educate me on metabolism please

This is from the famous Tom Venuto, a good friend of mine. The idea is, muscle is the most metabolically expensive tissue. This means, to maintain itself, out of all the other tissues, muscle needs the most energy (calories).

To lose weight, you must create an energy deficit. This simply means, you supply your body with fewer calories than it needs for sustenance. Put differently, you burn more calories than you eat.

If you create too large of a deficit and lose weight too quickly, Tom's idea is that you will not only breakdown fat, but also muscle. Since muscle is metabolically expensive, losing it will slow down your metabolism. Follow me?

Now, personally, I don't really buy into this concept. I mean, Tom is right. Muscle is metabolically more expensive than the other tissues. However, it is not nearly impactful as many make it out to be. I think the most recent numbers I have seen is something like 6 calories per pound of muscle is expended. Losing a few lbs of muscle would be nothing to worry about.

Does this mean I am okay with breaking down muscle?

Absolutely not. Keeping your metabolism ripping is extremely important and you should take any little bit you can help. So, although muscle's relation to metabolism is really overblown majority of the time, IMO, it is still important to maintain what you've got. Plus, let's face it. We are in this not only for health reason, but too look good too. Losing muscle along with you fat is simply going to leave you looking like a smaller, still fat version, of yourself.

Maintain that muscle. Eat correctly. Lift weights. Exercise.

Plus, "diet too hard and lose muscle" is a very blanket statement. The fatter you are, the harder you can diet. Your body will breakdown more fat, if you have a lot of it, maintaining your existing muscle.

The "dreaded plateau" that Tom speaks of is caused more from hormonal changes than loss of muscle.

Plus, remember, as you lose weight, your metabolism has no choice but to slow down. A 400 lbs person can obviously handle eating a lot larger quantities of food than a 120 lbs person.

I have found two basic ways to boost my own metabolism...so much so that I can take a couple days off from the diet and still see weight loss progress.

1. Eat several small meals per day. When the body knows that it's going to get another few hundred calories of fuel within the next 2-3 hours, it continues to burn calories efficiently.

2. Lift weights! When you are on a weight lifting program, you purposefully cause microscopic damage to your muscle fibers. Your body is programmed to repair such damage...and that takes energy (i.e. it burns calories 24/7).

Your metabolism can seriously change.

Good luck!

I concur, weight training is an awesome way to increase metabolism.

As for the multiple small meals each day, this is more myth than anything. Eating smaller meals does little for boosting metabolism, when you look at the studies. I am not saying you shouldn't eat small and multiple meals each day.... I am just saying its impact on metabolism isn't great.

Further to what Steve said on this issue, he's right. The overall increase in calories burned due to eating more frequent and smaller meals isn't as significant as some of the other post metabolic benefits, of say, exercise.

But the basic point is correct - the simple digestion of food contributes to metabolism as your body has to has to create digestive enzymes in your stomach, intestines etc. to digest your food. So, the more often you eat ( i.e every 2.5 hours or so...or 5/6 meals a day ) and the more food you eat ( within reason ) the more you'll be bumping up your digestion metabolism. It's not a lot in terms of a % of your overall maintenenace calories mind you, but it's more so than if you only had 1, 2 or 3 meals a day of even less food of smaller portions during those meals...which would only serve to lower your digestion metabolism.

But every little bit to boost metabolism helps !

Nice post Wrangell. Nice to have someone around here who is "in the know."

Don't be fooled, I just THINK I know what I'm talking about.

What do any of us really know?

Hey Wrangell and Steve-

Good posts...and I do appreciate your comments on the frequent meal issue. I was attempting to get a simple point across, that frequent meals can aid in weight loss.

I know what the studies say and I know about digestive metabolism, but I guess I'm talking about a NET effect on metabolism. If you want to be picky, I suppose small frequent meals do not officially "boost" metabolism. However, if you look at the effect on insulin (the classic "anti-metabolite"), eating small frequent meals (effectively decreasing insulin spikes) can help you to prevent a slowing of your metabolism.

I do agree that even a small net increase in one's metabolism is worth employing.

And, I also agree that weight lifting is the real secret weapon.

Jen

Oh, I wasn't being picky at all.

There are a lot of "gurus" out there spouting off about how multiple small meals per day are NECESSARY in order to lose weight optimally, and this just isn't the case.

I know you don't consider yourself a "guru" nor was the above your intention. I just wanted to clarify to the OP since this is the current status of the "dieting industry."

Sadly, many people see it as a need to eat 5-7 meals per day, and they kill themselves trying to accommodate this advice, and their dietary adherence declines with each passing week. Eventually they give up.

At least this is what I have noticed.

On the flip-side, there are plenty of people who prefer to eat small, numerous meals. It fits their schedules and it regulates their hunger better. To these people that don't have a problem with it, GO FOR IT! I actually recommend it.

You are right, I am by no means a "guru." I never intend to be. Just trying to share thoughts across the forum. And, for me, the frequent meal thing really works.

I am not a guru either. Never have, and never will claim to be.

If it works for YOU, roll with it. As I said before, I am actually an advocate of small, numerous meals. I just don't promote it due to some magical increase in metabolism, like many gurus who do.

WOW.........ok here is what i have been doing..............
eating 5-6 small meals a day
trying for every 2.5 to 3 hours

eating as close to the source as possible....(the closer to how nature made it the better thing)

lifting weights for 20 to 30 min every other day with sundays off, mostly concentrating on my legs....using the big muscles

doing my cardio with the old.........min of brisk, min or two of full throtle, min of regular.....

So my question is
Will this help stoke up my metabolism???

Or should i be doing it diffently.....cus this (see quote by STeve below) scared me man!!!!


Thanks
STAR

Haha, didn't mean to scare ya STAR!!!!!

I would recommend you tone down the weight training to a handful of workouts per week, as in 2-3.

Everything else sounds good.

If you have more questions, bring it over to my journal. I would be interested to see exactly what you are doing in terms of lifting weights.

Interesting concept, I have never heard it put in such words. Rather than spouting off (not that this is what you were doing) about how you CAN in reality tone a muscle, I opt not to go that route. People don't understand this and almost always run with the magic "toning routine" of high reps, high volume training.

I mean, we can start discussing myogenic and neurogenic tone of a muscle all we want, but I don't think it will do much good in the case of the average person looking to lose body fat.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree, people confuse what terms they should to use to describe their goals are when training- whether it's to describe the goal of improving muscle endurance, muscle mass, muscle strength, level of bodyfat, VO2 , lactate threshold etc. etc. That's why I wanted to put the term " tone " in it's proper context.

I simply wanted to provide lilone some context to what it means when people correctly say a mucle is " toned " - from an overall exercise/fitness context. And, that " tone " is a valid term within a fitness context...but it may not mean what lilone thinks it means. As I mentioned earlier, " tone " begins with the degree to which your muscles remain contracted or tensed while at rest - i.e or even when you're sleeping. People who are not fit ( i.e really out of shape ) tend to have pretty poor muscle tone/low contraction at rest whereas very fit people have good muscle tone/high contraction. So, you can say, one of the benefits of exercise is improved " muscle tone ".

And I agree with you, ......the " highs rep lead to defintion " or " the high reps leads to ' toning ' " are clearly myths...one's I can't belive many people still seem to cling to. The fact is, if you do hi reps with low resistance or low reps with greater resistance, you're going to see the same improvements in " muscle tone ".