RE: Usain Bolt Has A New Power-To- Weight Ratio.

If you are alive, you are making protein.

Titan wrote:

He is very good for the sport

Thanks for this insight. I had wondered if a triple Olympic gold medalist, triple WC gold medalist, repeat WR breaker would be good for the sport.

Rod Munch wrote:

WayneRooneyUtd wrote:

Bolt has adapted his training to include more strength and core-stability work, with the result that he has lost 10lb in weight yet gained more muscle. "I've been doing a lot of work strength-wise, core-wise," he said. "That's why I might look a little bit bigger. I've got more muscles."

Just so we're clear, it is impossible to lose fat and gain muscle mass concurrently. Muscle protein synthesis is an energy-consuming process. If you are in caloric deficit, you do not have the energy needed to synthesize new protein. You need to be in caloric surplus to gain weight, be it fat or muscle protein. Proper nutrient timing and proper strength training stimulus will determine how severe the muscle loss is during caloric deficit or how severe the fat gain is during caloric surplus.

HA! You read too much and think too little.

Rod Munch wrote:

Blah blah blah.

ordersofmagnitude wrote:

Blah blah blah.

Both of you, shut the f#ck up. This thread is about Bolt's workout and strength, not about two quasi-physiologists going back and forth on an argument nobody else cares about. Start a new thread, assholes.

the smartest letsrunner wrote:

Rod Munch wrote:

Blah blah blah.

ordersofmagnitude wrote:

Blah blah blah.

Both of you, shut the f#ck up. This thread is about Bolt's workout and strength, not about two quasi-physiologists going back and forth on an argument nobody else cares about. Start a new thread, assholes.

I'm struggling to find anything related to Bolt's workout and strength in your post. Perhaps you're off-topic.....

HA! You read too much and think too little.

OK, yet again, NO ONE has offered an explanation as to HOW someone can have NET protein gain during chronic energy restriction. You can't just say I'm wrong and end it. I'll bite and accept those few studies that show small lean mass gains during caloric restriction. But where is the energy coming from during that period? You need to have energy to assemble amino acids into protein. And amino acid uptake into muscle is usually less than amino acid release to the AA pool during energy restriction. How can the reverse occur during energy restriction?

Rod Munch wrote:

HA! You read too much and think too little.

OK, yet again, NO ONE has offered an explanation as to HOW someone can have NET protein gain during chronic energy restriction. You can't just say I'm wrong and end it. I'll bite and accept those few studies that show small lean mass gains during caloric restriction. But where is the energy coming from during that period? You need to have energy to assemble amino acids into protein. And amino acid uptake into muscle is usually less than amino acid release to the AA pool during energy restriction. How can the reverse occur during energy restriction?

Stored fat and glycogen. Same place it always comes from. Just cause your cash flow is negative for a month doesn't mean you can't keep spending money as long as you've got a positive balance in your bank account (built up over previous months when your cash flow was positive). The negative energy balance you've been talking about is the equivalent of the monthly cash flow, not the bank balance.

And in " amino acid uptake into muscle is usually less than amino acid..." the word 'usually' isn't the same as 'must'. Sure it's often the case. But that doesn't mean it has to be that way in all circumstances. In the same way that your marathon PR gets better as your weekly mileage goes up. Often they improve together. But it's not a requirement. There are lots of other factors involved....

Stored fat and glycogen. Same place it always comes from. Just cause your cash flow is negative for a month doesn't mean you can't keep spending money as long as you've got a positive balance in your bank account (built up over previous months when your cash flow was positive). The negative energy balance you've been talking about is the equivalent of the monthly cash flow, not the bank balance.

And in " amino acid uptake into muscle is usually less than amino acid..." the word 'usually' isn't the same as 'must'. Sure it's often the case. But that doesn't mean it has to be that way in all circumstances. In the same way that your marathon PR gets better as your weekly mileage goes up. Often they improve together. But it's not a requirement. There are lots of other factors involved....

OK, but at some point during energy restriction, the "bank account" will be tapped. Then, protein synthesis would have to be less than breakdown, wouldn't you agree? I guess it depends on how long of a energy restriction period we're talking about.

WayneRooneyUtd wrote:

Bolt has adapted his training to include more strength and core-stability work, with the result that he has lost 10lb in weight yet gained more muscle. "I've been doing a lot of work strength-wise, core-wise," he said. "That's why I might look a little bit bigger. I've got more muscles."

On a side note, and it is NOT MY INTENTION TO DERAIL THIS THREAD, the UEFA champions League final is today-Saturday.

Messi will mess up Wayne Rooney.

My team is Man U. I am also an Argentinean futbol fan and I always support MEssi (and his teammates, Mascherano and Milito).

Either way, I win.

Here he is lifting weights in the gym-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOC7O9JOY3Y

Absolutely. Certainly once all body fat and stored glycogen is gone there's nothing left to build muscle with. Of course at that point you're dead. Realistically the body certainly pulls back radically from building muscle as it sees the store dwindle so that it never gets to that point (zero stored fat). And probably for most folks in most circumstances that scaling back of muscle building occurs well before they get anywhere near that. But there's no magic about the specific cross-over point between positive and negative energy balance.

WayneRooneyUtd wrote:

Bolt has adapted his training to include more strength and core-stability work, with the result that he has lost 10lb in weight yet gained more muscle. "I've been doing a lot of work strength-wise, core-wise," he said. "That's why I might look a little bit bigger. I've got more muscles."

Here he is lifting weights in the gym-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOC7O9JOY3Y

On a side note, and it is NOT MY INTENTION TO DERAIL THIS THREAD, the UEFA champions League final is today-Saturday.

Messi will mess up Wayne Rooney.

My team is Man U. I am also an Argentinean futbol fan and I always support MEssi (and his teammates, Mascherano and Milito).

Either way, I win.

My guess is that the apparent growth of muscle in new exercisers in a calorie deficit isn't due to the increase of contractile proteins, but instead an increase in the sarcoplasm....stored glycogen, calcium, myoglobin, mitochondria, and associated water content, etc.

Also, a beginner's increased strength is mostly due to neurological adaptations, which is why a beginner can increase strength in a calorie deficit while the same is difficult to near impossible in trained exercisers.

Alan

The severity of energy restriction would also determine degree of synthesis vs. breakdown, I would imagine. People restricting caloric intake to 800 kcal/day (when their RMR is, say, 1600 kcal, and not considering activity caloric expenditure) would likely not see muscle protein increase even with strength training and proper nutrient timing and composition (what little nutrient intake there is.)

Can we all agree that in order to most efficiently synthesize muscle protein, one should be in energy surplus?

"Can we all agree that in order to most efficiently synthesize muscle protein, one should be in energy surplus?"

I don't think that was EVER in question. Outside of the noob stage no one is going to gain muscle without an energy surplus. Noobs will gain an extraordinary amount of muscle in the first 6-12 months of training and then wonder why they hit a plateau.

You can google "Gain Muscle and Lose Fat" and find countless articles, books, and products describing how to accomplish such a thing. Outside of noob gains...it just doesn't happen.

Alan

I think that WAS the original question, because the original post claimed that Usain Bolt, who is most definitely not a Noob, gained muscle while losing fat. And you most definitely need to be in an energy deficit to lose fat.

I still find it very hard to believe that Bolt gained muscle during fat weight loss, given what you have said about newbies vs. experienced strength athletes.

Rod Munch wrote:

I think that WAS the original question, because the original post claimed that Usain Bolt, who is most definitely not a Noob, gained muscle while losing fat. And you most definitely need to be in an energy deficit to lose fat.

I still find it very hard to believe that Bolt gained muscle during fat weight loss, given what you have said about newbies vs. experienced strength athletes.

Isn't this Bolt's first time in the weight room...or at least seriously in the weight room? That would explain any muscle gain.

Also athletes on steroids can gain muscle while on a calorie deficit....just putting that out there.

I still haven't seen any details on his weight training program or reported "results"...just vague descriptions...which mean nothing. Just because he says he's lost 10lbs and gained muscle doesn't actually mean that has happened. Looking at the video I see no change. He doesn't look exceptionally lean either, not compared to some other photos of him.

Alan

Alan

New to this thread, I've just GOT to say something:

IF the body was NOT selective in the tissues it metabolized in caloric deficit, then your internal organs would be metabolized at the same rate as would fat stores and muscle tissue.

Since I highly doubt that is the case, that statement cannot be true.

Consider this: take one of those 400-pounders on The Biggest Loser, and say arbitrarily that they are 50% fat by body mass--that leaves 200 lbs of non-fat tissue (bones, skin, organs, blood, etc). They did not start out at 50% fat, they worked up to it--the body stored energy by preferentially building fat. Their muscle mass likely remained relatively constant, and similarly the mass of their bones and internal organs remained essentially the same.

When they lose weight--that is, when they are in caloric deficit--say they lose 200 lbs, as some have in fact done. They do NOT remain at 50% body fat, as they would if the body did not preferentially metabolize fatty tissue.

So, it is obvious that the body does selectively metabolize fat when in caloric deficit. The question now becomes whether some of the energy from fat metabolism and food metabolism can be directed toward the building of proteins to incorporate into lean muscle. The answer to that question is unequivocally YES, because proteins are constantly breaking down and needing to be re-built. If energy was not available for this process, all dieters would exhibit muscle wasting, which they do not.

Can enough energy be directed to this process to actually build lean muscle mass while being in caloric deficit? Why not? All it would require would be the correct stimulus in the muscles, and a rate of fat metabolism that is slightly elevated above that required for maintenance of lean body mass.

If one "reads the literature", one discovers that it is easy to achieve the required rate of fat metabolism, although it is not always desirable in all situations to do so. Remember, the vast majority of lean muscle mass is water, so with very little additional protein synthesis, a great deal of lean muscle mass can be added, with a very low energy requirement.

The original statement was so off-base that I'm beside myself that someone made it. I can hardly contain myself. I've tried to present some logical explanation, but it's difficult. I'll post a link to a scientifically validated study that demonstrates the falsity of the original statement--I have on my hard drive at home a number of them.

This, of course, says nothing specific about Bolt.

So, it is obvious that the body does selectively metabolize fat when in caloric deficit. The question now becomes whether some of the energy from fat metabolism and food metabolism can be directed toward the building of proteins to incorporate into lean muscle. The answer to that question is unequivocally YES, because proteins are constantly breaking down and needing to be re-built. If energy was not available for this process, all dieters would exhibit muscle wasting, which they do not.

I'm beside MYSELF that you wrote this. You're saying that no one who has ever "dieted" (which I assume you mean to be in energy restriction) has EVER lost muscle mass? And the body is not so selective for energy stores during restriction. What I take from your statement is if someone was starving (no caloric intake,) because they will metabolize fat only, they will increase protein synthesis because the energy from lipolysis provides it?

I am not attacking; I just want clarification.

Answers to your questions:

1st question--no, I never said that. It is certainly possible to lose muscle mass while being in caloric deficit.

2nd question--no, I never said that.

Factors other than energy are required for protein synthesis to occur--stimulus, as well as micronutrients, hormones, and so on. A prolonged period of zero intake will most certainly result in wasting.

Finally, you have to be careful about how you window data concerning caloric deficit, as well--daily deficit? Weekly deficit?

Constant deficit? For how long? etc.

And the nutrient and health status of the subject entering caloric deficit are critical as well.

I'd rather not argue the fine points--I'm just going to post the links to the peer-reviewed journal articles when I get the time.