Body Comp Basics
this is Part 3 of Body Comp Basics, an attempt to explain the mysteries of body composition and uncover the first principles of fat loss and muscle growth.
PRE
losing fat and building muscle are more similar than they are different. as seen in Part 2, supergravity stimulation encourages the all-powerful lizard inside of you to rethink its relationship with muscle tissue, to make it less expendable and more important for survival.
how the lizard responds to supergravity stimulation depends a great deal on supply (what you eat). if supply supports muscle growth, odds say your body will begin the long arduous process of manufacturing more muscle.
regarding supply, there are three main considerations.
the macronutrients (proteins, carbs, and fats) and the energetic consideration usually steal the spotlight because fat loss is more sought after than muscle growth (by the general population). and, for fat loss, energy is almost everything; you won’t lose a significant amount of fat unless you create and sustain an energy deficit. the amount of energy your body demands must exceed the amount of energy your body is supplied (within a discrete window of time).
to be more specific, it’s widely accepted that one pound of body fat “contains” 3500 calories worth of energetic material. and so, to lose one pound of fat, you need to dig a 3500 calorie deficit at minimum relative to any given start time.
you may not lose one pound of fat upon creating a 3500-calorie deficit for reasons that should be obvious (unless you’re a skim-reading bottomfeeder): body fat isn’t synonymous with body reserves.
the easiest way to create an energy deficit is by getting more detailed with your diet.
i know some people don’t like the word “diet,” as we’ve been conditioned to associate “diets” with temporary weight-loss interventions involving crippling deprivation and food that could be easily mistaken for foliage. the real definition of “diet” is less sinister and simply refers to the kinds of food you habitually eat. if you eat an entire box of Toaster Strudels every day, that’s your diet. it’s not a good diet. but it is your diet. and so, for the record, i use the word “diet” in accordance with its definition.
you drive fat loss with diet by making sure your energy demand is always greater than your energy supply. this will force your body to break down and use your energy reserves. and since body fat is the sacrificial soldier on the front lines, the energy reserve your body prefers to use to bridge the gap between a low supply and a high demand, you’re bound to lose fat.
of course, you could dig yourself into an energy deficit by moving more and increasing energy demand. “cardio” is usually the weapon of choice for this endeavor because body fat fuels aerobic exercise, whereas other types of exercise and supergravity stimulation use other types of energy reserves for fuel.
although true, you don’t need to do cardio to lose fat because the act of existing is also fueled by body fat. if you stop eating tomorrow, you will lose fat eventually. even if you lie in bed all day.
cardio will increase the amount of fat your body “burns” on any given day, but not by much as you think.
my complete thoughts on cardio live here. moral of the story: diet can drive fat loss independent of cardio, but cardio can’t drive fat loss independent of diet.
if your diet is solid and you’re subjecting your body to supergravity stress, then cardio can be a nice cherry on top of your overall strategy (your heart will thank you). otherwise, to increase energy demand for fat-loss purposes, just try to be as active as you can outside of the gym. instead of sitting on the couch, clean the kitchen. plant flowers in a garden. walk. have sex. play with a yo-yo (while you have sex?).
wrestling with your diet is a much better way to ensure fat loss, by way of supplying less energy than your body demands.
in an indirect way, this makes it seem as if the energetic component of food is the only thing that matters; it doesn’t matter what you eat, the only thing that matters is how much energetic material you mash into your maw. there’s a finger of truth to this. a nutrition professor named Mark Haub ate mostly junk food (like Doritos and Hostess cakes) for ten weeks and he lost 27 pounds. perhaps an even wilder story is that of Anthony Howard-Crow: he consumed nothing but ice cream, alcohol, and protein shakes for 100 days, and he lost 32 pounds.
energy balance may be the coup de grâce for fat loss, but there’s a catch: only living organisms can lose fat.
and in order to be a living organism, your body also needs to extract nutrients from food; we need nutrients just as much as we need energy. even pants-pooping preschoolers know the pirates died of scurvy before they starved to death.
the three macronutrients are, indeed, nutrients, but this rabbit hole runs round and roung. food also contains micronutrients like vitamins and minerals as well as phytochemicals, bacteria, and miscellaneous microscopic matter science hasn’t yet discovered. our bodies need these things to feel good and function well.
what we eat is important for our survival and general well-being because different foods contain different nutrients. and if what we eat is important for survival and general well-being, then what we eat is also important for fat loss independent of energetic material.
in a similar yet opposite direction, another consideration of supply is avoiding harmful “foods” (if you want to call them that). for example, synthetic trans fats were added to countless food products in the 1990s and early 2000s. research has since found trans fats to be so destructive inside of us, they’ve been “banned” (even though trace amounts are still permissible, which makes total sense).
and so, for fat loss, what you eat may not matter as much as how much energetic material you eat, but, in the long run, what you eat matters a great deal because nutrients affect your health and well-being.
assuming you’re nourishing your body, the most important nutrient for body composition is protein.
proteins are important because they contain nitrogen, and nitrogen is necessary for muscle growth; trying to build muscle without proteins is like trying to build a house without wood.
beyond being beneficial for muscle growth, a high protein intake will also bias your body to break down body fat instead of muscle tissue during an energy deficit. (and for reasons i won’t explain here, proteins aren’t typically used for energy-recycling purposes, which makes them great for fat loss.)
old-school bodybuilders and strength enthusiasts recommended eating one gram of protein for every pound you weigh. in other words, if you weigh 205 pounds, then you should eat 205 grams of protein. recent research says you probably only need 0.7-0.8 grams of protein for every pound you weigh.
science can suck it. using a one-gram-per-pound standard makes the calculation easier. besides, i don’t care about eating a pinch more protein to ensure i’m giving my body the nutrients it needs, especially considering there’s no downside (proteins won’t damage your kidneys unless you have a pre-existing medical condition).
if you want to maximize muscle growth, you might be best off spreading your daily protein intake evenly across meals 3-4 meals.
there might be a limit to how much protein your body can use for muscle growth and repair within a certain period of time. might. most research pointing at a protein half-life is done with protein supplements, which have notoriously fast absorption rates.
whole-food proteins take longer to digest, especially when eaten alongside other foods. also, certain factors influence how many proteins your body can use for non-energetic purposes in a certain period of time. for instance, your body might be able to use more proteins after exposure to supergravity stress or after a period of fasting.
i haven’t eaten more than two meals per day since 2011. and during the most muscularly-prosperous time of my life, i was only eating one meal per day. (of course, i’m not dumb. i might have gained more muscle if i was eating more often. who knows?)
if you want to live and die by the (somewhat incomplete) science, eat 3-4 meals and split your protein intake evenly across those meals. if not, just make sure you’re reaching your protein quota for the day.
increasing your protein intake is a bit more complicated than “eating more proteins” because many foods that contain proteins also contain carbs and/or fats.
wars have been waged over both of these macronutrients. years ago, fats were demonized. CHOLESTEROL KILLS! EGGS WILL MAKE YOU DROP DEAD! FAT MAKES YOU, UHHH, FAT? today, carbs are under the microscope. INSULIN IS EVIL! ANTI-NUTRIENTS! FRUIT IS SUGAR! YOU DON’T NEED CARBS TO SURVIVE!
well…
the Okinawans eat a decent amount of carbs (purple sweet potatoes). they have one of the longest reported life spans of any culture and they aren’t nearly as fat as carbohydrate-conscious First World goobers. and the Inuits eat a lot of fat (whale blubber), and they rarely ever get heart disease.
i don’t have the audacity (stupidity?) to condemn quality carbs or fats without valid medical reasons. (if your throat swells up and you almost die when you eat bread, you have a robust medical backbone.) both are useful.
fats are essential, meaning we need them to survive, yet we can’t produce them ourselves. in other words, if you don’t eat fats, your body won’t be very happy (or alive, for that matter). granted, fats have over twice the energy as an equivalent amount of carbs. they’re easy to overeat, which is why I can’t be within a ten-foot radius of pistachios. this doesn’t make them “evil,” though.
the primary argument against carbs is that they are non-essential, meaning we don’t need them to survive. true. but this doesn’t mean they’re “dangerous.” in the late 1930s, Dr. Walter Kempner put his patients (many had high blood pressure and kidney issues) on a strict diet consisting mostly of white rice, fruit, juices, and sugar. in one study of 106 patients, everyone lost at least 99 pounds.
when you control for nutrients and the negative qualities of food, the most important thing to consider, with regards to carbs and fats, is eating an amount that supports your goal: for fat loss, you want to eat less of them, but enough to avoid metabolic damage; for muscle growth, you want to eat more of them, but not enough to become a fat slob.
FAT LOSS & DAMAGE
as you know, fat loss requires an energy deficit. this creates an interesting dynamic: the need for nutrients is at odds with the need for an energy deficit. lowering your food intake inherently lowers your nutrient intake. not good.
the safest solution is to supply less than your body needs, but not too much less. you should eat an amount that facilitates fat loss at a reasonable rate and will also keep you somewhat nourished. this is the best way to avoid “metabolic damage.”
recall the analogy from Part 2: how your body handles energy is like how an accountant handles money. what would you do if your expenses consistently eclipsed your income? if you were regularly pulling from your savings?
you’d probably lower your expenses to match your abysmal fixed income: sell your possessions and change your lifestyle, cancel the premium cable package, set the thermostat at a higher temperature during the summer, cancel the Brazzars subscription (where’d that come from?).
your body does the same thing during an extended energy deficit. shrinking the gap between supply and demand keeps you alive longer. using muscle tissue for fuel instead of body fat as previously explained is just the beginning.
a. your body can find ways to use less energy both at rest and during exercise, which will decrease your energy needs. a chunk of your energy demand is a byproduct of non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT), which is the energy you use throughout the day when moving and fidgeting: bobbing your head to music, picking your nose, walking to the beer fridge, flipping pancakes in the kitchen. during a chronic energy deficit, non-exercise “spontaneous” activity levels may decline, which will decrease your energy demand.
b. your body may make you hungrier, which will increase your cravings. you’ll be sitting at your desk at work and your stomach will rumble early and often. you’ll only be able to think about food. delicious food. you’ll search for the best barbeque joints in your area. you’ll drool. you’ll want to place an order. you won’t. you’ll eat the lunch you packed. you’ll be disappointed. you wanted barbeque. you wanted cornbread. you’ll get depressed. you’ll quit your fat-loss diet soon after.
c. your body may blunt satiety signaling, making you feel less full and satisfied after meals. you’ll eat dinner. you’ll be hungry afterward. you’ll want to snack and eat something you shouldn’t. you’ll resist at first. you’ll crumble eventually.
d. there are more, but you get the idea… these adaptations are almost always in the name of energy conservation because your body cares about survival, not six-pack abs, boulder shoulders, or looking taut in tighty whities.
your metabolism can adapt in response to a chronic energy deficit, making it more difficult to lose weight because a chronic energy deficit is life-threatening.
throw all of these adaptations into a pot and you get “metabolic damage,” which is a shame. i don’t like referring to these adaptations as “metabolic damage” (even though i do, for effect). it’s a nocebo; it’s like referring to muscle growth as “muscle cancer.” your metabolism is supposed to adapt to better survive in a world without as much energetic material.
regardless, you probably don’t want to flirt with “undesirable” metabolic adaptations. join the club. ready for the bad news? you can’t avoid them. they will happen, the degree to which is unknown. some people experience harsher adaptations than others. remembering these two things will help you sleep at night:
first, these adaptations are, for the most part, long-term adaptations. they won’t happen overnight. they happen in response to a chronic energy shortage. if you don’t eat anything for one day, you won’t “damage” your metabolism.
second, these metabolic adaptations aren’t permanent. your metabolism will rebound (somewhat) once the energy shortage ends.
third, these metabolic adaptations can be minimized by not starving self. eat enough to nourish yourself, yet not so much that it takes forever to lose fat.
MUSCLE GROWTH & FAT
as mentioned in Part 2, muscle has a metabolic burden. larger muscles make you a bigger creature and bigger creatures require more energy. because of this, your body doesn’t build muscle without considering the cost; in order for your body to feel comfortable building muscle, it needs to know it will be able to support the higher cost of living associated with bigger muscles.
in some sense, building bigger muscles is like upgrading from a Corolla to a Hummer. Hummers are more expensive. they’re less fuel efficient. you won’t upgrade to the Hummer unless you think you’ll have enough long-term funds to support the transaction. otherwise, you’ll have to resell it on the secondary market at a loss. no one wants to do that.
pandering to the metabolic burden of muscle growth, most people say you need to consume a surplus of energetic material in order to foster a sense of financial comfort. this has a downside: this is also a recipe for body fat accumulation. and so, gaining fat is usually a side effect of trying to build muscle.
usually.
there are ways to minimize fat accumulation when trying to build muscle, with the most obvious being: don’t over overeat.
although energetic stability helps with muscle growth, there’s a point of diminishing returns. at some point, more money won’t make you more comfortable purchasing something expensive. likewise, twice as many calories won’t yield twice as much muscle. it’ll just make you fat.
you need enough to reassure your body that building muscle won’t be a wasted expense, yet not enough to grow so large you become a float in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade.
the big difference between fat loss and muscle growth is one facet of supply:
for fat loss, you need less energetic material (but not too much less). for muscle growth, you need more energetic material (but not too much more).
everything else stays the same.
you want supergravity stimulation. you want to nourish your body with quality foods. you want to avoid destroying your insides with harmful foods. you want to flood your body with plenty of proteins so it has enough raw materials to support muscle growth.
this is the playbook.
good luck.