Muscle mass and heart health

[Stephen Di]

It is often claimed, and I think there is some research
support to this effect, that excessive fat (poor body
composition) and not excessive weight, causes the health risks
associated with "overweight."

It is also claimed, with substantial research support, that
gains in muscle mass raise the BMR, so that fewer calories are
deposited as fat.

What is NOT clear to me is why these two claims are not
contradictory. If the musculature is metabolizing more
nutrients, it is because more work is being done, which in
turn requires a more copious blood supply to the
musculature. Why does this NOT translate into an increased
burden on the heart?

It would _seem_ that with increased muscle mass and equal
aerobic conditioning and equal adiposity, the resting heart
rate of the individual with greater muscle mass would have to
be higher than the resting heart rate of the individual with
less muscle mass. Is this true? If so, why isn't it a matter
of concern? If not, why not?

Stephen Diamond

[Michael Ro]

On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 20:28:08 -0700, Stephen Diamond
<stephend15@mindspring.com> wrote:

|What is NOT clear to me is why these two claims are not
contradictory.

Good. Take a year off, research it, and get back to us. Very
important work.

[Isiafs5]

> Why does this NOT translate into an increased burden on
> the heart?

Muscle movement help circulation, fat does not.

Sling Skate

Buy ALTOIDS!!! Thanks for the support UK.

[Kevin J]

Stephen Diamond wrote:
> It is often claimed, and I think there is some research
> support to this effect, that excessive fat (poor body
> composition) and not excessive weight, causes the health
> risks associated with "overweight."
>
> It is also claimed, with substantial research support, that
> gains in muscle mass raise the BMR, so that fewer calories
> are deposited as fat.
>
> What is NOT clear to me is why these two claims are not
> contradictory. If the musculature is metabolizing more
> nutrients, it is because more work is being done, which in
> turn requires a more copious blood supply to the
> musculature. Why does this NOT translate into an increased
> burden on the heart?
>
> It would _seem_ that with increased muscle mass and equal
> aerobic conditioning and equal adiposity, the resting heart
> rate of the individual with greater muscle mass would have
> to be higher than the resting heart rate of the individual
> with less muscle mass. Is this true? If so, why isn't it a
> matter of concern? If not, why not?
>
> Stephen Diamond

Why not try posting this to MFW? I'm sure they could answer
your questions a lot better than SUT/Roose. A lot of people
there who stay current with research.

Kevin J

[Christina]

"Stephen Diamond" <stephend15@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:stephend15-1EE692.20280804082002@news.mindspring.com...
> It is often claimed, and I think there is some research
> support to this effect, that excessive fat (poor body
> composition) and not excessive weight, causes the health
> risks associated with "overweight."
>
> It is also claimed, with substantial research support, that
> gains in muscle mass raise the BMR, so that fewer calories
> are deposited as fat.
>
> What is NOT clear to me is why these two claims are not
> contradictory. If the musculature is metabolizing more
> nutrients, it is because more work is being done, which in
> turn requires a more copious blood supply to the
> musculature. Why does this NOT translate into an increased
> burden on the heart?

Lifestyle, diet, activity, hormones, fat distribution, and a
variety of other factors all come into play when you are
looking at health risks. Any conclusion can sound logical if
we focus on one variable, and ignore all the others. Also
remember that correlation /= cause.

You are making a lot of assumptions, first and foremost that
increased work by the heart is the major risk (exercise causes
more work to be done and increases the heart rate, but it
actually increases cardiovascular fitness). Isn't
atherosclerosis a bigger health risk? Heart attacks and
strokes are caused by blocked blood vessels, and exercise is
known to reduce your risk of developing atherosclerosis.

> It would _seem_ that with increased muscle mass and equal
> aerobic conditioning and equal adiposity, the resting heart
> rate of the individual with greater muscle mass would have
> to be higher than the resting heart rate of the individual
> with less muscle mass. Is this true? If so, why isn't it a
> matter of concern? If not, why not? Stephen Diamond

[Stephen Di]

In article <20020805000047.22115.00001415@mb-dd.aol.com>,
isiafs5@aol.com (Isiafs5) wrote:

> > Why does this NOT translate into an increased burden on
> > the heart?
>
> Muscle movement help circulation, fat does not.
>
>
> Sling Skate
>
> Buy ALTOIDS!!! Thanks for the support UK.
>
>
I'm not questioning that pound for pound, muscle is better
than fat. I'm asking whether there is *some* strain on the
heart, having to supply considerable muscle. The muscles
obvious have to be supplied with blood, even at those times
the individual is inactive, as when he or she is sleeping.

Stephen Diamond

[Stephen Di]

In article <pRC39.189026$88.3984738@twister.austin.rr.com>,
"Christina" <notme@austin.rr.nospam> wrote:

> You are making a lot of assumptions, first and foremost that
> increased work by the heart is the major risk (exercise
> causes more work to be done and increases the heart rate,
> but it actually increases cardiovascular fitness).

There is evidence that resting heart rate correlates with
heart attack risk.

It seems that muscular hypertrophy should raise the RHR, given
the same quantity of exercise and other conditions conducive
to health. Does anyone know if that is the case?

Stephen Diamond

[Stephen Di]

In article <3D4EE14A.6060908@mta.ca>, Kevin J
<kjnospambrsh@mta.ca> wrote:

> Stephen Diamond wrote:
> > It is often claimed, and I think there is some research
> > support to this effect, that excessive fat (poor body
> > composition) and not excessive weight, causes the health
> > risks associated with "overweight."
> >
> > It is also claimed, with substantial research support,
> > that gains in muscle mass raise the BMR, so that fewer
> > calories are deposited as fat.
> >
> > What is NOT clear to me is why these two claims are not
> > contradictory. If the musculature is metabolizing more
> > nutrients, it is because more work is being done, which in
> > turn requires a more copious blood supply to the
> > musculature. Why does this NOT translate into an increased
> > burden on the heart?
> >
> > It would _seem_ that with increased muscle mass and equal
> > aerobic conditioning and equal adiposity, the resting
> > heart rate of the individual with greater muscle mass
> > would have to be higher than the resting heart rate of the
> > individual with less muscle mass. Is this true? If so, why
> > isn't it a matter of concern? If not, why not?
> >
> > Stephen Diamond
>
> Why not try posting this to MFW? I'm sure they could answer
> your questions a lot better than SUT/Roose. A lot of people
> there who stay current with research.
>
> Kevin J
>

What do the initials stand for? Sorry for my ignorance.

Stephen Diamond

[Michael Ro]

On Mon, 05 Aug 2002 20:34:48 GMT, Kevin J
<kjnospambrsh@mta.ca> wrote:

|Why not try posting this to MFW? I'm sure they could answer
your |questions a lot better than SUT/Roose.

Good. Take a year off, research it, and get back to us. Very
important work.

[Michael Ro]

On Mon, 05 Aug 2002 07:26:00 -0700, Stephen Diamond
<stephend15@mindspring.com> wrote:

|I'm |asking whether there is *some* strain on the heart,
having to supply |considerable muscle.

Good. Take a year off, research it, and get back to us. Very
important work.

[Michael Ro]

On Mon, 05 Aug 2002 16:44:53 -0700, Stephen Diamond
<stephend15@mindspring.com> wrote:

|There is evidence that resting heart rate correlates with
heart attack |risk.

None; zero.

[Christina]

> > Why not try posting this to MFW? I'm sure they could
> > answer your questions a lot better than SUT/Roose. A lot
> > of people there who stay current with research.
> >
> > Kevin J
> >
>
> What do the initials stand for? Sorry for my ignorance.
>
> Stephen Diamond

misc.fitness.weights

[Christina]

"Stephen Diamond" <stephend15@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:stephend15-793A15.16445305082002@news.mindspring.com...
> In article <pRC39.189026$88.3984738@twister.austin.rr.com>,
> "Christina" <notme@austin.rr.nospam> wrote:
>
> > You are making a lot of assumptions, first and foremost
> > that increased
work
> > by the heart is the major risk (exercise causes more work
> > to be done and increases the heart rate, but it actually
> > increases cardiovascular
fitness).
>
> There is evidence that resting heart rate correlates with
> heart attack risk.
>
> It seems that muscular hypertrophy should raise the RHR,
> given the same quantity of exercise and other conditions
> conducive to health. Does anyone know if that is the case?

I haven't seen studies specifically about muscle mass, but
resistance exercise decreases RHR.

[tribalzida]

In news:misc.fitness.aerobic, "Christina"
<notme@austin.rr.nospam> posted on Mon, 05 Aug 2002
22:19:01 GMT:

> You are making a lot of assumptions, first and foremost that
> increased work by the heart is the major risk (exercise
> causes more work to be done and increases the heart rate,
> but it actually increases cardiovascular fitness). Isn't
> atherosclerosis a bigger health risk? Heart attacks and
> strokes are caused by blocked blood vessels, and exercise is
> known to reduce your risk of developing atherosclerosis.

Does faster moving blood help erode the crapola that's
clogging the arteries, by any chance? I'd like to think that
if I have pizza cheese stuck to my arteries someplace, that
20 or 30 solid minutes of gushing blood would eventually
scrub it down.

Damaeus

[tribalzida]

In news:misc.fitness.aerobic, Stephen Diamond
<stephend15@mindspring.com> posted on Mon, 05 Aug 2002
07:26:00 -0700:

> I'm not questioning that pound for pound, muscle is better
> than fat. I'm asking whether there is *some* strain on the
> heart, having to supply considerable muscle. The muscles
> obvious have to be supplied with blood, even at those times
> the individual is inactive, as when he or she is sleeping.

Well, look at it like this. When you work out, it's your
muscles that expand with blood as the work is done. The fat
does not expand with blood. Muscles have fibers which absorb
blood to supply oxygen to get the work done. Fat does not. I'm
not sure how blood travels through fat. I always sort of
thought of it as dead weight that kind of hangs there, but
maybe the body grows capillaries through the fat or something.
Or maybe the body first carries away the fat that's in direct
contact with the muscle before working on what's just under
the skin. That kind of makes sense, since larger muscles
supposely carry fat away more quickly.

Damaeus

[Keith]

hi

the heart is a muscle, the fitter you get the stronger your
heart gets i.e. each beat can pump more blood around the body,
therefore the heart can beat more efficiently, if each beat
pumps more blood, the less frequently it will have to pump.
"Stephen Diamond" <stephend15@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:stephend15-1EE692.20280804082002@news.mindspring.com...
> It is often claimed, and I think there is some research
> support to this effect, that excessive fat (poor body
> composition) and not excessive weight, causes the health
> risks associated with "overweight."
>
> It is also claimed, with substantial research support, that
> gains in muscle mass raise the BMR, so that fewer calories
> are deposited as fat.
>
> What is NOT clear to me is why these two claims are not
> contradictory. If the musculature is metabolizing more
> nutrients, it is because more work is being done, which in
> turn requires a more copious blood supply to the
> musculature. Why does this NOT translate into an increased
> burden on the heart?
>
> It would _seem_ that with increased muscle mass and equal
> aerobic conditioning and equal adiposity, the resting heart
> rate of the individual with greater muscle mass would have
> to be higher than the resting heart rate of the individual
> with less muscle mass. Is this true? If so, why isn't it a
> matter of concern? If not, why not?
>
> Stephen Diamond