22 replies to this topic

[EmbraceUnity]

I have fluctuated in my exercise regimen often, but I am now trying to find the ideal regimen. I started with Cross Country running in junior high and high school. I then switched to a 5 day per week regimen that included lots of strength training and only 1.5 - 2 mile runs.

Currently, I have decided to strength train and do High Intensity Interval Training twice a week. I think 2 days per week could give me a good physique while keeping stress and oxidation low. Is there any reason to do more or to resume a more aerobic workout?

[deadstar711]

I have always been a fan of Arthur Jones and his followers (Bob Whelan, Dr. Ken Leistner, Brooks Kubik, etc.). I am not sure if you are familiar but the premise of their methods is one doesn't need more than 2 days a week if you are going at maximum intensity. I am at school now, so when I am done I will try to find some articles I have on such.

[Shepard]

Currently, I have decided to strength train and do High Intensity Interval Training twice a week. I think 2 days per week could give me a good physique while keeping stress and oxidation low. Is there any reason to do more or to resume a more aerobic workout?

No cookie cutter program is going to be optimal for everyone. A twice per week weight/HIIT program sounds pretty good from a longevity perspective. I feel most fit people would still benefit from a couple of hours of aerobic activity per week, but some people feel different.

[dannov]

I think Shawn Phillips has it nailed down the best. He does HIIT on an empty stomach 3 days a week, and those are his non-weight training days. He gets to bed around 11pm, wakes at 6am, drinks a liter of water and waits 20 mins for it to settle then goes out and does wind sprints, HIIT jump rope, or whatever since the HIIT concept can be applied to most aerobic exercises.

I purchased his book years ago off Ebay for like 5 bucks, and followed the program. I had always been a bodybuilder with a good physique, but in a month I went from about 10% body fat to 6-7%--was shredded. Also was in great cardiovascular conditioning, a lot more stamina, etc.

www.bestabs.com is his site if you're interested in checking it out.

[Alpha-Frequency]

What is HIIT?

[Shepard]

High Intensity Interval Training

[EmbraceUnity]

How much muscle is ideal for longevity in males? I am 6ft tall, 150 pounds, and have 5 percent body fat, yet I have a decent amount of muscle, so I'm not overly concerned about looks. I can actually lift more than many who appear larger than I do.

I notice that the CRON people typically aren't the largest of folks, to say the least, so maybe by strength training I am actually harming myself? I vaguely remember Duke mentioning that decent muscle mass is good for blood sugar. What other benefits are there?

Considering many on the forum here do quite a bit more strength training than I do, I'm wondering what evidence there is to support this. Furthermore, are the benefits that are typically noticed for strength training applicable to someone with an above average health regimen? I notice many of those who strength train at my college eat tons of junk food, so I'm sure it would affect them differently.

How big is too big? How small is too small? Are tabata-style high intensity workouts for strength training better than endurance workouts?

Edited by progressive, 29 December 2007 - 06:57 AM.

[TianZi]

How much muscle is ideal for longevity in males? I am 6ft tall, 150 pounds, and have 5 percent body fat, yet I have a decent amount of muscle, so I'm not overly concerned about looks. I can actually lift more than many who appear larger than I do.

I notice that the CRON people typically aren't the largest of folks, to say the least, so maybe by strength training I am actually harming myself? I vaguely remember Duke mentioning that decent muscle mass is good for blood sugar. What other benefits are there?

Considering many on the forum here do quite a bit more strength training than I do, I'm wondering what evidence there is to support this. Furthermore, are the benefits that are typically noticed for strength training applicable to someone with an above average health regimen? I notice many of those who strength train at my college eat tons of junk food, so I'm sure it would affect them differently.

How big is too big? How small is too small? Are tabata-style high intensity workouts for strength training better than endurance workouts?

Progressive,

I'll take a stab at answering why strength training is important.

1. Body fat reduction

This one seems unlikely to those who stopped reading up on exercise-related benefits over a decade ago, but is well known now by all true fitness experts.

You lose body fat from strength training for the following reasons:

a. Intense anaerobic exercise such as weightlifting (with each set done to exhaustion) elevates the metabolism significantly for up to 24 hours after your training session, depending on its intensity. This means more calories burned over this period of time. By way of contrast, cardio training at a steady level of exertion has little or no long-term effect on basal resting metabolism (it's still great for you and shouldn't be neglected; recent studies show that the long term benefits of hardcore cardio training include reversing to an extent neurological aging).

b. Lean muscle mass in order to sustain itself consumes lots of extra calories.

c. An intense weightlifting session of 2 hours burns over 1000 calories.

2. HGH generation

As documented in many studies, Human Growth Hormone supplementation has remarkable anti-aging benefits; see, e.g., the 1991 (?) landmark study of HGH supplementation in the elderly published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The problem with HGH supplementation is that it has proven to be quite dangerous.

HGH is a hormone naturally produced in the body, but its level declines as we age. There are ways safely to boost your own GH production without resorting to injections or other supplements. The best way to do this is through very hardcore weight training with heavy weights, working in the 3-5 per set rep range to exhaustion. Exercises involving a larger group of muscles, such as the leg press or bench press, result in greater HGH production than exercises involving smaller muscle groups. ( I can provide citations to a number of studies in this regard, if you're interested.) The downside is an increased risk of serious injury if you aren't an experienced lifter using proper form.

[Note: Optimal gains in strength and lean muscle mass are achieved by working each set to exhaustion in all of the rep per set ranges: 12-15, 8-10, 3-5. The reason for this is that heavier weights stress muscle fibers that aren't required for lifting lighter weights, whereas high rep sets to exhaustion stress other muscle fibers that aren't worked as much in the low rep range.]

3. Cardiovascular health

Weight training helps to reduce many of the risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

4. Improved mental health

A regular weight lifting program helps to overcome depression and reduce mood fluctuations significantly. The intense exercises involved in weight lifting increases the dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin levels, effecting mood improvements.

5. Increased bone density

This is particularly important for those over the age of 60.

The ideal training regimen should incorporate stretching, and intense aerobic and anaerobic exercise. The ideal amount of time is probably at least 5 hours per week for the greatest life extending benefits per recent studies.

(By the way, a study on mice a few years ago compared one group of mice that was both on a calorie-restricted diet and forced to exercise intensely regularly, with a second group that only was placed on a calorie-restricted diet. The researchers found that the mice only on the calore restricted diet without an exercise regimen lived on average the expected additional years, but that the other group of mice lived even longer. This result surprised a lot of people.)

Edited by TianZi, 16 January 2008 - 03:12 PM.

[Shepard]

b. Lean muscle mass in order to sustain itself consumes lots of extra calories.
c. An intense weightlifting session of 2 hours burns over 1000 calories.

Lean tissue isn't really any more costly than adipose. A little, but not enough to really matter. While Calories burned during weight training are important, numbers like that aren't since hardly anyone is going to be able to train at that level without offsetting a large chunk of that expenditure with additional food intake. Aerobic activity, on the other hand, can be low-intensity enough to create a pretty large deficit if you're got the time.

5. Increased bone density

This is particularly important for those over the age of 60.

While this is important (and a good reason to start training young), if you're looking to start a training program at that age it's probably more of a density retention advantage over any significant increases in density.

[TianZi]

b. Lean muscle mass in order to sustain itself consumes lots of extra calories.
c. An intense weightlifting session of 2 hours burns over 1000 calories.

Lean tissue isn't really any more costly than adipose. A little, but not enough to really matter. While Calories burned during weight training are important, numbers like that aren't since hardly anyone is going to be able to train at that level without offsetting a large chunk of that expenditure with additional food intake. Aerobic activity, on the other hand, can be low-intensity enough to create a pretty large deficit if you're got the time.

5. Increased bone density

This is particularly important for those over the age of 60.

While this is important (and a good reason to start training young), if you're looking to start a training program at that age it's probably more of a density retention advantage over any significant increases in density.

Hello,

1. For each additional pound of lean muscle mass gained, you burn between an additional approx. 35 to 50 calories daily, even when resting. That's an additional 245-350 per week, and over 10 weeks, up to about 3,500, which is the equivalent of about a pound of fat. I'm aware there are some internet pundits with unknown credentials who don't agree with this, but I find publications such as Men's Health and their expert advisory board generally very reliable.

2. A person just starting weight training will probably achieve optimal results in 20-30 minutes of strength training, if working intensely.

However, I personally do strength training at a high intensity for more than 2 hours per session (1.5 to 3.5 hrs per session 6 days / week), but I am an experienced athlete and weightlifter (I posted my training regimen at the end of your thread describing your own fitness regimen). As you can see from my post in your thread, I then end each session with about 30 minutes of hard cardio.

Pictures of me this summer at age 38 after 3.5 months working out, following two years of inactivity:

http://www.somanymun...ng_2007.html#19
www.somanymunchies.com/Home/My_Albums/Pages/Kenting_2007.html#17
http://www.somanymun...ng_2007.html#18

By this December, I'd added considerable mass.

http://www.somanymun..._Muscleman.html

(The above photos were taken by my girlfriend and it is her website; I don't meddle with it.)

I eat a small breakfast and moderate sized dinner each day, plus a cream cheese bagel right before my workout. It's not an optimal diet. I do drink two nutrition shakes daily. Despite a relatively low caloric intake in proportion to the amount I exercise daily, I continue to add on lean muscle mass.

3. A Canadian study found that postmenopausal women who did weight training for one year increased the density of the bones in their spinal column by 9% on average. Other studies consistently show show gains of around 1% in shorter periods even in those aged 80-90. You are correct that when compared against the rate of loss in bone density for those who don't do any strength training, the benefits of retention for the elderly are particularly impressive.

Edited by TianZi, 17 January 2008 - 03:13 PM.

[Shepard]

Hello,

1. For each additional pound of lean muscle mass gained, you burn between an additional approx. 35 to 50 calories daily, even when resting. That's an additional 245-350 per week, and over 10 weeks, up to about 3,500, which is the equivalent of about a pound of fat. I'm aware there are some internet pundits with unknown credentials who don't agree with this, but I find publications such as Men's Health and their expert advisory board generally very reliable.

I'm unsure where this began, but it spread throughout the magazines and PT certification tests. As far as we know, lean tissue burns somewhere around ~5 Calories more per day than adipose.

McClave SA, Snider HL. Dissecting the energy needs of the body. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001 Mar;4(2):143-7.

[platypus]

However, I personally do strength training at a high intensity for more than 2 hours per session (1.5 to 3.5 hrs per session 6 days / week)

Wow, that's a huge investment of your free time...obviously you're also getting results

[TianZi]

Hello,

1. For each additional pound of lean muscle mass gained, you burn between an additional approx. 35 to 50 calories daily, even when resting. That's an additional 245-350 per week, and over 10 weeks, up to about 3,500, which is the equivalent of about a pound of fat. I'm aware there are some internet pundits with unknown credentials who don't agree with this, but I find publications such as Men's Health and their expert advisory board generally very reliable.

I'm unsure where this began, but it spread throughout the magazines and PT certification tests. As far as we know, lean tissue burns somewhere around ~5 Calories more per day than adipose.

McClave SA, Snider HL. Dissecting the energy needs of the body. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001 Mar;4(2):143-7.

Frankly, I know from personal experience that adding pounds of lean muscle mass burns significantly more calories. But I don't accept anecdotal reports as evidence of much of anything, and don't expect you do, either.

I'll provide the relevant quotes from my 2007 Men's Health Training Guide supporting my assertion, along with the names of the associated fitness experts who wrote / advised on that special edition when I get it back. Unfortunately, it is in Shanghai right now, and I'm not. If you own it, simply look at Chapter 1.

[Edit: I decided to do the research myself. Surely Men's Health wasn't simply babbling about this.]

If not, one study frequently cited supporting an increased expenditure of 35+ calories per pound of lean muscle mass is this one:

Campbell, W., Crim, M., Young, W., & Evens, W.(1994). Increased energy requirements and changes in body composition with resistance training in older adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 60, 167–75 changes in body composition with resistance training in older adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 60, 167–75

An abstract including conclusions from the study can be found at the Am. Journal of Clinical Nutrition's website at this link:

http://www.ajcn.org/...stract/60/2/167

As you can see from the above link, said study has been cited in over 30 articles in some of the world's most prestigious health-related journals (as positive support for conclusions reached in these later studies, as far as I can see from a quick check), including the following:

Journal of Applied Physiology
Journal of Nutrition
Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
American Journal of Physiology: Endocrinology & Metabolism
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
The Journals of Gerontology: Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences
Diabetes Care
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention
Journal of the American College of Nutrtion
Journal of Aging & Health
Evaluation & The Health Professions
Circulation
Obesity Research

There are links with abstracts to all 30+ articles at the above address.

It is clear that weight training significantly elevates resting metabolic rate. The exact mechanism(s) responsible for this may still be debated, although the mainstream view is that caloric expenditure significantly increases as lean muscle mass increases.

In closing, any serious weightlifter knows that as lean muscle mass increases, caloric intake must increase proportional to that gain, or the additional muscle mass is lost. Provided this ongoing balancing act is maintained over time, lean muscle continues to increase without a corresponding increase in body fat. These facts speak for themselves.

Edited by TianZi, 17 January 2008 - 06:26 PM.

[Shepard]

If not, one study frequently cited supporting an increased expenditure of 35+ calories per pound of lean muscle mass is this one:

Campbell, W., Crim, M., Young, W., & Evens, W.(1994). Increased energy requirements andchanges in body composition with resistance training in older adults. American Journal of ClinicalNutrition, 60, 167–75 changes in body composition with resistance training in older adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 60, 167–75

Quoted from that study:

The increase in RMR is due to an increase in the metabolic activity of lean tissue and not an increase in the amount of lean tissue mass.

Looking at that study, the subjects didn't really put on any skeletal muscle tissue. It's an example of resistance exercise increasing RMR and expending energy, not that each pound of skeletal muscle requires anything extraordinary on its own.

Edited by shepard, 17 January 2008 - 06:10 PM.

[TianZi]

If not, one study frequently cited supporting an increased expenditure of 35+ calories per pound of lean muscle mass is this one:

Campbell, W., Crim, M., Young, W., & Evens, W.(1994). Increased energy requirements andchanges in body composition with resistance training in older adults. American Journal of ClinicalNutrition, 60, 167–75 changes in body composition with resistance training in older adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 60, 167–75

Quoted from that study:

The increase in RMR is due to an increase in the metabolic activity of lean tissue and not an increase in the amount of lean tissue mass.

Looking at that study, the subjects didn't really put on any skeletal muscle tissue. It's an example of resistance exercise increasing RMR and expending energy, not that each pound of skeletal muscle requires anything extraordinary on its own.

Actually, the subjects in that study increased "fat free mass", i.e. lean muscle mass by 1.4-1.8 kg, and lost 1.8-2.2 kg of fat mass, over the 12 week period.

But, after reading the study in full, I must agree with you that the authors of it concluded, rightly or wrongly, that the increase in resting energy expenditure observed in the study resulted from an increase in metabolic activity of lean tissue, and not from the increase in fat-free mass. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is correct, it still seems to follow that as lean muscle mass increases, there is more potentially "metabolically active" lean tissue, and as "metabolically active" lean tissue increases there should be a commensurate increase in basal resting metabolic rate.

But Campbell was a pioneer in this area. We need to see how Campbell's conclusions have stood the test of time.

So let's turn our attention to a more recent study in the Journal of Applied Physiology dated September 2000 entitled "Resistance training increases total energy expenditure and free-living physical activity in older adults." The Campbell study, above, is only cited a single time in the introduction, and only in the historical sense, to the extent it and other studies over the years have shown that resistance training can increase resting energy expenditure in the elderly. However, the authors of this year 2000 study come to a very different conclusion than Campbell as regards the primary mechanism causing the change in resting metabolic rate, and the conclusions here coincide with what has been reported in Men's Health, etc.:

"Consistent with other studies, REE [resting energy expenditure] increased after the resistance training program (28, 32, 42). The majority of the increase found in this study probably resulted from the increase in FFM [fat-free mass]. Consistent with this hypothesis, Taaffe et al. (39) have reported no increase in basal metabolic rate after 15 wk of resistance training in a group of women aged 65-79 yr who did not increase FFM. However, the REE differences in our study persisted even after adjustment for changes in FFM, suggesting that other factors may also be contributing to the increase in REE."

Link to the full text of the study:

http://jap.physiolog...t/full/89/3/977

That's it for me for a while!

Edited by TianZi, 17 January 2008 - 07:38 PM.

[Shepard]

Actually, the subjects in that study increased "fat free mass", i.e. lean muscle mass by 1.4-1.8 kg, and lost 1.8-2.2 kg of fat mass, over the 12 week period.

Fat-free mass is not the same as skeletal muscle. All untrained people are going to see an increase in glycogen storage once they begin any real exercise regimen, hence the increase in fat-free mass.

Regarding the study you quoted, even lacking a control group and a few other flaws, just look at the tables and do the math. Even if one was optimistic and gave full credit to increases in REE to FFM, you're still looking at a little less than 20 Cal/lb. And, they even admit SNS activity and protein turnover affect REE, so they aren't chalking it all up to FFM, either.

[eternaltraveler]

Hi Shepard,

I've also more or less assumed that muscle used significantly more energy than adipose tissue, even at rest. I've never seen any actual data to back this up, but I never thought to question it.

Could you point me to some reading on the subject?

[Shepard]

Could you point me to some reading on the subject?

The best example I'm aware of is the reference I posted above:

McClave SA, Snider HL. Dissecting the energy needs of the body. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001 Mar;4(2):143-7.

It examines and breaks down energy expenditure throughout the body. As one would imagine, big boys are kidneys, heart, brain, liver. I've got the full text on some drive around here that I'll try to find if you don't have access to it.

[TianZi]

Actually, the subjects in that study increased "fat free mass", i.e. lean muscle mass by 1.4-1.8 kg, and lost 1.8-2.2 kg of fat mass, over the 12 week period.

Fat-free mass is not the same as skeletal muscle. All untrained people are going to see an increase in glycogen storage once they begin any real exercise regimen, hence the increase in fat-free mass.

Regarding the study you quoted, even lacking a control group and a few other flaws, just look at the tables and do the math. Even if one was optimistic and gave full credit to increases in REE to FFM, you're still looking at a little less than 20 Cal/lb. And, they even admit SNS activity and protein turnover affect REE, so they aren't chalking it all up to FFM, either.

1. As you can see from my first post in this thread, I didn't claim that the fat reduction benefits of strength training are entirely derived from the addition of lean muscle mass, but rather listed it as one source of such fat reduction among several others caused by high intensity strength training.

2. ""And, they even admit SNS activity and protein turnover affect REE, so they aren't chalking it all up to FFM, either."

That's clear from the text I quoted. But the authors of the study did conclude that the fat lost by the participants in the study was PRIMARILY caused by the gain in fat-free mass. And this result was consistent with other, earlier studies, including one that found no reduction in body fat among participants who gained no fat-free mass.

3. The conclusions reached in the year 2000 J. of App. Physiology study weren't an aberration. In a study published in 1998 entitled "Concurrent resistance and endurance training influence basal metabolic rate in nondieting individuals" ( http://jap.physiolog...t/full/85/2/695 ), the authors of the study stated in the introduction the following:

"Many factors have been shown to influence metabolic rate. The strongest correlation exists between an individual's fat-free mass (FFM) and BMR [basal metabolic rate]. It has been proposed that increases in lean body mass will increase BMR, thus increasing total energy expenditure"


Perhaps we can attempt a reconciliation of the apparently conflicting data above by hypothesizing that it is not simply the increase in lean muscle mass that brings with it significant increases in Resting Energy Expenditure, but rather that increased lean muscle mass combined with regular strength training (of sufficient intensity to tax these tissues) results in an increased amount of metabolically active tissue, and that as the amount of metabolically active lean muscle tissue increases, REE increases commensurately. Besides this hypothesis, it's certainly the case that the direct caloric cost of exercise increases significantly as body weight increases, meaning the guy who adds 10 pounds of muscle will burn significantly more calories over 30 minutes of intense exercise than the same guy, 10 pounds lighter.

Edited by TianZi, 20 January 2008 - 11:43 AM.

[TianZi]

Could you point me to some reading on the subject?

The best example I'm aware of is the reference I posted above:

McClave SA, Snider HL. Dissecting the energy needs of the body. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001 Mar;4(2):143-7.

It examines and breaks down energy expenditure throughout the body. As one would imagine, big boys are kidneys, heart, brain, liver. I've got the full text on some drive around here that I'll try to find if you don't have access to it.

Any of the scientific journals listed in my post above dealing specifically with metabolism, physiology, endocrinology and/or obesity will be a far better source of reliable information than one publication written by a single author seven years ago, especially if you continue reading that journal(s) for an extended period of time. But I'll be the first to admit that reading studies can be tedious for a non-expert such as myself.

If you are looking for general information reliably presented in a format easily digestible by laymen on the benefits of resistance training and men's health generally, you need look no further than Men's Health magazine. And that magazine as of the 2007 edition of its yearly Training Guide directly supported the hypothesis that increased lean muscle mass in and of itself significantly increases basal resting metabolic rate. Men's Health retains a prestigious panel of health experts in fields including physiology and metabolism, with this list of individuals (about 20-25) usually included in each issue of Men's Health. Information presented in Men's Health typically, and unsurprisingly, reflects the underlying mainstream scientific consensus on a subject.

Edited by TianZi, 20 January 2008 - 12:01 PM.

[Shepard]

Any of the scientific journals listed in my post above dealing specifically with metabolism, physiology, endocrinology and/or obesity will be a far better source of reliable information than one publication written by a single author seven years ago, especially if you continue reading that journal(s) for an extended period of time.

If you are looking for general information reliably presented in a format easily digestible by laymen on the benefits of resistance training and men's health generally, you need look no further than Men's Health magazine.

That article is a review article, and is the most recent thing published referenced in this thread...although the references within the review cover a large time span.

For better or worse, I've subscribed to Men's Health for the last ~9 years or so. It's a fun magazine, but I don't usually agree with everything they print that month. I very rarely agree with their training advice (has gotten better with Dan John doing some writing, though), and I don't give any weight to their SAB. Quite a few magazines have a SAB, doesn't really mean anything to me. I've seen them claim findings before, but when I find the reference...it's lacking and doesn't back up their claims.

Besides this hypothesis, it's certainly the case that the direct caloric cost of exercise increases significantly as body weight increases, meaning the guy who adds 10 pounds of muscle will burn significantly more calories over 30 minutes of intense exercise than the same guy, 10 pounds lighter.

I'll certainly agree with this, up to a point, depending on training state and assuming some other variables are accounted for. Again, I don't think it's due to the nature of skeletal muscle in a resting state. It's the physical and metabolic activity required to build that tissue, sustain that tissue, and continue adaptation to the stress.

Edit: To better illustrate my point, consider two people that do not exercise. They are at the same total weight, but one naturally carries 20 more lbs. of FFM than the other. You still believe that their REE is going to be significantly different?

Edited by shepard, 20 January 2008 - 05:51 PM.

[TianZi]

Any of the scientific journals listed in my post above dealing specifically with metabolism, physiology, endocrinology and/or obesity will be a far better source of reliable information than one publication written by a single author seven years ago, especially if you continue reading that journal(s) for an extended period of time.

If you are looking for general information reliably presented in a format easily digestible by laymen on the benefits of resistance training and men's health generally, you need look no further than Men's Health magazine.

That article is a review article, and is the most recent thing published referenced in this thread...although the references within the review cover a large time span.

For better or worse, I've subscribed to Men's Health for the last ~9 years or so. It's a fun magazine, but I don't usually agree with everything they print that month. I very rarely agree with their training advice (has gotten better with Dan John doing some writing, though), and I don't give any weight to their SAB. Quite a few magazines have a SAB, doesn't really mean anything to me. I've seen them claim findings before, but when I find the reference...it's lacking and doesn't back up their claims.

Besides this hypothesis, it's certainly the case that the direct caloric cost of exercise increases significantly as body weight increases, meaning the guy who adds 10 pounds of muscle will burn significantly more calories over 30 minutes of intense exercise than the same guy, 10 pounds lighter.

I don't give any weight to their SAB. Quite a few magazines have a SAB, doesn't really mean anything to me. I've seen them claim findings before, but when I find the reference...it's lacking and doesn't back up their claims.

...

I'll certainly agree with this, up to a point, depending on training state and assuming some other variables are accounted for. Again, I don't think it's due to the nature of skeletal muscle in a resting state. It's the physical and metabolic activity required to build that tissue, sustain that tissue, and continue adaptation to the stress.

Edit: To better illustrate my point, consider two people that do not exercise. They are at the same total weight, but one naturally carries 20 more lbs. of FFM than the other. You still believe that their REE is going to be significantly different?

"I don't give any weight to their SAB. Quite a few magazines have a SAB, doesn't really mean anything to me. I've seen them claim findings before, but when I find the reference...it's lacking and doesn't back up their claims."

In light of the fact that you are an undergraduate studying Biology at Auburn, I'm impressed by your level of self-confidence since the credentials of each of those experts are vastly superior to your own!

Teasing aside (and a quick admission that I took only a single introductory course in Biology before graduating from UVA with a B.A., so regardless of the extent to which you are dwarfed in knowledge in any particular discipline of biology by a noted PhD with years of experience specializing in the field, you are nonetheless a giant as compared to me), I think the question posed in your postscript is largely of academic, and not practical, interest, since lean muscle mass gained through exercise will be lost sooner than later if not maintained through continued exercise.

What's significant is whether there are any significant fat reduction benefits gained from additional lean muscle mass for the person who continues exercising regularly at high intensity over a period of years whilst maintaining that additional muscle, regardless of the responsible mechanism. Let's call this the "engineering perspective." I believe you agree with me on the essential point, which is that there are such benefits. And that's what's most important to any person concerned with an "optimal training regimen", which is the title of this thread.

Edited by TianZi, 22 January 2008 - 05:17 AM.

[Shepard]

I think the question posed in your postscript is largely of academic, and not practical, interest, since lean muscle mass gained through exercise will be lost sooner than later if not maintained through continued exercise.

Certainly, my argument had basically no practical application beyond the obvious realization that you've got to keep training.