[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
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
