Daryl
Sun, Dec-02-07, 09:50
Here is a question most people who follow the received wisdom about diet and muscle mass probably ask themselves.
"I've been particularly intrigued by pictures of those who follow the evolutionary fitness way, including yourself and Mike who was recently mentioned on the site. I'm 48 and would say that I'm close to where Mike was in his first picture (minus a few pounds of muscle) I have to admit that I eat plenty of carbs--post workout shake, etc but plan to change my ways. When I've tried to lose a little weight with the intention to get to his third picture, I tend to lose significant muscle gains. In his pictures he looks like he really lost fat and didn't lose hardly any muscle mass. How is that possible? He says that he may have a caloric deficit on 2 out of 3 days. If I did that working out at the gym 3 days per week, as I do, I'm afraid I'd whither away and lose the gains that I've made in mass. I don't do any cardio (hate it). In brief, could you explain how E.F., perhaps combined with I.F. would let one lose weight yet not lose a lot of mass if that's true. Thanks so much for any info on this."
The "fear" expresses is a fear of rejecting the old idea that you have to eat the TupperWare meals and supplements consumed by most body builders. It has nothing to do with the science or the evidence, as demonstrated by Super Mike or myself. We both retain muscle mass and carry low body fat and eat the Evolutionary Fitness Way (EF) and practice intermittent fasting (IF).
I have calculated (see my paper Why We Get Fat under the research link above) that our ancestors were in caloric deficit one third of the time. They were in caloric surplus two thirds of the time. Over a longer interval, they were in caloric balance. So, there is no need to drop total calories greatly in order to carry low body fat. Only if you are far too fat to begin with must you go into a longer term caloric deficit. And this is close to impossible to do if you practice the TupperWare and supplement protocol of six meals and snacks a day of basically lousy food and high glycemic load.
The worry expressed by the question seems predicated on the old belief that you must always be in nitrogen surplus to build or retain muscle mass. Neither is true. And the evidence is clear, just using Mike or many others as an example. In truth, a lot of the so-called muscle mass that many fear losing if they eat differently is fat, not muscle.
The bulk these people carry is high intramuscular triglycerides, a known contributor to insulin resistance. The muscle appears large because it is loaded with fat deposits laced between the muscle fibers and intruding into the connective tissue and muscle fibers. That, and the thick skin from subcutaneous fat, is the reason so many bulky guys look so smooth. They carry almost no muscle definition or cuts.
What is so hard to face about losing some of this intrusive and harmful fat? How bulky do you have to appear in order to be happy with your appearance? Is the smoothness that comes with the bulk worth it? Are the health risks worth it?
Just eat good food as shown on this site. Eat to a sense of satisfaction, but not fullness, two days a week and go hungry one day out of three. You can fast completely on the third day, but I don't see that as productive if you have to drive and earn a living. So, just under eat on that day, going hungry especially in the evening when it is safe for you to do so. [This caution is for those who are insulin resistant and may fall into low blood glucose when they do an afternoon fast.]
As you do this your insulin will begin to drop, your testosterone will increase, and your GH will rise. You will also sleep better, which will further the GH increase. Stay active on the IF day so that you signal your system to retain muscle and burn fat.
I think what the concern in the question indicates is that you have been a bit brain washed, as we all have been, by conventional fitness advice.
http://www.arthurdevany.com/2007/12/muscle_mass_ef.html
"I've been particularly intrigued by pictures of those who follow the evolutionary fitness way, including yourself and Mike who was recently mentioned on the site. I'm 48 and would say that I'm close to where Mike was in his first picture (minus a few pounds of muscle) I have to admit that I eat plenty of carbs--post workout shake, etc but plan to change my ways. When I've tried to lose a little weight with the intention to get to his third picture, I tend to lose significant muscle gains. In his pictures he looks like he really lost fat and didn't lose hardly any muscle mass. How is that possible? He says that he may have a caloric deficit on 2 out of 3 days. If I did that working out at the gym 3 days per week, as I do, I'm afraid I'd whither away and lose the gains that I've made in mass. I don't do any cardio (hate it). In brief, could you explain how E.F., perhaps combined with I.F. would let one lose weight yet not lose a lot of mass if that's true. Thanks so much for any info on this."
The "fear" expresses is a fear of rejecting the old idea that you have to eat the TupperWare meals and supplements consumed by most body builders. It has nothing to do with the science or the evidence, as demonstrated by Super Mike or myself. We both retain muscle mass and carry low body fat and eat the Evolutionary Fitness Way (EF) and practice intermittent fasting (IF).
I have calculated (see my paper Why We Get Fat under the research link above) that our ancestors were in caloric deficit one third of the time. They were in caloric surplus two thirds of the time. Over a longer interval, they were in caloric balance. So, there is no need to drop total calories greatly in order to carry low body fat. Only if you are far too fat to begin with must you go into a longer term caloric deficit. And this is close to impossible to do if you practice the TupperWare and supplement protocol of six meals and snacks a day of basically lousy food and high glycemic load.
The worry expressed by the question seems predicated on the old belief that you must always be in nitrogen surplus to build or retain muscle mass. Neither is true. And the evidence is clear, just using Mike or many others as an example. In truth, a lot of the so-called muscle mass that many fear losing if they eat differently is fat, not muscle.
The bulk these people carry is high intramuscular triglycerides, a known contributor to insulin resistance. The muscle appears large because it is loaded with fat deposits laced between the muscle fibers and intruding into the connective tissue and muscle fibers. That, and the thick skin from subcutaneous fat, is the reason so many bulky guys look so smooth. They carry almost no muscle definition or cuts.
What is so hard to face about losing some of this intrusive and harmful fat? How bulky do you have to appear in order to be happy with your appearance? Is the smoothness that comes with the bulk worth it? Are the health risks worth it?
Just eat good food as shown on this site. Eat to a sense of satisfaction, but not fullness, two days a week and go hungry one day out of three. You can fast completely on the third day, but I don't see that as productive if you have to drive and earn a living. So, just under eat on that day, going hungry especially in the evening when it is safe for you to do so. [This caution is for those who are insulin resistant and may fall into low blood glucose when they do an afternoon fast.]
As you do this your insulin will begin to drop, your testosterone will increase, and your GH will rise. You will also sleep better, which will further the GH increase. Stay active on the IF day so that you signal your system to retain muscle and burn fat.
I think what the concern in the question indicates is that you have been a bit brain washed, as we all have been, by conventional fitness advice.
http://www.arthurdevany.com/2007/12/muscle_mass_ef.html