all posts post new thread

Nutrition My Metabolism hasn't slowed?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
BJJ Shawn

BJJ Shawn

Level 6 Valued Member
According to this new study, I'm just fat because I got fat, not because of nature and now I'm a little mad at science.

"Contrary to what many people think - and tell themselves when they look in the mirror - there is no metabolism go-slow as a person progresses from their 30s to 50s. Metabolism speed was found to decline only when a person reaches 60."

www.yahoo.com

Battle of the bulge: Scientists discover the real reason for middle-age spread

Piling on the pounds in middle age is an affliction familiar to many, but the common excuse of a slowing metabolism is no longer a valid excuse, according to a new study.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
BJJ Shawn said:
According to this new study, I'm just fat because I got fat, not because of nature and now I'm a little mad at science.

"Contrary to what many people think - and tell themselves when they look in the mirror - there is no metabolism go-slow as a person progresses from their 30s to 50s. Metabolism speed was found to decline only when a person reaches 60."

www.yahoo.com

Battle of the bulge: Scientists discover the real reason for middle-age spread

Piling on the pounds in middle age is an affliction familiar to many, but the common excuse of a slowing metabolism is no longer a valid excuse, according to a new study.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
Check who did the study? What kind of trials were performed during the study? Examine the whole article and try to seek some other studies regarding the subject. Be a little sceptical before you believe in a piece of writing.
There is a study about keto that pop up lately. At first glance, it tells you almost literally, that if you follow the diet you will worsen your health significantly. But a deeper evaluation of the writing reveled who wrote it, what kind of tools and test were used. It was just a piece of sh*t not worth of reading.

Now, back to your weight. Measure your waist at the belly button level. Divide the number by your height. If the results is below 0.5 good. If above - go get some and reduce the former number.

Stay Strong. Stay Hard. Get After It.
 
One of the scientists is Herman Pontzer. He's an anthropologist and author of the book 'Burn'.
His book and evidently research since is throwing up some interesting data about metabolism and causing a lot of re-thinks about energy expenditure.
Tracked down the paper but it required a subscription.
He did not believe his own (earlier) data and the results were unexpected. A lot of questions remain unanswered and he is following up on his other work to help figure it out.
His only interest is understanding energy and metabolism. It seems, anyway.
 
mikhael said:
Check who did the study? What kind of trials were performed during the study? Examine the whole article and try to seek some other studies regarding the subject. Be a little sceptical before you believe in a piece of writing.
There is a study about keto that pop up lately. At first glance, it tells you almost literally, that if you follow the diet you will worsen your health significantly. But a deeper evaluation of the writing reveled who wrote it, what kind of tools and test were used. It was just a piece of sh*t not worth of reading.

Now, back to your weight. Measure your waist at the belly button level. Divide the number by your height. If the results is below 0.5 good. If above - go get some and reduce the former number.

Stay Strong. Stay Hard. Get After It.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not actually that fat any more (I'm down from a high of 208 down to about 165-168) and I know 100% it was because of my choices, but isn't it nice to say it's nature's fault when we get fat?
 
I wonder how they accounted for sarcopenia.

Hypothetically, muscle is more metabolically active than fat. And we lose muscle as we age (unless counter-measures are taken).

But, yes, the obesity epidemic is mostly eat too much / move too little.
 
watchnerd said:
muscle is more metabolically active than fat.
Click to expand...
Not That Much
muscleevo.net

How Many Calories Does a Pound of Muscle Burn... Really?

How many calories does a pound of muscle burn? 50? 100? In fact, the resting metabolic rate of muscle is a lot lower than most people think.
muscleevo.net muscleevo.net
Organ or tissue​
Daily metabolic rate​
Adipose (fat)​
2 calories per pound​
Muscle​
6 calories per pound​
Liver​
91 calories per pound​
Brain​
109 calories per pound​
Heart​
200 calories per pound​
Kidneys​
200 calories per pound​

Essentially, adding a pound of muscle increased resting daily metabolic rate approximately 84 calories a day.

Ironically, adding a pound of body fat would increase resting metabolic rate 48 calories a day.
 
Maybe not in actual calories per pound, (2 versus 6) but mathematically muscle is 3 times that of fat….
At the end of the day however, as Kenny noted the total calories is inconsequential for the most part
 
Kenny Croxdale said:
​
Essentially, adding a pound of muscle increased resting daily metabolic rate approximately 84 calories a day.

Ironically, adding a pound of body fat would increase resting metabolic rate 48 calories a day.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...fat is so much easier to add than muscle....

There must be a hack in there somewhere.
 
offwidth said:
Maybe not in actual calories per pound, (2 versus 6) but mathematically muscle is 3 times that of fat….
At the end of the day however, as Kenny noted the total calories is inconsequential for the most part
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've never bought into the "50 calories per pound of muscle" that often gets quoted.

When I've had good body composition improvement cycles, my homeostasis calories didn't go up, despite adding muscle and losing fat.
 
Important to note that there is a big difference between how many calories a pound of muscle burns compared to a pound of fat during exercise.

Study group of 1, am closing in on 54 next month and my metabolism has definitely slowed. Not a ton, but def some. Of course it might be my janky left knee keeping me from doing much conditioning work, but I'm still doing a fair amount of resistance training at high intensity, as much as I ever did.
 
North Coast Miller said:
Important to note that there is a big difference between how many calories a pound of muscle burns compared to a pound of fat during exercise.

Study group of 1, am closing in on 54 next month and my metabolism has definitely slowed. Not a ton, but def some. Of course it might be my janky left knee keeping me from doing much conditioning work, but I'm still doing a fair amount of resistance training at high intensity, as much as I ever did.
Click to expand...

You mean jiggling fat doesn't burn many calories during exercise?

Damn.
 
Maybe it's not as much about the calories. I'm thinking of the article Dry Fighting Weight which states:

“The results from the current study indicate that modest increases in type 2B skeletal muscle mass can have a profound systemic effect on whole-body metabolism and adipose tissue.”

Isn't 2B muscle the type you lose as you age? I'm wondering if the loss of type 2B skeletal muscle mass also has a profound systemic effect on whole-body metabolism and adipose tissue?
 
the hansenator said:
Maybe it's not as much about the calories. I'm thinking of the article Dry Fighting Weight which states:

“The results from the current study indicate that modest increases in type 2B skeletal muscle mass can have a profound systemic effect on whole-body metabolism and adipose tissue.”

Isn't 2B muscle the type you lose as you age? I'm wondering if the loss of type 2B skeletal muscle mass also has a profound systemic effect on whole-body metabolism and adipose tissue?
Click to expand...
Yes, strength and power drop off faster than endurance since a higher ratio of fast twitch fibers are lost compared to slow twitch with aging.
Metabolism will drop since activity will drop when you have a hard time getting up out of a chair. Train strength and power, keep your type IIA and type IIB or X fibers.
 
the hansenator said:
Maybe it's not as much about the calories. I'm thinking of the article Dry Fighting Weight which states:

“The results from the current study indicate that modest increases in type 2B skeletal muscle mass can have a profound systemic effect on whole-body metabolism and adipose tissue.”

Isn't 2B muscle the type you lose as you age? I'm wondering if the loss of type 2B skeletal muscle mass also has a profound systemic effect on whole-body metabolism and adipose tissue?
Click to expand...

Regardless of the type of muscle fiber, modern rich country people are getting weaker compared to even the recent past.

Millennials today have about 20-25% less grip strength than same age men from 1985.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Comparative study of millennials' (age 20-34 years) grip and lateral pinch with the norms - PubMed

IV.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
watchnerd said:
Regardless of the type of muscle fiber, modern rich country people are getting weaker compared to even the recent past.

Millennials today have about 20-25% less grip strength than same age men from 1985.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Comparative study of millennials' (age 20-34 years) grip and lateral pinch with the norms - PubMed

IV.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...
Read something somewhere that stated current college age males have the equivalent grip strength of a 60 year old male in the 1970's.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom