The best research I've seen on this to date is in chickens ... specifically meat
chickens, where the amount of food given (and the timing) results in more
muscle, even without exercise. It's an experiment I've done myself: using the
same breed. One batch, all the food they want (high protein). Another batch,
only fed once a day, all they can eat (also high protein).
The first batch gains WAY more muscle (but not fat). However, they are also far less
healthy. The muscle they gain is weak (AKA "tender"). They get sick
easily too, and seem to be prone to heart disease. The second batch
is way skinnier, but they act more like healthy chickens and live longer.
My take on this is that muscle mass is in fact influenced by how often
you eat, plus how much protein. Just like the body builder magazines say.
But that is NOT related to either health or "fitness". The healthiest animals
are insanely strong, but they have little muscle mass. Those skinny chimps
are stronger than the strongest man, but they don't have much muscle
mass. Deer can jump an 8 foot fence on those skinny little legs, too.
It might be that for free weight lifting, having more mass helps for
balance. And having more muscles looks good for competition.
Otherwise, I think "lithe and strong" is a better goal. My opinion
only. Every time I see a body builder I see a meat chicken ...
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:14 AM, David Nyman <david@davidnyman.com > wrote:
Very interesting take, Phil. I suppose the critical question would be whether the body can become (i.e. after any whatever transient adaptations are necessary) as efficient at using long-term stored calories, and previously-ingested stores of protein and other anabolic components, as it is presumed to be at exploiting immediately-available gut-contents in the "6-meal-a-day" paradigm. My suspicion would be - e.g. on evolutionary grounds - that it can (I think Dr Herring has commented on aspects of this) and indeed there are some quite proficient bodybuilders out there who have gained substantial muscle on an IF regime, e.g:
http://www.leangains.com/
I suspect the "continuous eating" approach is partly driven by the difficulty of ingesting large amounts of calories within a limited window, and partly because, in the absence of the critical adaptations, the trainer tends to feel weak without a regular energy "fix". Additionally, most men (and it's nearly always men) who want to gain bulk have a very unrealistic idea of just how much of any weight they add is really muscle. Certainly, if you ingest 1000s of extra calories per day in pursuit of a "bulking" phase you will gain lots of pounds and inches, but as physique competitors who subsequently have to "cut" down to the very low body-fat levels required for elite competition discover, the vast majority of the poundage gained in this way turns out to have been fat, not muscle.
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment