Fat, Burning, and Physiology.

Discussion in 'Health and Fitness' started by A-Unit, Feb 4, 2006.

  1. A-Unit

    A-Unit Master Don Juan

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,528
    Likes Received:
    42
    Age:
    26
    [No scientific basis, YET***]

    Losing or gaining size is firstly a function of intake (or lack thereof) of calories. The less calories to pass into the body, weight loss occurs. The more calories to pass into the body, the more gain that occurs.

    Obviously, in earlier years of life, food was not as readily available as it is now. We didn't have the processed, immediate, or prepared foods we have now. Foods could not be kept fresh for days. So people would eat immediately, or??? Burn bodyfat/muscle. DEPENDING on composition.

    The body's PREFERRABLE source of energy is fat. It contains 9calories per gram, so MORE energy is packed into the body per gram than any other form. HOWEVER, because of it's density, it TOO is not readily available. It's more of a LONG-term calories, where most burning of fat is done via walking, golf, sitting, breathing, sex, i.e. basic life.

    Once you get INTENSE, over 75% of MAX BMR, you burn carbohydrates. WHY?

    Physiologically, it's more AVAILABLE. It's right there. In the muscle, blood stream, or liver. MOST is kept in the muscle, then the liver, and only a FEW grams account for sugar in the blood, and that isn't what you would think of using to lift. It WILL be used for lifting, BUT, it's main function is for the brain, not intense activity. This is why on low carb diets, brain functiong declines, because sugar has its purpose for the brain, BUT, can be made via other avenues, so you needn't ingest a whole lb of table sugar to be Leonardo Da Vinci.

    If fat is the preferrable source for everyday life, and its storage was for FUTURE energy use...physiologically speaking, shouldn't our bodies be able to sustain a period of starvation WITHOUT sacrificing muscle?

    This might seem like common sense "Oh well, you'd burn muscle up RIGHT AWAY." But is it? The mainstream media pushes the mini meals, or balanced eating, but eating WAS NOT complex when life based on survival. It's only gotten complex because of the CHOICES, and the lack of dead set information. That's what amazes me, LIFE got us here, obviously bodies then were kept thinner, because its affluent societies that have more incidents of health problems related to food (disease notwithstanding.)

    Does anybody have any ALTERNATIVE sources?

    I raise these questions to follow their logical end...we don't need, SEE Body for Life, or any bodybuilding program. That isn't what I'm getting at.

    Of course if you're doing intense work, and not eating, muscle won't be spared. BUT, if you're doing basic work, surviving, FAT would / should be the main source of information, as that is its PRIMARY purpose. To provide energy to the body during periods of starvation or a lack of food. THAT is preferrable to the body.

    If this WAS NOT the case, our ancestors would have STARVED, since they could barely AFFORD , let alone FIND, 5-6 meals perday. Normally, they'd eat fruit, nuts, berries, or vegetables, and then 1 big meal. They were eating to survive. SHOULD you NOW take that one step further, and be TRAINING for something, it would seem the following would be true.

    -Simple carbs would be preferred during INTENSE workouts to provide quick energy and spare muscle breakdown, if the presence of carbohydrates is not available.
    -During 'downtime' or non INTENSE periods, eating could be normal, as energy demand during that time is not heightened.
    -Fat presents the BEST source of energy (minus nutrients and vitamins) required throughout the day.

    I don't suggest this as an ATKINs diet, as they lean away from carbs, eat a bunch, whatever you want (mostly), and go for fat. Why go for fat if you're fat? Healthy fats, fine, they're required to keep the machine going. But if you already HAVE fat, it makes no logical sense to suggest that it can't be used first.

    If you overtly starve yourself, that's one thing. NO food would be a detriment, and the body would recoil, stripping itself of protein stores because it can't maintain them. BUT, if you're getting the necessary food to keep muscle, all other calories would seem extraneous, since if you're above 10-12% bodyfat, the fat would provide the energy (not the nutrients) needed. Nutrients would come from whole food sources, vitamins/minerals, fruits, quality lean meats, fish, and poultry.

    Maybe it sounds radical, maybe it sounds obvious, I only had the ideas because of the culmination of nutritional info I've read, and I can't believe there's not one uniform way to say "THIS is how the body works." Shyt, it got us THIS far, why can't we get the body right?

    I've seen stuff from Bill Phillips, to food separation, combination, (checking the Warrior Diet out), burn the fat feed the muscle, arnold, and whole other crap load of nutrition info (ontop of DC, and atkins, 40/30/30, etc). Even text books on it. But still, conflict remains. The body type will ultimately CHANGE your individual needs, BUT, it wouldn't change the underlying philosophy of HOW to do it.

    Post thoughts, links, stuff that's worked, or comments.

    I'm throwing out the "obvious" responses, though they should be posted. Most of what's posted (aside from the Master Cleanse), is traditional, mainstream, and barely works with genetics and physiology.



    A-Unit
     
  2. Warboss Alex

    Warboss Alex Master Don Juan

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,230
    Likes Received:
    27
    A comment:
    You have three paragraphs in that post which don't contain capitalised words - for that I salute you.
     
  3. reyalp

    reyalp Master Don Juan

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    613
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    southern usa
    I too find it interesting that there isn't one single law for body nutrition and health maintenance.

    It's interesting to compare the modern concept of structured meals and meal times to the older, pre-civ concept of hunter/gatherer.

    While I'm sure the hunter/gatherer played better into our metabolism, it probably wasn't as nutrient rich as our diet is in the civilized world.

    I think the hunter/gather metabolism bits are why the 3hr Diet works. Your body is designed for consuming and metabolizing food as it becomes available, and not for eating twice a day and having big meals.

    There was a show on PBS a while back , with Alan Alda as the host. They detailed a Native American tribe that up until the 50s still practiced their old traditions of food harvesting and hunting, but were forced to stop by the Feds. Prior to this they were very fit, had a good avg lifespan, and were also a little bit taller than the avg American.

    The tribe, having to switch to more modern food sources, became obese, diabetes became a problem, and lifespan decreased.
    Today, as a stopgap measure to curb the rampant diabetes and obesity, they're actually switching back to their tribal foods.



    If there was a single proven theorum for how the body works, how weight loss works, how nutrition should be structured, then all of these diet-selling yuppies would be out of business.
     
  4. Warboss Alex

    Warboss Alex Master Don Juan

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,230
    Likes Received:
    27
    There are however several scientific/physiological truths which point us in the right direction e.g. how insulin works.
     
  5. reyalp

    reyalp Master Don Juan

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    613
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    southern usa
    True, it's not like we haven't made any progress towards the goal of understanding human physiology.

    It just seems like there's more research into disease prevention than there is into nutrition and healthy living.
     
  6. semag

    semag Master Don Juan

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Messages:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Age:
    22
    A-Unit

    The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you're assuming that pre-civilized humans had the body type you want to achieve....

    .... what if the pre-civilized man had a little pot belly, was still fit, but no where near as much muscle as we're going for here.

    The image of pre-historic man w/ ripped abs and rippling delts is probably way wrong... so I'm thinking more science and physiology of modern times needs to be applied to go for this look we're going for, not merely for one that will keep our body surviving and "not obese."
     
  7. Eulogy

    Eulogy Senior Don Juan

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    This thread is giving me a headache.
     
  8. The_Lifter

    The_Lifter Don Juan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Age:
    21
    Evoultion has ensured that the mesomorphic phenotype has been breeded out of the genetic pool of most nations. Not intending to write an article, in short, those who stored fat readily were able to better survive periods of famine and pass on their genes. You still find those [white] "freaks of nature" here and there, those that are naturally jacked, have excellent muscle density, insertions, strength, structure, favourable ratio's of fast to slow twitch muscle fiber etc; but that's exactly what they are - freaks. Interestingly, you often find that Africans are, more often than not, predominantly mesomorphic. If I recall correctly, the of the top 500 sprinters in the world, only 7 are white. This is due to the fact that there were faster predators in the African nations, which had to be outrun. If you were slow or weak you got caught and you got eaten. If you were fast and strong, you could pass your genetics on.

    It's a simplified explanation, undeniably, but I'm just trying to outline the basics.
     
  9. The_Lifter

    The_Lifter Don Juan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    Age:
    21
    P.S

    I know a guy who's on a 4000 calorie diet, is dropping fat nicely and building [a small amount of] muscle in the process.

    It's all about macronutrient breakdown coupled with refeeds - and a training specific regimen, of course.
     
  10. Warboss Alex

    Warboss Alex Master Don Juan

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,230
    Likes Received:
    27
    See, told you it was possible.
     
  11. A-Unit

    A-Unit Master Don Juan

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,528
    Likes Received:
    42
    Age:
    26
    Re:

    *It's possible to drop weight on any diet if you expend more calories than you store/consume. So if you're maintenance is 4k, you can burn 5k, esp if you're large, so that isn't impressive. However, I'm sure this 'guy' is smaller, so it will be found to be very impressive.

    *We can't confirm or deny what modern man, and consequently earlier man was in terms of bodytype, etc...what we can infer is that our bodies are still built internally much in the same manner as it was. What has changed are food availability, quality, amount of consumption, and frequency of consumption.

    We mention numerous meals, however, most americans feed often, several times a day, and notoriously eats a higher protein diet than any country in the world. Yet, they are the most obese. Obvious reasons for that are the sources of protein aren't quality, they're normally fatty beef, burgers, steaks, and fried foods, not lean and pure protein sources.

    I do believe for the average individual, particularly sedentary individuals in offices, smaller meals, that are decreased as we near bedtime are MORE beneficial than undereating during the daytime and binging at night. This being, because what they'd prefer to binge on at night wouldn't necessarily be GOOD for them.

    Eating SHOULD not be some difficult science. Yet it is. We don't know how to eat proper for our body type, yet we've survived eons of existence? That's what I find funny, and difficult.

    I do see where you're coming from SEMAG, but we're not only talking about perfect body type, we're talking overall health and nutrition. Avoiding type I or type II diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, proper bodyweight maintenance, blood pressure problems, and yes, obesity. Overeats DRAG on the society via health insurance, and raise costs across the board. In their youth, overeating leads to early health problems. They then are confined to hospitals at an earlier old age in life.

    Just points, all interesting points, as well.



    A-Unit
     

Share This Page