A) Situations definition: Maintenance is eating according to energy balance, no positive energy balance, no net fat gain, largely true.
B) Your definition (I think): Maintenance is eating according to maintaining bodyweight. If a major stimulus is changed (ie. you move to the moon, a bodybuilder stops training, hormonal changes), then eating a bodyweight maintenance will result in a gain of fat tissue as muscle is lost. Also true.
uhhhhhhhh...... if you are maintaining according to energy balance, then you are also maintaining your bodyweight... our definitions are identical
only exception: maintaining calories doesn't mean you're maintaining water weight, so if you exclude water weight (which fluctuates daily) from the equation then they are the same.
No! They are not. That's the point I have been trying to hammer home to you! You seem to think that besides water weight which is regulated largely by sodium/water intake (osmotic balance) all other bodyweight is regulated by energy balance. That's not true in all cases including (in part) the example you brought up. Understand, energy balance and bodyweight are very well correlated and for most people on this board essentially one in the same, that's why I have said so many times that calories in calories out is the best way for 99% of people to program their diet to lose/gain bodyweight.
However, that doesn't mean energy balance == bodyweight maintenance. Say we knew exact pearson correlation coefficients for the level of responsiveness of different tissues to energy balance. Fat mass would have a very high correlation to energy balance (say, close to 1). Muscle tissue would be less correlated that fat tissue (especially at the extreme ends at the spectrum) but still well correlated for most individuals. Other tissues such as bone tissue would be correlated even less.....
However, since 99% of adults do no significant training (as far as addition of muscle mass is concerned) the major changes in weight from about age 20 onward are usually due to gains or losses in fat tissue. This is the reason why the model is so accurate for the majority of people.
When other tissues are involved the difference between energy and weight maintenance becomes more pronounced. Take this example. Two inactive people begin at the same weight and both begin an exercise program and eat to achieve energy balance. One exercises by jogging and the other exercises by swimming. Both exercise a lot and burn an equal amount of calories in their activity. What will happen?
Neither will add a significant amount of muscle because neither will be doing intense enough work. Neither will gain fat because calories in == calories out. However, the swimmer will lose weight because bone mass is largely dependent on the amount of weight bearing stress on the bones. After some amount of time, the swimmer will be lighter than the jogger even though both eat at energy maintenance. Thus energy maintenance != weight maintenance in all cases.
The same is true say of the retiring Mr. Olympia bodybuilder. After years of high volume weight training and exogenous hormone use the retiring Mr. Olympia will have a massive amount of muscle. Eating at energy maintenance will not be sufficient to keep such a large amount of muscle on his frame, and muscle tissue can be lost despite energy maintenance.
Remember, the salient point is that these situations are extreme and don't apply to you! Being surprised by such situations is akin to being surprised that you can lose weight while in energy balance if you cut off your leg!
There's a lot to ingest there, but basically:
We agree that if two atheletes:
- Both have the same caloric balance
- Both consume and burn the same amount of calories
- Both maintain the same bodyweight
- Only one continues to lift weights, while the other stops
The one that stops lifting weights will, eventually, lose more muscle than the one that continues to lift weights. The amount may very from half pound over the course of a year to 5 pounds in one year, but it will not be zero.
Of course, but then they won't maintain the same bodyweight! Remember fat storage is MORE correlated to energy balance. So, since they are both in caloric balance fat storage for both athletes is unlikely. However, some small degree of muscle loss is likely, so after a year the one who stops will weight slightly less than the lifter despite both being in energy balance (This is a counter example to energy balance == weight balance!). Remember though, unless both athletes began with a large amount of muscle.... This weight loss will be hard to detect as it may be within the noise of water weight.
And, in fact, if the athlete that continues lifting is noob enough, he will actually gain muscle over the coruse of a year.
Not really. Lifting "noobs" don't necessarily gain a lot of muscle of their first year lifting weights. Extremely inactive people do but if the noob was active at all (ie. played sports recreationally, walked a lot) you wouldn't expect him to gain much muscle. You would expect him have fuller looking muscle bellies, more muscle tonus and vascularity, weigh more from increased glycogen storage/water retention, and MUCH MUCH more strength due to largely neural effects. But athletes who begin weight training don't really gain much actual muscle weight for a long time. Case in point. Some members on this board squat around 225 pounds. Others more like 450 pounds. Controlled for height, what's the difference in total body-weight for two individuals who are both lean. Five, maybe ten pounds.
The entire population in general does not understand how hard it is to gain muscle. Women are deathly afraid of touching weights and growing huge muscles when men are confident that a little extra fat, bigger looking muscles and a large increase in strength are the product of packing on muscle mass. In reality adding an inch to your bicep is harder for most people than adding a hundred pounds to your squat.
Show Posts
