-1 What is required of the body to eat away at muscle? Bro Science BUSTED!!!!
So this myth has been passed around for centuries every person having their own theory of what is required for the body to lose muscle. You miss that 60 min window after your workout and dont get your protein in your ganna lose muscle, or you dont get protein in period you will lose muscle. Well they are all bull shit. Our bodies are not stupid it understands how precious muscle is. It understands how difficult it is to create so why would it be one of the first sources of energy? Nutrients are the first bodies source of energy. Stored fat cells are the second source of energy. Then muscle is our third source of energy. And last but not least the fat surrounding our essential organs is the final source of energy.
So what exactly is required in order for the body to start eating away at our gainz? Well first off our bodies need to be below 7% bf in order for this to occur. So if you are over 40% bf you could go weeks without losing any muscle even if you didnt eat! Yes weeks! Well obviously we would still need to be consuming a sufficient amount of water just to survive those two weeks.
To back this up one of my PT instructors was an ex marine. They conducted a study on his unit. He was sent out into the field for 6 days without any food! The only thing they had was water. Now all of these guys were in single digit bf. My instructor was around 6% bf and yes im sure he was tested prior to being sent out. With those six days they were only given water. After the six days was up they were tested to see how much LBM had been lost. I expected some muscle to be lost but to my surprise the amount of LBM that was lost was almost immeasurable.
- Bookmark
- 1
- 2
Your body requires protein for maintenance of muscle, development of cells, immune healthy, organ health, and vascular health.
You starve your body of protein for a few days, okay not too bad. You excess amino acids floating ready for need so the body uses those to create new cells. Now you run out of those amino acids. What does the body do? It releases cortisol to break down protein (mainly muscle mass) to maintain cell production immune health etc. if you stop eating protein, you know what happens?
Illness, delayed healing, edema (bloating and pooling if water but you prob already know that from your "credible" pt instructor) destruction of blood vessels from decrease pH of blood (excessive amino ACIDS entering the blood but I'm sure you know all about pH) and the list goes on.
You'll discredit medical experts from Harvard (some here are medical professionals too) but blindly believe your PT instructor? Did you ever think that maybe the PT instructor was selling you bs so he would seem "revolutionary?" Everything is about flavor of the month while old school broscience has turned out to be right (see frank Zane and bcaas, mike mentzer and HIT etc)
This is a big load of crap. Thumbs down.
BigBmajI didn't eat anything for 7 days once and I felt so weak I couldn't believe it. It was a test to see how much food affected my life. But I didn't loose a bunch of weight. The weight I did loose was gained back within a few days. In fact I was recently fasting once a week for 24 hours and it had no impact on my weight at all. I had read some good things about fasting so I gave it a try. So I do think that this paranoia about needing protein every 2 hours is pretty crazy. But I used to believe it because I read all the articles funded by supplement companies. If you really lost muscle mass that quickly humans would have never made it this far. And ancient man would have been a twig, which was not the case at all.
I'm not sure why people hold on the this notion so dearly? This is like a discussion about god.
FoolMeOnceThis is scientifically proven the best approach to weight loss. http://www.eroids.com/forum/training-nutrition-diet/weight-loss/iifym-fo...
Fasting isnt a terrible way to go in terms of fat loss but it can have its negative side effects on the metabolism if use is prolonged
Also very good point about our history. In order to survive back in those days top performance with little energy was required in order to thrive. So it can be assumed that weve adapted from that
BigBmajI'll take a look at that when it's time to get lean, thanks. Fortunately for me getting lean is very easy.
FoolMeOnceIts a great read I promise. If getting lean is easy then this will only facilitate things even more for you.
No offense but I don't think that catabolism is "bro science" your body needs protein to maintain the muscle you have and when you don't receive that protein it only has one source to get it from. The stored protein in muscles. And even if it is bro science the only thing that would sway my opinion are studies with an actual report to back it up. Not he said they did this. That in my opinion is bro science in itself
And sorry but I know from personal experience a week with no nutrition you're going to see muscle wasting especially if you're over the weight your body wants to sit at naturally
FoolMeOnceOh please tell me more about your x-ray vision. You need to understand that maintaining muscle and building muscle are two completely different processes. Yes protein is required in order to build muscle. But the idea that protein is required to maintain muscle is complete bro science. Muscle is not going to magically waste away on its own because it doesnt receive protein. The body has many other different sources of energy before it eats away at your muscle. I dont see any reason why the body would choose muscle as one of its first sources. That statement itself doesnt make sense to me.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/protein-full-story/
i think ill trust harvard more than the self proclaimed 19 year old diet expert....have a nice day
FoolMeOnceI want to start off by saying that harvard is a credible source. Although after the first few paragraphs of the study they did on over weight women. I can safely say they 1. approached the study all wrong 2. Didnt put a sufficient amount of info in that study conclusion. They tested 4 diets with these women. We dont know what their daily caloric intake was. We dont know their activity level. We dont know what their metabolisms were at before the study started. We dont know if they had caloric reassurance days. Which I explain in this post http://www.eroids.com/forum/training-nutrition-diet/weight-loss/iifym-fo...
Also we dont even know if they were even following those diets on point from day to day. Its not as if they had someone following them around 24/7 to ensure that they were eating what they should.
http://www.uni.edu/dolgener/Advanced_Sport_Nutrition/protein_intake.pdf
i can do this all day....where is there a single written study that would collaborate your theory? i dont even care if its from a source as credible as a university. just show me something. but you wont be able to. your theory is the "bro science" here
FoolMeOnceThe lead pt instructor for the fastest growing fitness club in the midwest is a credible enough source for me
pt instructor=Bro Science
PhDs=actual studies and data hence real science and real conclusions.
and dont come in here and say "well it works for him" because everyones different and chances are that he partakes in the same things everyone on this board does. which helps fight muscle wasting in itself. you know the kind of muscle wasting aids patients see? so yes his idea of "protein isnt that important" would be true if youre pumped full of juice. but for the ordinary person it does matter. if you want to build and then maintain muscle mass you need PROTEIN. but keep coming back with your statements that hold no water versus using studies to back it up.
just because you say something doesnt make it true. youll need to learn that if you want to convince people of what you believe to be true. and that doesnt just go for this board thats how the world works. everyone has their opinions and wont be swayed by just telling them something is true
Genetics play a big role in wether you retain lost of muscle or lose lots of it. Nobody reacts the same to bulking or cutting. Like SDM said, one size doesn't fit all. I can do this same "experiment" and i give you my word i will lose a butt load of muscle. I need 3500 cals/day just mantain.
Makes no sense in any scientific way what so ever. And even if the loss was almost immeasurable, he did loose some and the process of muscle breakdown had just started.
You mention things as drinking protein in the window after training. Studies show it is really effective to get fast-acting carbs (for insulin pulse) and protein. The sooner the better. But studies also show that muscles are open for nutrients longer than 1 hour.
I didn't see the weight of the person starving for 6 days. As the weight of LBM plays a huge role in the catabolism. Imagine someone 280lbs with bf%7 not eating anything for 6 days! He would loose alot of weight.
And one thing to remember is that the process of using muscles for energy is really slow to break down and also to build. And maybe he didn't lose any LBM over 6 days of starving, but the loss would come after 2 weeks on an extreme calorie deficit. And it would be impossible to train and maintain. there would be no nutrients to maintain muscles if training. But with no training and simply starving, you could get away with it for 6 days, but with no hard physical activity at all, especially training muscles. That would promote muscle loss significantly. Fat is made to be stored and used easily by the body, and that process will kick in first. Than after 1-2 weeks the muscles will start to break down as well. Its simple logic and biologi.
FoolMeOnceBuilding muscle, and maintaining muscle are two completely different processes.
There are some that believe you can live off of water, the energy of the sun and faith. Me I like ribeye. I would think you would have to work hard to not to lose muscle when you are starving. Could you imagine working out or just doing any physical activity after starving for 6 days? I would have beat the first guy that pissed me off to death and ate him. After I cooked him of course.
I didn't eat anything for over a week once and didn't lose any strength in the gym. I felt great actually.
FoolMeOncePhysically yes you can live off of water and the sun, Psychologically thats another story.
Maybe you can do a 6 day fast and squash the myth for us. I personally do not believe it's bro science at all. Did your PT instructor tell you this story or were you there to witness this?
Our bodies do not want to hold onto as more muscle than it really needs. Try being over 235lbs with low bodyfat and you tell me how hard it is just to maintain that. Genetically my body wants to be 180lbs and it will revert to that eventually if i don't feed it lots and often.
FoolMeOnceSo your saying my instructor made that up and lied to our whole class? Do you have any studies to back up that this is incorrect?
Nutrition is full of bullshit. 1 expert will say one thing and another with say the opposite. It would be nice to have 1 truth.
FoolMeOncelol no its not. I dont wanna over step here and be the douce considering the sensitivity of other members. But id like to think im an expert on nutrition. So go ahead and ask away and I promise to support everything I say with studies and or logic.
So your an "expert" on nutrition because you PT instructor told you some story about him not losing weight while starving for 6 days. C'mon man!
Like i said before why don't YOU test this theory and become the "expert" you claim to be.
At 19 you're not an expert on nutrition. You don't have enough experience to make a claim like that.
FoolMeOnceOh please tell me more about my life. Considering you know everything about me. Based off of a few comments and posts from the internet.
I've no interest in the rest of your life, merely what you posted above. You should try and learn some humility young man and stop telling people you know everything already, it comes across as being cocky. That hasn't helped you bond with the community. I'm sure you know better though eh?
I think you are being ruff on him. Who knows he might have had one hell of a health class.
FoolMeOnceIts seems you know exactly whats best for me huh? Well you can interpret my comments and my posts how ever youd like. But the truth is those posts and comments were only intended to help people and get others thinking on their feet to start discussions where members can get feedback from one another. Then we got negative nancys like you coming in percieving this as my way of trying to be a cocky know it all. So if your not going to chime in just leave bro no one wants to hear what you have to say. Especially me.
X2
"Expert" on nutrition at 19..... lulz
This dude told me a few days ago he was doing Tren and gaining fat. Now he wants to talk about been an expert on nutrition Smh...
FoolMeOncelol how can you not understand the simple concept of energy in vs energy out. You could have a dam tape worm in your stomach and gain weight! Permitting your consuming more calories than you burn for the day you are going to gain weight regardless of what drugs your on.
Only thing that is sensitive about me is my nipples and yes there is several opinions on nutrition.
FoolMeOnceMe too brother lol.
+1
Genetics good point to add in!
I'm confused,
You said:
Then this
Doesn't add up if he was 6% when he started then by your theory, his body would start catabolism in this 6 day experiment immediately considering he had no nutrients just water...
Explain please
I do tend to agree that catabolism is a little over rated in most posts on bb forums
But it is a real " threat"
But keep in mind muscle memory as well
FoolMeOnceI said you must be below 7%. I never gave a period of time you must be deprived of nutrients in that bf percentile in order for catabolism to occur. That number is unkown at this moment. All we do know is that it will take over 6 days of nutrient deprivation in order for that to occur.
Ok so my question is this: if we don't know that then what was his body fueling him with if not muscle when he was on such an extreme caloric deficit
I'm just question bro to get some questions flowing hopefully some vets come and chime in. ;)
This is a very interesting subject
The theory I would guess would be fat.
FoolMeOnceHe still had 7% bf its not as if he was at 0%. So it can be assumed the body went for the little fat he had left. If only I thought to ask what his activity level was at the time.