This one challenges my beliefs
SideSteel
Posts: 11,068 Member
It's highly likely that you'll hear a lot of discussion from some experts on this.
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/energy-balance-myths/
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/energy-balance-myths/
0
Replies
-
Huh, again the loosely intertwined but incorrectly used terms LBM and muscle-mass.
Wish they'd stop doing this.
"In this study, one group lost 1.1 kg of fat while gaining 1.7 kg of lean body mass. Another group lost 0.9 kg of fat while gaining 1.4 kg of muscle. In other words, both groups gained lean body mass (‘muscle’, as people generally use the term in this context) faster than they lost fat."
At least he again had his case study of a client showing what point he wanted to make.
Though - what I've normally seen of the detailed DXA scans is it indeed separates FM and LBM as his simple charts show and any other bodyfat test would show - but then they break down the LBM in to muscle, bone, and water.
Or is there a cheaper version of the DXA scan now that doesn't run the analysis on the scans to separate those functions - and it truly is doing the normal FM and LBM differences with additional Bone Mineral Content , merely more accurate than other methods?
Because those detailed reports don't even show the other stats that I've seen in other DXA scan reports.
If if you separate out bones, LBM is still water weight and muscle mass and glucose stored, ect.
So I can't tell which is he really reporting on?
And does he know for sure?0 -
Menno Henselmans is a douche nozzle. Eric Helms destroyed him after he wrote his article about protein needs not increasing in a deficit (you can read Menno's article, complete with Eric's response here). Lyle has been taking him on pretty regularly lately in his FB group also. I haven't quite figured out exactly what Henselman's overall agenda is yet, but he seems to show an inclination to ignore the science that doesn't support his viewpoints and base his conclusions upon abstracts rather than the entire study.0
-
Menno Henselmans is a douche nozzle. Eric Helms destroyed him after he wrote his article about protein needs not increasing in a deficit (you can read Menno's article, complete with Eric's response here). Lyle has been taking him on pretty regularly lately in his FB group also. I haven't quite figured out exactly what Henselman's overall agenda is yet, but he seems to show an inclination to ignore the science that doesn't support his viewpoints and base his conclusions upon abstracts rather than the entire study.
Just for what it's worth, Helms agrees with Menno on this particular article.0 -
Menno Henselmans is a douche nozzle. Eric Helms destroyed him after he wrote his article about protein needs not increasing in a deficit (you can read Menno's article, complete with Eric's response here). Lyle has been taking him on pretty regularly lately in his FB group also. I haven't quite figured out exactly what Henselman's overall agenda is yet, but he seems to show an inclination to ignore the science that doesn't support his viewpoints and base his conclusions upon abstracts rather than the entire study.
Just for what it's worth, Helms agrees with Menno on this particular article.
When I get time I'll post comments from Eric and Krieger.
0 -
-
Some of it is "Yeah, no kidding". Some of it borders on unbelievable.
In his conclusions:Your weight can change without any change in bodily energy storage due to changes in water weight and mass in your digestive tract.
This borders on being so ridiculously elementary as to not even need elaboration. No kidding, eat a bunch of food or drink a bunch of water and climb on the scale and you'll weigh more. Duh. That isn't weight gain.You can gain fat in a deficit if you rapidly lose muscle mass.
You can certainly increase the ratio of adipose tissue/LBM by rapidly losing muscle mass; but he fails to explain the physiological mechanism by which your body would gain fat while in a deficit (which basically defies thermodynamics). In fact, within the article itself he says:...Unless your weight loss program really sucks though, I should hope this only ever occurs if you stop training, you have a serious medical condition or there are drugs involved...
So in other words, it ain't gonna happen. If you stop training, you've reduced your TDEE and if you don't adjust for that in your intake levels, you're no longer in a deficit.
Further upstream in the article:Here’s the DXA scan progress of one of my clients. Note how he gained 6.2 lb of muscle while losing 2.1 lb of fat in under a month. Here‘s the full anonymized DXA scan report of his progression.
While I guess it's theoretically possible, I'd consider it highly unlikely unless the trainee was a genetic outlier and/or on AAS (then again, he never said the client was natty). 6.2 lbs. of muscle in a month is a pretty substantial claim, especially accompanied by a 2.1 lb. fat loss.0 -
Well, and to that last point - it was 6.2 lbs of LBM - not muscle mass specifically.
That DXA scan results did NOT distinguish like most would.
Could have accidentally chugged 32 oz of water in the morning pre-test and gotten 2 lbs there.0 -
Well, and to that last point - it was 6.2 lbs of LBM - not muscle mass specifically.
That DXA scan results did NOT distinguish like most would.
Could have accidentally chugged 32 oz of water in the morning pre-test and gotten 2 lbs there.
...which I would consider sloppy testing methods at best, or outright disingenuous at worst.
Reading his responses to the comments below the article itself, he's somewhat evasive about several aspects of his "study". When asked how much of a deficit one of the clients was in, he responds "Significant, based on the ratio. Why?". When asked if he would disclose the training protocols used, he says he won't do so because they were custom designed for each client based upon their individual needs and various different protocols/routines were used.
Overall it seems more like he's just peddling woo in an effort to sell his training sessions and seminars, telling people that there's "magical" ways to gain muscle and lose fat which defy the laws of thermodynamics/energy balance.0 -
Here's a study by Eric Helms which seems a lot more accurate and realistic - @SideSteel, take a look at this one and see what you think: shreddedbyscience.com/can-you-gain-weight-in-a-calorie-deficit/0
-
Here's a study by Eric Helms which seems a lot more accurate and realistic - @SideSteel, take a look at this one and see what you think: shreddedbyscience.com/can-you-gain-weight-in-a-calorie-deficit/
Yup, this is a great article.0 -
Great article.
After 1.5 hrs on the eliptical trainer on an empty stomach my brain just cant quite see the conversion of muscle energy storage vs fat energy storage clearly. I started strength training this week and despite CI <CO gained 1.5lbs. Could be just "noise" variables but the shared article has me considering fat and muscle density plus their potential energies. Can you help me understand?
So if I exclude constipation, salt, water, menstruation and other variables and just look at weight loss and gain asdociated with changes in fat and muscle: to gain 1 pound of muscle we need 3500 calories surplus. If CI is less than or equal to CO then that energy would have to be from burning fat to build muscle: From the article "kilogram of fat metabolised will release approximately 5.2 times as many calories as a kilogram of lean body mass". So 3500/5 = 700 calories metabolised of fat to create muscle. My logic just broke the laws of thermodynamics!0 -
Let's if I understand: in a closed system to gain one kilo of muscle "Sarah", our intepid gym goer would need to use 489 grams of her fat stores. Her weight on the scale would go up by 511 grams. Correct or off base? My logic is:
4 cals per gram protein
9 cals per gram fat
Although artcle says fat metabolised releases 5.2 times as much energy as muscle, so I guess muscle is not just proteins. I will use 4 and 9 to illustrate the logic:
1000 grams of protein =4000 calories
444.4 grams of fat = 4000 calories
444.4 + 10% = 489 grams of fat allow for metabolic process. To create 1 kilo of muscle requires the equivalent energy of 489 grams of fat. The scale would rise by 1000-489 = 511 grams.0 -
That 5.2 was compared to LBM, ie muscle mass, being used as source of energy, say from the already broken down amino acids.
Not from one source to the other.
For instance, you do the wrong workouts, eat too little protein, and big deficit - you'll be burning a decent amount of your energy from amino acids during the workout.
So a lb of muscle will provide about 700 calories worth of energy during those times, whereas fat would have been 3500 calories.
Then again - during the workout you would have actually been burning carbs too, and carbs with attached water is 500 cal per lb burned from your blood/muscle storage.
The math really does get impossible if you think you can exclude water - because it's integral actually in the process.
And you can't use those 4 & 9 figures because that's for the eating side of the math on macros, not the burning side as energy source.
Like it takes more than 3500 calories surplus on eating side to make a lb of fat. But when the fat is used as energy it's about that much, which is 7.7 cal / gram, not the 9 cal/gram eaten.
So the math really can't be done the way you are attempting.
Suffice to say, other studies that sadly did NOT break down LBM into muscle and water and other, showed that an equal trade of fat loss and LBM could occur slowly.
So 3500 calories from that lb of fat was used as energy while the body made a pound of LBM from what was eaten - some of which included water and glucose of course in that LBM, along with muscle.
So even pretending some decent amount was muscle mass, it took much more than 700 calories to create it.
That's why it recognized it's a whole lot easier to lose a lb of muscle than to make it.0 -
@heybales thanks for your response.
I was hoping i could infer muscle gained by changes in weight (assuming some level of accuracy on my CI/CO results) . Also help determine a better, more individually accurate base calorie intake than a generic website. Alas, foiled, best guess will have to do. Thanks scòbycalculator: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/!
0 -
Just TDEE please, better than 5 level TDEE charts.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G7FgNzPq3v5WMjDtH0n93LXSMRY_hjmzNTMJb3aZSxM/edit?usp=sharing0 -
Tagging0
This discussion has been closed.