<div>
(nkl @ Mar. 09 2008,21:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thanks for the info, folks! I have two additional questions brewing...
1) Bluejacket, you mentioned using a weekly caloric deficit when doing IF. Shouldn't fat loss be possible also eating at maintenance or above, due to fat loss during fast?
My rationale is that the protein sparing effect keeps the LBM the same during IF. Then eating in abundance after workouts would lead to gains in both fat and LBM. As long as we can balance the loss-gain ratio we can adjust for more fat loss, or more LBM gain over time.
2) There seems to be a concensus on the Internet that the energy content in one pound of fat is 3500 kcal, and 600 kcal/lb for muscle, which would make packing on more LBM an easy task, while loosing fat a nuisance, at least in theory. Of course this is not the whole truth. But to make it somewhat useful, I'm curious as to what the rate-limiting pace for adding LBM is? Do we have an 'scientific' estimate on what growth rate we can expect on a weekly basis, for example doing regular 3-days-a-week HST (the norm - not on the juice - not a teenager or elderly)?</div>
1)The issue being that in studies looking at the refeed period post fasting the subjects ate more but not enough to overcompensate for the negative energy balance from the previous fast period. Those that had the longer fasting period tended to eat more than those with the shorter fasting periods but still did not "overcompensate". In light of that, what Bluejacket is saying is correct; in essence you will be in a negative energy balance when looking at energy balance over a specified period.
Will eating above maintanence for a period post training improve the immediate post training deposition of protein, well of course it will. Training and feeding have been shown to be additive to the total PS response.
2) To date there are very scant studies looking at what amount of protein accrual occurs post training. In one that I am aware of the researchers mathematically quantified that one subject gained about 26 grams of skeletal muscle during the post workout PS elevation period after 1 workout. Which isn't very much at all.
If you take into account that 1 gm of lean tissue has about 1.6 kcal of metabolizable energy then 1 lb of lean tissue = 727 kcal. In the case of the above, it would take about 18 workouts, all producing this same amount of skeletal muscle, to gain 1 lb. Now since the cost of depostiing protein is about 3 Kcal per gram and some speculate that in order to store 1 gram of protein an additional .5 gram must be synthesized we can say the total cost for depostiing 1 gram of protein is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-11 kcal (cost of sysnthesizing the 1 gram = 3 Kcal + the additional .5 gram = 1.5 Kcal + the cost of the protein itself = 6 Kcal). So again in this case, using the 26 grams of muscle tissue accrued, it cost about 36 kcal to make it. So to gain one pound of muscle it would take about 820 kcal to actually make it. Yet it's metabolizable energy is only about 727 Kcal.
This does not take in account the energy used during the exercise or the daily energy used in maintaining it.
disclaimer: these numbers are based on several pieces of research and not all agree with each so please don't send me a PM or reply with "but I read where X=X" so therefore the cost of one lb of muscle = X.
(nkl @ Mar. 09 2008,21:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thanks for the info, folks! I have two additional questions brewing...
1) Bluejacket, you mentioned using a weekly caloric deficit when doing IF. Shouldn't fat loss be possible also eating at maintenance or above, due to fat loss during fast?
My rationale is that the protein sparing effect keeps the LBM the same during IF. Then eating in abundance after workouts would lead to gains in both fat and LBM. As long as we can balance the loss-gain ratio we can adjust for more fat loss, or more LBM gain over time.
2) There seems to be a concensus on the Internet that the energy content in one pound of fat is 3500 kcal, and 600 kcal/lb for muscle, which would make packing on more LBM an easy task, while loosing fat a nuisance, at least in theory. Of course this is not the whole truth. But to make it somewhat useful, I'm curious as to what the rate-limiting pace for adding LBM is? Do we have an 'scientific' estimate on what growth rate we can expect on a weekly basis, for example doing regular 3-days-a-week HST (the norm - not on the juice - not a teenager or elderly)?</div>
1)The issue being that in studies looking at the refeed period post fasting the subjects ate more but not enough to overcompensate for the negative energy balance from the previous fast period. Those that had the longer fasting period tended to eat more than those with the shorter fasting periods but still did not "overcompensate". In light of that, what Bluejacket is saying is correct; in essence you will be in a negative energy balance when looking at energy balance over a specified period.
Will eating above maintanence for a period post training improve the immediate post training deposition of protein, well of course it will. Training and feeding have been shown to be additive to the total PS response.
2) To date there are very scant studies looking at what amount of protein accrual occurs post training. In one that I am aware of the researchers mathematically quantified that one subject gained about 26 grams of skeletal muscle during the post workout PS elevation period after 1 workout. Which isn't very much at all.
If you take into account that 1 gm of lean tissue has about 1.6 kcal of metabolizable energy then 1 lb of lean tissue = 727 kcal. In the case of the above, it would take about 18 workouts, all producing this same amount of skeletal muscle, to gain 1 lb. Now since the cost of depostiing protein is about 3 Kcal per gram and some speculate that in order to store 1 gram of protein an additional .5 gram must be synthesized we can say the total cost for depostiing 1 gram of protein is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-11 kcal (cost of sysnthesizing the 1 gram = 3 Kcal + the additional .5 gram = 1.5 Kcal + the cost of the protein itself = 6 Kcal). So again in this case, using the 26 grams of muscle tissue accrued, it cost about 36 kcal to make it. So to gain one pound of muscle it would take about 820 kcal to actually make it. Yet it's metabolizable energy is only about 727 Kcal.
This does not take in account the energy used during the exercise or the daily energy used in maintaining it.
disclaimer: these numbers are based on several pieces of research and not all agree with each so please don't send me a PM or reply with "but I read where X=X" so therefore the cost of one lb of muscle = X.
