Results of Over-Feeding

[mlentzner]

I saw this article on the Whole Health Source blog which has some application to the kind of eating you recommend.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/body-fat-setpoint.html

The article is about how a group of people some overweight and some normal weight were overfed by 50% for six weeks and then allowed to eat as they wished for the next six weeks. All except one followed this pattern: they gained weight, and then lost 2/3 of it by the end of the second six week period.

Here's the interesting part from our viewpoint: They didn't just get fat, about 2/3 of the weight they gained was lean mass. When they went back to eating normally they lost 61% of the fat mass they gained and only 23% of the lean mass they gained. This was without any special training other than what little they might have been doing already.

Seems to be more grist for the mill of, "quit worrying about your abs and eat!"

Matt

[Mark Rippetoe]

"Given the fact that body fat mass is much higher in many affluent nations than it has ever been in human history, the increase must be due to factors that have changed in modern times. I can only speculate what these factors may be, because research has not identified them to my knowledge, at least not in humans. But I have my guesses. I'll expand on this in the next post."

I'm interested in his conclusion. Whaddayawannabet it has something to do with sugar/simple carbs?

[gordonrumble]

A related study is the Vermont Prison Overfeeding Study. I've linked a description of the study here:

http://weightfocus.blogspot.com/2009/08/vermont-prison-overfeeding-study.html

Basically, volunteers (who were completely sedentary) were asked to gain between 15% to 25% of their bodyweight in ten weeks. This averaged out to about 36 pounds apiece.

This was accomplished, but the prisoners had to eat 8,000-10,000 calories a day to make this happen. The weight gain was largely body fat (but again, note that they were sedentary). This would by the metric that a pound of fat is about 3500 calories be totally excessive intake to achieve this gain, but nothing less would do it. Researchers looked at why, and found that once the overfeeding happened, the body would begin metabolic wasting, trying to keep a homeostasis. Once they stopped overeating, their weight rapidly decreased to around their pre-study weight.

Similar studies showed that when people undereat significantly, the body engages in conservation, again trying to stick to a certain point.

What I got from all of this is a couple of things, though I'm no scientist.

1. If you eat a lot and don't also lift weights, you'll get fat (though the OP study is interesting regarding this idea)
2. The body will get less fat than you'd expect if you are in a large caloric excess for a short time
3. Based on Zach's results, less metabolic wasting occurs and more weight is gained (in muscle mass) if you're lifting weights while overfeeding.

All around, it just seems like a huge win-win situation. If you lift weights and eat massive amounts of food, then a surprising (to the mainstream) amount of those calories will go into building muscle and associated structures, and the excess will not necessarily all be converted to fat as metabolic wasting may take care of some.

Again, I'm no scientist, just someone who found these studies interesting.

[Need2Lift]

"Given the fact that body fat mass is much higher in many affluent nations than it has ever been in human history, the increase must be due to factors that have changed in modern times. I can only speculate what these factors may be, because research has not identified them to my knowledge, at least not in humans. But I have my guesses. I'll expand on this in the next post."

I'm interested in his conclusion. Whaddayawannabet it has something to do with sugar/simple carbs?

That, and sedentary lifestyles, don't you think? I think it's safe to say that throughout most of human history it was impossible to eat so many calories (largely, but not entirely, processed carbs) with so little effort as we can today. I'm sure there are people out there who unknowingly follow your eating recommendations while parking themselves in front of the TV all day. Not a pretty thought.

[mohiz]

So this is to say that it would actually be more efficacious to bulk up and then cut down on fat in separate cycles?

[Phil Stevens]

"Given the fact that body fat mass is much higher in many affluent nations than it has ever been in human history, the increase must be due to factors that have changed in modern times. I can only speculate what these factors may be, because research has not identified them to my knowledge, at least not in humans. But I have my guesses. I'll expand on this in the next post."

I'm interested in his conclusion. Whaddayawannabet it has something to do with sugar/simple carbs?

Id say it has to as well have to do with the fact most of the world now sits on their asses instead of moving. We are a retail society and not at all industrial or industrious as a whole. We meaning the people of the world sell our shit made by others to you so we can then buy your shit etc.

we are more sedentary then ever before and if that cant be concluded by simply looking around at what the average person does today compared to even 30 years ago someone has blinders on.

you cant eat like grandpa did on the farm and sit on your ass in an office and expect not to become a zit on the ass of society.

[Bleve]

"Given the fact that body fat mass is much higher in many affluent nations than it has ever been in human history, the increase must be due to factors that have changed in modern times. I can only speculate what these factors may be, because research has not identified them to my knowledge, at least not in humans. But I have my guesses. I'll expand on this in the next post."

I'm interested in his conclusion. Whaddayawannabet it has something to do with sugar/simple carbs?

I'm not sure that this been on these forums or not, but it's certainly very interesting :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

It's a 90 minute lecture, but you can cut to the chase and read this instead :

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm

The 3 line summary for the lazy :

Fructose is the bad one, it's booze without the buzz. The correlation between increase in fructose consumption, ie HFCS (45% & 55% fructose) & sucrose, which is 50% fructose and obesity rates is staggeringly strong.

[BlazeKING]

A related study is the Vermont Prison Overfeeding Study. I've linked a description of the study here:

http://weightfocus.blogspot.com/2009/08/vermont-prison-overfeeding-study.html

All around, it just seems like a huge win-win situation. If you lift weights and eat massive amounts of food, then a surprising (to the mainstream) amount of those calories will go into building muscle and associated structures, and the excess will not necessarily all be converted to fat as metabolic wasting may take care of some.

Again, I'm no scientist, just someone who found these studies interesting.

If it is the case that the body adapts to the overfeeding by metabolic wasting, would it not be advantageous to reset every two weeks? For example, 2 weeks of extreme overfeeding and then a week of maintenance or less and then repeat? All the while weight training? Or even increasing calories in increments either every day or week.

Maybe it is just me but I have noticed that, even with caloric surplus every day, I gain more after days of extreme overfeeding (6000 kcals) vs just overfeeding (4000 kcals).

[gordonrumble]

Again, I'm just guessing based on what I read. Not experienced in this.

The average weight gain for sedentary people eating 8-10k a day was 36 lbs in ten weeks. The weight gain for some of Rip's novice trainees on less than that (I assume) is more than that. If people can gain more weight on fewer calories, the only other difference being that they are training, then I guess that the training causes the body to gain more weight and reduce metabolic wasting.

[startingstrengthad]

Exercise is an anabolic stimulus and thus more calories are used for productive purposes (building muscles... glycogen replenishment as well).
Exercise + excessive eating will lead to more weight gain so long as the efforts of exercise are directed at increasing size: ex --> strength or bodybuilding style exercise versus cardio.

The actual effort or work done while exercising is caloric expenditure (work, energy) and so this would normally reduce weight gain (according to a simple calories in, calories out model), but when the stimulus of exercise necessitates physiological adaptation such as muscle growth (as in starting strength) then calories continue to be used in an anabolic manner post exercise.

Exercise makes your body use energy more efficiently.

[tdwaffle15]

Again, I'm just guessing based on what I read. Not experienced in this.

The average weight gain for sedentary people eating 8-10k a day was 36 lbs in ten weeks. The weight gain for some of Rip's novice trainees on less than that (I assume) is more than that. If people can gain more weight on fewer calories, the only other difference being that they are training, then I guess that the training causes the body to gain more weight and reduce metabolic wasting.

Zach started at ~ 135 lbs IIRC. Pretty sure the average inmate is starting from a heavier BW. This may be a factor

[strengthstarter]

Fructose is the bad one, it's booze without the buzz. The correlation between increase in fructose consumption, ie HFCS (45% & 55% fructose) & sucrose, which is 50% fructose and obesity rates is staggeringly strong.

I've seen reports of results like this, I'm not sure I 100% believe this. I'll buy that HFCS is probably very bad for you because it is in such concentrated form, but I also thought that fructose, especially when ingested along with....fruit, had a reasonably low glycemic index and gave quite a good flavor/calorie ratio when fruit was used in cooking.

I guess it seems like its an important distinction between the refined syrup shit that they add to everything cheap they can until it tastes better vs. natural sources of the stuff.

[brittf]

A related study is the Vermont Prison Overfeeding Study. I've linked a description of the study here:

http://weightfocus.blogspot.com/2009/08/vermont-prison-overfeeding-study.html

Basically, volunteers (who were completely sedentary) were asked to gain between 15% to 25% of their bodyweight in ten weeks. This averaged out to about 36 pounds apiece.

This was accomplished, but the prisoners had to eat 8,000-10,000 calories a day to make this happen. The weight gain was largely body fat (but again, note that they were sedentary). This would by the metric that a pound of fat is about 3500 calories be totally excessive intake to achieve this gain, but nothing less would do it. Researchers looked at why, and found that once the overfeeding happened, the body would begin metabolic wasting, trying to keep a homeostasis. Once they stopped overeating, their weight rapidly decreased to around their pre-study weight.

Similar studies showed that when people undereat significantly, the body engages in conservation, again trying to stick to a certain point.

What I got from all of this is a couple of things, though I'm no scientist.

1. If you eat a lot and don't also lift weights, you'll get fat (though the OP study is interesting regarding this idea)
2. The body will get less fat than you'd expect if you are in a large caloric excess for a short time
3. Based on Zach's results, less metabolic wasting occurs and more weight is gained (in muscle mass) if you're lifting weights while overfeeding.

All around, it just seems like a huge win-win situation. If you lift weights and eat massive amounts of food, then a surprising (to the mainstream) amount of those calories will go into building muscle and associated structures, and the excess will not necessarily all be converted to fat as metabolic wasting may take care of some.

Again, I'm no scientist, just someone who found these studies interesting.

Well, it is a bit more complicated than this (as you might suspect), but your 3 summary points are reasonable generalizations.

You are basically talking about "set-point" and/or "settling-point" theory. This is a very controversial and even contradictory area of research.

I am pretty familiar with the topic, but I can't hold a candle to Lyle McDonald in this area.

I believe that Mark has an ongoing professional relationship/friendship with Lyle. Lyle knows quite a bit about this topic and writes about it in his books and on his website. Lyle is an excellent writer and he may even pop up on this board occasionally.

Maybe Mark can get Lyle to write something on this as one of the featured articles. Also, you can purchase his books and peruse his website.

One caveat about set-point/settling point theory: it is probably more directly applicable to fully mature adults, well past puberty and after they have reached their full height. This is probably why there is such controversy over how much/fast you can gain muscle mass. The typical "late teen/early twenties" devotee of Starting Strength doesn't have the same biochemistry as the older, more mature adult.

In fact, come to think of it, this entire topic could be a really interesting focus of discussion/debate between Mark and Lyle.

Regards,
brittf

[Tom Woodward]

"Given the fact that body fat mass is much higher in many affluent nations than it has ever been in human history, the increase must be due to factors that have changed in modern times. I can only speculate what these factors may be, because research has not identified them to my knowledge, at least not in humans. But I have my guesses. I'll expand on this in the next post."

I'm interested in his conclusion. Whaddayawannabet it has something to do with sugar/simple carbs?

Yes. We're hardwired to eat sugar when it's available. It served people well 10,000 years ago when calorically dense fruit and calories in general were few and far between. However, it's an unfortunate genetic trait these days for people with no self control. I'd bet this desire to consume sugar when it's available overrides people's natural ability to defend a normal level of fat mass. Stephen says in the blog, "This is why animals in their natural habitat are nearly always at an appropriate weight, barring starvation." Well, last time I looked, 2 liter bottles of soda and mcdonalds on every corner is not a natural habitat. Nor is the habitat for my mom's cat, who is about 10 pounds overweight.

[PapaBear59]

I honestly believe that our sedentary lifestyle has more to do with weight gain that anything else. Both my father and grandfather were extremely powerful men and yet they never lifted a weight in their life. They plumbed during the day and farmed in the evening. They both were around 5'9" around 225lbs and yet weren't fat even though they ate traditional southern cooking all the time (fried chicken, mashed potatoes apple pie, sweet tea etc). My point is that they were constantly working unlike society today. Fun for them was tearing a motor out of a car and tractor and rebuilding it.

I teach and you would not believe the number of my students that do nothing but sit around watching tv or video games. They are fat and lazy and it is getting harder for the coaches to recruit students into their programs. What is worse is that the parents approve of it.

[Bleve]

I've seen reports of results like this, I'm not sure I 100% believe this. I'll buy that HFCS is probably very bad for you because it is in such concentrated form, but I also thought that fructose, especially when ingested along with....fruit, had a reasonably low glycemic index and gave quite a good flavor/calorie ratio when fruit was used in cooking.

I guess it seems like its an important distinction between the refined syrup shit that they add to everything cheap they can until it tastes better vs. natural sources of the stuff.

I'd suggest reading the second link, and if you have time, watching the whole video. Fructose isn't handled by the body in the same way that glucose, lactose etc are, no matter if it's been purified or mixed in with other stuff.

[Brenden]

The actual effort or work done while exercising is caloric expenditure (work, energy) and so this would normally reduce weight gain (according to a simple calories in, calories out model), but when the stimulus of exercise necessitates physiological adaptation such as muscle growth (as in starting strength) then calories continue to be used in an anabolic manner post exercise.

Exercise makes your body use energy more efficiently.

I was interested in just how many calories are used in a sets across on my squat, so I calculated it from a physics standpoint. I thought it might be relevant to this thread. My most recent squat was 3x5x220, and I estimated the height difference between the top and bottom of the squat is about 2', so I'll use those numbers. So:

Work = Force * Distance = mass * gravity * distance = 220lbs * 9.8m/s^2 * 2ft. = 142.5 calories (http://www.google.com/search?q=220lbs+*+9.8m/s%5E2+*+2ft+in+calories)

Mulitiplied by fifteen work reps, that's 2,137 calories. So only 2 kcals in work output for an entire squat workout. If the human body is only 10% mechanically efficient (cars are ~20% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Energy_efficiency)), that's still only 200 kcal used in the actual lifting of the weight. It's interesting, given the immense amounts of additional calories that a hard-training lifter requires over an average sedentary American, just how much of it goes into recovery/adaptation versus the actual lifting.