Doing away with bulking and cutting

  • Thread starter Thread starter imported_drpierredebs
  • Start date Start date
I'm pretty sure that fat doesn't actually burn any calories at all...Muscle is a living organ, it is a collection of cells and require energy to stay alive and functioning...they more muscle you have (and the bigger they are) the more energy is burned at rest. Fat is stored in cells called adipocytes, which most probably use the same amount of energy to sustain themselves regardless of how full of fat they are.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that...
 
This was discussed before remember, bit further down this thread:
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.info/cgi-bin....cutting
Aaron explained it well:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The energy expenditure differences between fat and muscle are relatively small.  ITs just that fat doesnt ramp up energy utilization like muscle does.

Fat is not exactly like a bag that has lard stuffed into it.  
It is an endocrine organ that is in a constant state of flux.  Fat is constantly turned over, hormones are produced, cytokines etc.  
Fat has mitochondria, fat has a nucleus, fat is cool</div>

Its strange thinking about it, sumo wrestlers must have crazy fast metabolisms at their size.
 
Been thinking about this surplus thing some more.
If we assume calorie expenditure stays pretty much the same most of the time for whatever reason &amp; someone ate a 300 calorie surplus, 250 of those calories went towards gains in muscle mass &amp; 50 towards fat. That would mean around 7000 calories towards muscle per month, 84000 per year. 1400 towards fat per month, 16800 per year.

If we say theres around 3000 needed to build muscle as an estimate, then we can get that 28 times out of 84000. So thats 28lbs lean body mass gained.
If we then say 1lb of fat is 3500 calories, we can get that 4.8 times out of 16800, so thats a 4.8lb gain in fat.

So that comes to 28lb muscle gain and 4.8lb fat gain over a year on a 300 calorie surplus? Or atleast something close to a 32.8lbs gain in weight, with more of that likely to be muscle mass id assume as you have less chance of giving your body more than it needs.

So by this reasoning wouldnt this mean that the 500 calorie surplus most eat is a bit over the top? I mean even if like i said nearly all of a 300 calorie surplus went towards muscle theyd get a 28lb gain in muscle mass and even that seems like a lot.  
wow.gif
If more of that went towards fat then even the 300 calorie surplus would be more than the person needs?

Something else to consider is that id assume the more muscle mass they gained the slower their gains would come as theyd get closer to their genetic potential again ?

So from that reasoning it seems that everyone is eating more than theyd need to be...atleast it goes along with the slow bulking idea.

Unless im missing something ?  
rock.gif
 
Once again, JonnyMath to the chalkboard...I guess we need to start a list of variables, or hindrances to the equation. I submit work done during the day, dietary errors, deloads, and distractions.

Looking at it as a model of hypothetical perfection, I get deloads. Also, I don't know if an organism can remain in an anabolic state that long naturally, as the body seeks stasis. I think possibly it's similar to dieting: the longer you're doing the same thing, the less it works, henceforth, the zigzagging principle.
 
<div>
(Peak_Power @ Dec. 11 2006,01:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm pretty sure that fat doesn't actually burn any calories at all...Muscle is a living organ, it is a collection of cells and require energy to stay alive and functioning...they more muscle you have (and the bigger they are) the more energy is burned at rest. Fat is stored in cells called adipocytes, which most probably use the same amount of energy to sustain themselves regardless of how full of fat they are.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that...</div>
That's why a person who is 260 lbs and fat has the same maintenance level as a guy who only weighs 180 lbs? Not to be sarcastic, but you get the idea. Your maintenance need is mostly based on your weight, I would wager that a guy who is 200 lbs and shredded compared to a guy who is 200 lbs and fat would require about the same amount of calories for maintence BEFORE you take activity into account.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Dec. 11 2006,18:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I would wager that a guy who is 200 lbs and shredded compared to a guy who is 200 lbs and fat would require about the same amount of calories for maintence BEFORE you take activity into account.</div>
I do not want to sound like an ass Tot but I just wanted to correct on one thing:

Lets say shredded is 8% or less in BF, the fat guys is 25%+BF.

The 200lb fatty is going to burn off a hell of a lot less calories than the shredded guy.
 
If you do the maths for two guys of 200lbs at 8% &amp; 25% bodyfat doing no activity, the leaner guy only needs about 100cals more which isnt anything significant.

Fat is estimated to burn 3cals per lb, muscle 6cals per lb it doesnt change much.

Could just take two guys, one puts 30lb of pure muscle on and the other 30lbs of fat. The about of extra calories they they then need because of this only differs by 90.
 
<div>
(Cova @ Dec. 12 2006,00:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Dec. 11 2006,18:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I would wager that a guy who is 200 lbs and shredded compared to a guy who is 200 lbs and fat would require about the same amount of calories for maintence BEFORE you take activity into account.</div>
I do not want to sound like an ass Tot but I just wanted to correct on one thing:

Lets say shredded is 8% or less in BF, the fat guys is 25%+BF.

The 200lb fatty is going to burn off a hell of a lot less calories than the shredded guy.</div>
Not if the fat guy is as active as the shredded guy.
 
No, it is true. It is not 6 calories/pound of muscle, it is 50.......big difference.

I have never even heard the idea that fat mass can consume calories. They either gain, stay the same or lose an amount of energy.
 
With your two subjects, being that they are equally active, the fat will burn off more calories just lugging the extra fat around. His heart will have to work harder and this will burn off more calories, his internal organs will have to work harder.

do the experiment yourself. find the two subjects, hook them up to an ergometer with a pulse and colrie burner and have them do the same amount of work. The fat guy will burn more calories.
 
With your two subjects, being that they are equally active, the fat guy will burn off more calories just lugging the extra fat around. His heart will have to work harder and this will burn off more calories, his internal organs will have to work harder.

do the experiment yourself. find the two subjects, hook them up to an ergometer with a pulse and colrie burner and have them do the same amount of work. The fat guy will burn more calories.

it is not just a question of fat cells being less metabolically active than muscle.
 
<div>
(Cova @ Dec. 12 2006,12:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">No, it is true. It is not 6 calories/pound of muscle, it is 50.......big difference.

I have never even heard the idea that fat mass can consume calories. They either gain, stay the same or lose an amount of energy.</div>
Based on what? You seem very sure of yourself, no offence but i wouldnt google something and expect to get an accurate answer if thats what you did. All reputable sources i know of estimate it to be much closer to 5-6 cals per lb.
For example:
http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/full/9/5/331

Also fat is not simply dead tissue, this was explained earlier in the thread.
 
I never said fat was dead. And your reference says nothing about the calorie burn/lb of muscle. I used ctrl+F and couldnt not find the related &quot;6 calories per pounds.&quot;
 
read somewhere that the old story that muscle uses 50cls per lb is a myth its more like 5 or 6.

if 50 was correct then someone like ronnie coleman wouldnt be so fat of season, he has that much muscle he would simply use the fat up with the caloreis his muscles were burning.
and as you know that isnt the case.
 
From review:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Elia (13) , in his synthetic review, highlighted the existence of large between tissue/organ differences in resting metabolic rate. Heart and kidneys have the highest resting metabolic rate (440 kcal/kg per day), whereas brain (240 kcal/kg per day) and liver (200 kcal/kg per day) also have high values. In contrast, resting metabolic rates of skeletal muscle (13 kcal/kg per day) and adipose tissue (4.5 kcal/kg per day) are low. Therefore, although skeletal muscle and adipose tissue are the two largest components, their contribution to REE is smaller than that of organs. The majority of the REE of the body (60%) arises from organs such as liver, kidneys, heart, and brain, which account for only 5% to 6% of BM. </div>

If you understand fat isnt dead, why wouldnt it use up energy? Think about the production of leptin for example.
 
<div>
(Cova @ Dec. 12 2006,00:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Dec. 11 2006,18:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I would wager that a guy who is 200 lbs and shredded compared to a guy who is 200 lbs and fat would require about the same amount of calories for maintence BEFORE you take activity into account.</div>
I do not want to sound like an ass Tot but I just wanted to correct on one thing:

Lets say shredded is 8% or less in BF, the fat guys is 25%+BF.

The 200lb fatty is going to burn off a hell of a lot less calories than the shredded guy.</div>
Not to be an ass, but do some actual research. The idea that muscle burns a ton more calories at rest than fat was debunked a long time ago. Resting metabolic rate is largely based on bodyweight, not lean mass, etc etc.
 
So when measuring BMR, I should use an equation like the The Harris-Benedict formula (BMR based on total body weight) instead of the Katch-McArdle which is based on LBM?

Regardless, LBM still burns more calories than fat at a state of rest as stated already.

I am still holding on my original point that maintenance levels can be found by a combination of statistical analysis and short-term adjustments regardless of the equation used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top