this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
21 points (92.0% liked)
interestingasfuck
6180 readers
2 users here now
interestingasfuck
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not true right? I refuse to believe that all of the effort I put in to become starvation proof is based on a lie..
The article says that with full starvation it doesn't change much because some vital organs will not be able to use your fat, but rather the proteins from your muscles, including your heart, until it fails. But if you somehow have partial starvation with some protein intake, then you may outlive a skinnier person.
My initial shower thought was if someone very muscular would outlive someone less muscular, I found this article and not one precisely on my thought. But I guess it does imply that. I am still wondering if having more muscles could also make you starve faster because your basic metabolism would require more energy?
Extremely fat people who are still active have tons of muscle. It's not easy to carry 400 pounds around all day.
A recent video by Kurtzgesagt has lead me to believe that having lots of muscle doesn't increase your basal metabolic rate very much. It's a myth. It's using your muscles that burns more energy. Simply maintaining extra muscle doesn't burn all that many extra calories.
I would venture that having extra muscle would mean it would take longer for you to starve.
Muscles require nutrients to exist, and without it they atrophy. So being more muscular means you need additional calories to stay muscular. Whenever I stop working out for a while, I usually stop force feeding myself too, and my muscles disappear pretty rapidly. If I continue eating a ton then the muscles stick around longer, but I also get fatter, since I'm not burning the excess.
Yes, and I said as much. All I said is I watched a video that says the amount of extra calories burned per additional unit of muscle mass is not as much as everyone seems to think. The video was backed by science and your anecdote is not. I edited my original comment to add a link to the video.
The point I was trying to make is that even if it doesn't increase your metabolism, it increases your minimum caloric need. So, you can eat more without getting fat, or you can lose fat without eating less. It's not even "can", you must eat more to meet your kcal minimum. That's well documented scientifically as well. So ultimately the effect is the same, it's easier to lose fat when you have more muscles.
Watch the video. Or don't. I don't care. Everything you said is strictly true, but unless you look like a body builder, it's not as big of a calorie drain as many people think.
This whole discussion makes me hungry tbh. I guess the real answer is to always have loads of food in the cupboard (just in case). Lucky - due to watching too many zombie apocalypse movies, combined with living in a not entirely stable country - I do.
The problem is that your body doesn't selectively consume muscle. If your body is starving, it will break down your heart and your biceps regardless of how big either is.
Wouldn't a bigger influx of energy from non-essential muscles somehow reduce the speed at which essential muscles are consumed?