle becomes a higher percentage of
> your fat free mass, the REE/mass decreases.

It's a good hypothesis, but I don't think so. Check the X axis in
Fig. 3 in the link above. The muscle mass is taken as a proportion of
the total weight there.

> I'm pretty sure Steve has a much higher REE/kg than Pete.

Lots of it is just the hair!
 
DZ <[email protected]> wrote:

>JMW wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>"mike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate
>>>> at which your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic
>>>> metabolism here.. I feel that the more muscle you have, the more
>>>> your body needs stuff to feed it.. And fat could get burned off
>>>> quicker since muscle mass is occupying more space then before.
>>>
>>>It comes out to 6 to 7 calories per pound for untrained individuals -
>>>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/278/2/E308 (after
>>>converting kJ/kg to calories/lb). For hypertrophied monsters such as
>>>myself (or Steve F. and Pete from Nonlands), the expenditure per lb
>>>should be less than that, because additional muscle result in a lower
>>>resting metabolic rate per unit of mass.
>>>
>>>Therefore, the first pound of muscle added by training would burn more
>>>calories than the second etc.
>>
>> Yes, but that's just your deceptive statistical magic, Dmitri. ;)
>>
>> [1] Skeletal muscle has more than twice the resting energy expenditure
>> (REE)of adipose tissue, but ...
>>
>> [2] Pound for pound, the REE of your brains and visceral organs is
>> many times that of your skeletal muscle.
>>
>> Therefore, skeletal muscle probably has the same REE, no matter how
>> much you have, but as skeletal muscle becomes a higher percentage of
>> your fat free mass, the REE/mass decreases.
>
>It's a good hypothesis, but I don't think so. Check the X axis in
>Fig. 3 in the link above. The muscle mass is taken as a proportion of
>the total weight there.

Am I not reading that graph correctly? It seems to indicate that as
muscle mass increases in proportion organ mass the REE in proportion
to ALL fat-free mass decreases, which is exactly what I said.
 
JMW <[email protected]> wrote:

>DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>JMW wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>"mike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate
>>>>> at which your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic
>>>>> metabolism here.. I feel that the more muscle you have, the more
>>>>> your body needs stuff to feed it.. And fat could get burned off
>>>>> quicker since muscle mass is occupying more space then before.
>>>>
>>>>It comes out to 6 to 7 calories per pound for untrained individuals -
>>>>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/278/2/E308 (after
>>>>converting kJ/kg to calories/lb). For hypertrophied monsters such as
>>>>myself (or Steve F. and Pete from Nonlands), the expenditure per lb
>>>>should be less than that, because additional muscle result in a lower
>>>>resting metabolic rate per unit of mass.
>>>>
>>>>Therefore, the first pound of muscle added by training would burn more
>>>>calories than the second etc.
>>>
>>> Yes, but that's just your deceptive statistical magic, Dmitri. ;)
>>>
>>> [1] Skeletal muscle has more than twice the resting energy expenditure
>>> (REE)of adipose tissue, but ...
>>>
>>> [2] Pound for pound, the REE of your brains and visceral organs is
>>> many times that of your skeletal muscle.
>>>
>>> Therefore, skeletal muscle probably has the same REE, no matter how
>>> much you have, but as skeletal muscle becomes a higher percentage of
>>> your fat free mass, the REE/mass decreases.
>>
>>It's a good hypothesis, but I don't think so. Check the X axis in
>>Fig. 3 in the link above. The muscle mass is taken as a proportion of
>>the total weight there.
>
>Am I not reading that graph correctly? It seems to indicate that as
>muscle mass increases in proportion organ mass the REE in proportion
>to ALL fat-free mass decreases, which is exactly what I said.

However, FWIW, there probably is some diminution in returns on
additional muscle. In a more recent study of black women vs. white
women, black women had 10.1% higher skeletal muscle mass with 7.7%
higher REE attributable to that muscle mass. White women had a higher
overall REE due to a 6.8% higher residual mass (primarily organ mass).

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/79/5/780.pdf
 
JMW wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>>JMW wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>"mike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate
>>>>> at which your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic
>>>>> metabolism here.. I feel that the more muscle you have, the more
>>>>> your body needs stuff to feed it.. And fat could get burned off
>>>>> quicker since muscle mass is occupying more space then before.
>>>>
>>>>It comes out to 6 to 7 calories per pound for untrained individuals -
>>>>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/278/2/E308 (after
>>>>converting kJ/kg to calories/lb). For hypertrophied monsters such as
>>>>myself (or Steve F. and Pete from Nonlands), the expenditure per lb
>>>>should be less than that, because additional muscle result in a lower
>>>>resting metabolic rate per unit of mass.
>>>>
>>>>Therefore, the first pound of muscle added by training would burn more
>>>>calories than the second etc.
>>>
>>> Yes, but that's just your deceptive statistical magic, Dmitri. ;)
>>>
>>> [1] Skeletal muscle has more than twice the resting energy expenditure
>>> (REE)of adipose tissue, but ...
>>>
>>> [2] Pound for pound, the REE of your brains and visceral organs is
>>> many times that of your skeletal muscle.
>>>
>>> Therefore, skeletal muscle probably has the same REE, no matter how
>>> much you have, but as skeletal muscle becomes a higher percentage of
>>> your fat free mass, the REE/mass decreases.
>>
>>It's a good hypothesis, but I don't think so. Check the X axis in
>>Fig. 3 in the link above. The muscle mass is taken as a proportion of
>>the total weight there.
>
> Am I not reading that graph correctly? It seems to indicate that as
> muscle mass increases in proportion organ mass the REE in proportion
> to ALL fat-free mass decreases, which is exactly what I said.

You're right. I mistook REE/FFM as to mean REE/LBM. Also, the
correlation in the graph doesn't seem to hold within genders, so I'm
no longer sure what to make of that graph.
 
DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>JMW wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>JMW wrote:
>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>"mike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate
>>>>>> at which your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic
>>>>>> metabolism here.. I feel that the more muscle you have, the more
>>>>>> your body needs stuff to feed it.. And fat could get burned off
>>>>>> quicker since muscle mass is occupying more space then before.
>>>>>
>>>>>It comes out to 6 to 7 calories per pound for untrained individuals -
>>>>>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/278/2/E308 (after
>>>>>converting kJ/kg to calories/lb). For hypertrophied monsters such as
>>>>>myself (or Steve F. and Pete from Nonlands), the expenditure per lb
>>>>>should be less than that, because additional muscle result in a lower
>>>>>resting metabolic rate per unit of mass.
>>>>>
>>>>>Therefore, the first pound of muscle added by training would burn more
>>>>>calories than the second etc.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but that's just your deceptive statistical magic, Dmitri. ;)
>>>>
>>>> [1] Skeletal muscle has more than twice the resting energy expenditure
>>>> (REE)of adipose tissue, but ...
>>>>
>>>> [2] Pound for pound, the REE of your brains and visceral organs is
>>>> many times that of your skeletal muscle.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, skeletal muscle probably has the same REE, no matter how
>>>> much you have, but as skeletal muscle becomes a higher percentage of
>>>> your fat free mass, the REE/mass decreases.
>>>
>>>It's a good hypothesis, but I don't think so. Check the X axis in
>>>Fig. 3 in the link above. The muscle mass is taken as a proportion of
>>>the total weight there.
>>
>> Am I not reading that graph correctly? It seems to indicate that as
>> muscle mass increases in proportion organ mass the REE in proportion
>> to ALL fat-free mass decreases, which is exactly what I said.
>
>You're right. I mistook REE/FFM as to mean REE/LBM. Also, the
>correlation in the graph doesn't seem to hold within genders, so I'm
>no longer sure what to make of that graph.

No, it makes perfect sense. Women have a higher REE/FFM because a
much higher percentage of their FFM is organs, as opposed to skeletal
muscle. The men will still have a higher total REE.
 
JMW wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>>JMW wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>JMW wrote:
>>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>>"mike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate
>>>>>>> at which your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic
>>>>>>> metabolism here.. I feel that the more muscle you have, the more
>>>>>>> your body needs stuff to feed it.. And fat could get burned off
>>>>>>> quicker since muscle mass is occupying more space then before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It comes out to 6 to 7 calories per pound for untrained individuals -
>>>>>>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/278/2/E308 (after
>>>>>>converting kJ/kg to calories/lb). For hypertrophied monsters such as
>>>>>>myself (or Steve F. and Pete from Nonlands), the expenditure per lb
>>>>>>should be less than that, because additional muscle result in a lower
>>>>>>resting metabolic rate per unit of mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Therefore, the first pound of muscle added by training would burn more
>>>>>>calories than the second etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but that's just your deceptive statistical magic, Dmitri. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] Skeletal muscle has more than twice the resting energy expenditure
>>>>> (REE)of adipose tissue, but ...
>>>>>
>>>>> [2] Pound for pound, the REE of your brains and visceral organs is
>>>>> many times that of your skeletal muscle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, skeletal muscle probably has the same REE, no matter how
>>>>> much you have, but as skeletal muscle becomes a higher percentage of
>>>>> your fat free mass, the REE/mass decreases.
>>>>
>>>>It's a good hypothesis, but I don't think so. Check the X axis in
>>>>Fig. 3 in the link above. The muscle mass is taken as a proportion of
>>>>the total weight there.
>>>
>>> Am I not reading that graph correctly? It seems to indicate that as
>>> muscle mass increases in proportion organ mass the REE in proportion
>>> to ALL fat-free mass decreases, which is exactly what I said.
>>
>>You're right. I mistook REE/FFM as to mean REE/LBM. Also, the
>>correlation in the graph doesn't seem to hold within genders, so I'm
>>no longer sure what to make of that graph.
>
> No, it makes perfect sense. Women have a higher REE/FFM because a
> much higher percentage of their FFM is organs, as opposed to skeletal
> muscle. The men will still have a higher total REE.

Your explanation is consistent with the graph but it doesn't rule out
a gender-specific relation. In that case we have two round circles of
dots within sexes (zero correlation) and the overall correlation can
be spurious due to some other differences between the sexes (I'd
rather see ellipses formed by the dots of the same color).
 
JMWill-not-respond-well-to-criticism
<[email protected]> wrote:

>DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>JMW wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>"mike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate
>>>>> at which your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic
>>>>> metabolism here.. I feel that the more muscle you have, the more
>>>>> your body needs stuff to feed it.. And fat could get burned off
>>>>> quicker since muscle mass is occupying more space then before.
>>>>
>>>>It comes out to 6 to 7 calories per pound for untrained individuals -
>>>>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/278/2/E308 (after
>>>>converting kJ/kg to calories/lb). For hypertrophied monsters such as
>>>>myself (or Steve F. and Pete from Nonlands), the expenditure per lb
>>>>should be less than that, because additional muscle result in a lower
>>>>resting metabolic rate per unit of mass.
>>>>
>>>>Therefore, the first pound of muscle added by training would burn more
>>>>calories than the second etc.
>>>
>>> Yes, but that's just your deceptive statistical magic, Dmitri. ;)
>>>
>>> [1] Skeletal muscle has more than twice the resting energy expenditure
>>> (REE)of adipose tissue, but ...
>>>
>>> [2] Pound for pound, the REE of your brains and visceral organs is
>>> many times that of your skeletal muscle.
>>>
>>> Therefore, skeletal muscle probably has the same REE, no matter how
>>> much you have, but as skeletal muscle becomes a higher percentage of
>>> your fat free mass, the REE/mass decreases.
>>
>>It's a good hypothesis, but I don't think so. Check the X axis in
>>Fig. 3 in the link above. The muscle mass is taken as a proportion of
>>the total weight there.
>
>Am I not reading that graph correctly? It seems to indicate that as
>muscle mass increases in proportion organ mass the REE in proportion
>to ALL fat-free mass decreases,

You don't react well to even the slightest perception of disagreement.

>which is exactly what I said.

Of course, not many do, but you're seemingly an extreme. Variation on
what's been said: JMW's response to additional criticism results in a
lower resting metabolic rate per unit of disagreement.

(Uh, I read it in pubmed. No, for real. Honestly. Whaa? ARE YOU
DISAGREEING WITH ME? I swear to God, I'll create a cute little
animated gif if you disagree with me! So help me...)

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
 
DZ <[email protected]> wrote:

>JMW wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>JMW wrote:
>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>JMW wrote:
>>>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>>>"mike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate
>>>>>>>> at which your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic
>>>>>>>> metabolism here.. I feel that the more muscle you have, the more
>>>>>>>> your body needs stuff to feed it.. And fat could get burned off
>>>>>>>> quicker since muscle mass is occupying more space then before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It comes out to 6 to 7 calories per pound for untrained individuals -
>>>>>>>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/278/2/E308 (after
>>>>>>>converting kJ/kg to calories/lb). For hypertrophied monsters such as
>>>>>>>myself (or Steve F. and Pete from Nonlands), the expenditure per lb
>>>>>>>should be less than that, because additional muscle result in a lower
>>>>>>>resting metabolic rate per unit of mass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Therefore, the first pound of muscle added by training would burn more
>>>>>>>calories than the second etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but that's just your deceptive statistical magic, Dmitri. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] Skeletal muscle has more than twice the resting energy expenditure
>>>>>> (REE)of adipose tissue, but ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [2] Pound for pound, the REE of your brains and visceral organs is
>>>>>> many times that of your skeletal muscle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore, skeletal muscle probably has the same REE, no matter how
>>>>>> much you have, but as skeletal muscle becomes a higher percentage of
>>>>>> your fat free mass, the REE/mass decreases.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a good hypothesis, but I don't think so. Check the X axis in
>>>>>Fig. 3 in the link above. The muscle mass is taken as a proportion of
>>>>>the total weight there.
>>>>
>>>> Am I not reading that graph correctly? It seems to indicate that as
>>>> muscle mass increases in proportion organ mass the REE in proportion
>>>> to ALL fat-free mass decreases, which is exactly what I said.
>>>
>>>You're right. I mistook REE/FFM as to mean REE/LBM. Also, the
>>>correlation in the graph doesn't seem to hold within genders, so I'm
>>>no longer sure what to make of that graph.
>>
>> No, it makes perfect sense. Women have a higher REE/FFM because a
>> much higher percentage of their FFM is organs, as opposed to skeletal
>> muscle. The men will still have a higher total REE.
>
>Your explanation is consistent with the graph but it doesn't rule out
>a gender-specific relation. In that case we have two round circles of
>dots within sexes (zero correlation) and the overall correlation can
>be spurious due to some other differences between the sexes (I'd
>rather see ellipses formed by the dots of the same color).

And this spells out - for me at least - the difference between John
Williams and many other patrons of this newsgroup (and on the planet
in general, obviously): Em likes to see things entirely in black and
white, right or wrong, up or down, guilt or innocence, yes, troll or
non-troll, without the fuzzy. No ambiguity for him apparently. Well,
there's moral ambiguity. He seems okay with that one.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
 
DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>JMW wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>JMW wrote:
>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>JMW wrote:
>>>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>>>"mike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate
>>>>>>>> at which your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic
>>>>>>>> metabolism here.. I feel that the more muscle you have, the more
>>>>>>>> your body needs stuff to feed it.. And fat could get burned off
>>>>>>>> quicker since muscle mass is occupying more space then before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It comes out to 6 to 7 calories per pound for untrained individuals -
>>>>>>>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/278/2/E308 (after
>>>>>>>converting kJ/kg to calories/lb). For hypertrophied monsters such as
>>>>>>>myself (or Steve F. and Pete from Nonlands), the expenditure per lb
>>>>>>>should be less than that, because additional muscle result in a lower
>>>>>>>resting metabolic rate per unit of mass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Therefore, the first pound of muscle added by training would burn more
>>>>>>>calories than the second etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but that's just your deceptive statistical magic, Dmitri. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] Skeletal muscle has more than twice the resting energy expenditure
>>>>>> (REE)of adipose tissue, but ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [2] Pound for pound, the REE of your brains and visceral organs is
>>>>>> many times that of your skeletal muscle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore, skeletal muscle probably has the same REE, no matter how
>>>>>> much you have, but as skeletal muscle becomes a higher percentage of
>>>>>> your fat free mass, the REE/mass decreases.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a good hypothesis, but I don't think so. Check the X axis in
>>>>>Fig. 3 in the link above. The muscle mass is taken as a proportion of
>>>>>the total weight there.
>>>>
>>>> Am I not reading that graph correctly? It seems to indicate that as
>>>> muscle mass increases in proportion organ mass the REE in proportion
>>>> to ALL fat-free mass decreases, which is exactly what I said.
>>>
>>>You're right. I mistook REE/FFM as to mean REE/LBM. Also, the
>>>correlation in the graph doesn't seem to hold within genders, so I'm
>>>no longer sure what to make of that graph.
>>
>> No, it makes perfect sense. Women have a higher REE/FFM because a
>> much higher percentage of their FFM is organs, as opposed to skeletal
>> muscle. The men will still have a higher total REE.
>
>Your explanation is consistent with the graph but it doesn't rule out
>a gender-specific relation. In that case we have two round circles of
>dots within sexes (zero correlation) and the overall correlation can
>be spurious due to some other differences between the sexes (I'd
>rather see ellipses formed by the dots of the same color).

Well, the following article might develop my theory a bit further,
since it examines gender differences as well as racial differences:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/5/1062

I assume it has some conclusions regarding both dichotomies, but my
resources don't provide me with online access to the full article, and
the local college library doesn't carry the hardcopy (although nearly
every other college in the area does!) I imagine you have better
access, so you can determine if my assumptions are accurate.
 
mike ha scritto:

> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate at which
> your body could burn off fat?

Of course it is true
Now without going on complicated exceptions or detailed levels of fat
burning rate you have just to keep in mind a simple fact:
fat is dead, it doesn't consume or burn anything
your muscles are alive, they want fuel and they burn fat

As for those that said that though you still will get fat if you don't
keep on eye on your calories, well ... the logical answer is
homeostasis.
Having an higher BMR doesn't mean that you can eat more than what
usually would be enough for you, it means that your second nature (how
many calories you consume daily and how much hungry you are) changes by
consequences.

But the relation between feeding and extrafeeding remains the same
So if your BMR is 1800 calories, then 1800 is hunger and 2500 is
gluttony
But if your BMR becomes 2500 then 2500 is hunger and 3100 is gluttony

So, you burn more but you get used to burning more so crossing the line
of "gluttony" is still as easy as it was before, because that new big
caloric intake is your new homeostasis

Davide
 
"Davide" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>mike ha scritto:
>
>> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate at which
>> your body could burn off fat?
>
>Of course it is true
>Now without going on complicated exceptions or detailed levels of fat
>burning rate you have just to keep in mind a simple fact:
>fat is dead, it doesn't consume or burn anything
>your muscles are alive, they want fuel and they burn fat

Wrong. Adipose tissue expends energy -- about half that of skeletal
muscle.

>As for those that said that though you still will get fat if you don't
>keep on eye on your calories, well ... the logical answer is
>homeostasis.
>Having an higher BMR doesn't mean that you can eat more than what
>usually would be enough for you, it means that your second nature (how
>many calories you consume daily and how much hungry you are) changes by
>consequences.
>
>But the relation between feeding and extrafeeding remains the same
>So if your BMR is 1800 calories, then 1800 is hunger and 2500 is
>gluttony
>But if your BMR becomes 2500 then 2500 is hunger and 3100 is gluttony
>
>So, you burn more but you get used to burning more so crossing the line
>of "gluttony" is still as easy as it was before, because that new big
>caloric intake is your new homeostasis

Most of the increased calorie requirements related to increased muscle
mass comes from energy expended during training, not resting energy
expenditure.
 
mike wrote:

> Is it true that the more muscle your body has, the quicker the rate at which
> your body could burn off fat? Im not talking about genetic metabolism
> here..
>
> I feel that the more muscle you have, the more your body needs stuff to feed
> it.. And fat could get burned off quicker since muscle mass is occupying
> more space then before.
>
> any opinions would be great..
>
> thx
>
> John

yes


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back