Muscle mass

L

LittleBigHorn

New Member
If I remember right, someone here said that muscle tissue doesn't have a significant impact on a person's resting metabolism (could have been Aaron, perhaps?). I'm caught in an argument over this point with someone at another board. She claims that it does, so I would appreciate it if someone could point me to a study that says otherwise, or a short explanation as to why it is not so (I tried google, but couldn't find anything conclusive). I hate to not have the last word when debating with someone who thinks he/she knows better, when in reality they have no clue.
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(LittleBigHorn @ Mar. 13 2007,16:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If I remember right, someone here said that muscle tissue doesn't have a significant impact on a person's resting metabolism (could have been Aaron, perhaps?). I'm caught in an argument over this point with someone at another board. She claims that it does, so I would appreciate it if someone could point me to a study that says otherwise, or a short explanation as to why it is not so (I tried google, but couldn't find anything conclusive). I hate to not have the last word when debating with someone who thinks he/she knows better, when in reality they have no clue.  
biggrin.gif
</div>
Simply have her take any or rather several of the known and used prediction equations that use FFM and add 1 lb or kg to see the resultant outcome of the change in FFM. This would assume that the increase in mass was only muscle tissue related which probably isn't the case but it will give her an idea on how adding only FFM changes the basal rate. Not really a whole lot when looking at these small of changes. Now have her add 20 lbs of FFM and yep that makes a difference.

But if you really want to piss her off send her this

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/275/2/E249
 
I'm not stupid, but that was about the most boring thing I've ever tried to read in a hurry before my eyes glazed over. I got the point though, after some diligent searching. What ever happened to clear conclusional statements? Whew!
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Mar. 14 2007,08:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm not stupid, but that was about the most boring thing I've ever tried to read in a hurry before my eyes glazed over. I got the point though, after some diligent searching. What ever happened to clear conclusional statements? Whew!</div>
Seemed clear to me. But that was my point, if he really wanted to baffle her with bullshit then throw that at her and more than likely after the first to third sentence her eyes would glaze and she would shut up.

Bottom line, a lb or two addition of FFM isn't going to dramatically change your REE or BMR, yet the act of trying to gain that Lb or 2 will cause a greater metabolic cost than the result itself.
 
Of course it's clear to you. You're the 'D' man! That was probably recreational reading for you and Aaron, but when you only understand about half of the abbreviations, it gets tedious to the rest of us.
I prefer the ones where they give you a conclusion and save the time. That way I can stay blissfully ignorant!
laugh.gif
 
To be honest, her level of understanding on these matters probably would not have been sufficient for her to make it through reading that text with her sanity intact.
biggrin.gif


Thankfully she backed down, so I didn't need to bludgeon her over the head with that article.

BTW, when we're speaking of added LBM and its effect on resting metabolism, are we referring strictly to the accumulated protein mass (which comes very slowly), or the extra water and glycogen weight that comes with increased muscle volume? Or both?
 
FFM is all included and doesn't make a distinction betwen only protein accretion or whether the increases is only skeletal muscle. That's why that paper makes a good point. When looking at the major metabolically active organs each contribute to REE/BMR with our brains using quite a lot as well as our livers. One good reason why Quad should have read the full text maybe he would have used about another kJ or two reading it
laugh.gif


When looking at ECF (extra cellular fluids) there doesn't seem to be a case of it causing a lot of variance in the predictions but I don't think this is looking at the shifting of fluids from extracellular to intracellular compartments which would add some, perhaps Aaron has more information on this aspect.

When looking at skeletal mass some show it to be ~50 - 65 kJ/kg for skeletal muscle which is much lower than ~850 - 1,850 kJ/kg for internal organs. Also some researchers show the brain to cause a lot of variation while others show the liver to cause higher variation. In any case and as I tried to point out earlier, when looking at REE changes based on skeletal muscle mass changes it takes a considerable amount of additional skeletal muscle to cause what would be considered a dramatic increase in REE.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Simply have her take any or rather several of the known and used prediction equations that use FFM and add 1 lb or kg to see the resultant outcome of the change in FFM. This would assume that the increase in mass was only muscle tissue related which probably isn't the case but it will give her an idea on how adding only FFM changes the basal rate. Not really a whole lot when looking at these small of changes. Now have her add 20 lbs of FFM and yep that makes a difference.</div>

Dan, are you stating that thes equations based off FFM are correct or not? And in conclusion, does muscle truely burn more than fat? This has been argued in a few threads during the past year, but I just want to get it right!
 
Read the article dan psoted

muscle burns more than fat

but it doesnt burn like 50kcals per pound like some claim.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Mar. 16 2007,02:58)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">When looking at ECF (extra cellular fluids) there doesn't seem to be a case of it causing a lot of variance in the predictions but I don't think this is looking at the shifting of fluids from extracellular to intracellular compartments which would add some, perhaps Aaron has more information on this aspect.</div>
dont think I have seen anything on that, but i suspect if there is an effect, its minally small.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">When looking at skeletal mass some show it to be ~50 - 65 kJ/kg for skeletal muscle which is much lower than ~850 - 1,850 kJ/kg for internal organs. Also some researchers show the brain to cause a lot of variation while others show the liver to cause higher variation. In any case and as I tried to point out earlier, when looking at REE changes based on skeletal muscle mass changes it takes a considerable amount of additional skeletal muscle to cause what would be considered a dramatic increase in REE.</div>
When using REE estimates, they are for large groups of people, so are nowhere near as good for an individual.

When looking at the REE vs bodyweight curves, a small person will have relatively higher metabolism per weight htan a heaiver person. Because typically, the energy intensive organs do not gian size like somebodys fat mass/skeletal muscle mass.
 
<div>
(colby2152 @ Mar. 15 2007,09:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Dan, are you stating that thes equations based off FFM are correct or not?  And in conclusion, does muscle truely burn more than fat?  This has been argued in a few threads during the past year, but I just want to get it right!</div>
I don't think any are 100% correct and as Aaron pointed out what is seen individually may be different than looking at a group as a whole, even still when you look at the myriad of equations (predictions) you begin to see they are just that ..........predictions.

There is a host of research on this.

My point was, take the average of several and use it, in fact a long time ago Aaron had a spreadsheet that did it for you, used several predictions to give you an average. Again I doubt it is 100% going to tell you your REE or BMR but it's definately better than using a single equation and saying, &quot;Whoop, there it is&quot;.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Mar. 15 2007,17:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Read the article dan psoted

muscle burns more than fat

but it doesnt burn like 50kcals per pound like some claim.</div>
Thanks Aaron, and the article does seem like a lot, but I happen to love the statistical analysis &quot;mumbo-jumbo&quot;
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">but it doesnt burn like 50kcals per pound like some claim. </div>

If that was the case, my BMR would be at least 10,000 kcal/day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top