That's not a feasible platform. It works in the short-run, but with increased muscle mass, the body will sap calories and nutrients from the brain, compromising baseline intellectual functioning.

@DZhukovin sources? I haven't heard as such. If anything increase in muscle composition is correlated with positive things, especially in later life. I can link sources if you like but I thought this was pretty generally accepted.

@livetodiscover

Honestly, I don't have a source that states this, but various unrelated sources hint at the physioeconomics of the situation. To grasp this, a person simply has to pay attention and put down their "I am already normatively correct" mindset. (Mind you, norms will create most problems, anyway)

However, it makes sense that a larger body impedes the brain. There are workouts for encouraging brain stimulation, but mass-building workouts don't do that. Mass-building is constructive towards penetration of mind, physical toughness and strength, but in the long term, the practitioner of such a routine has to eat more calories and that costs time, and money. It's not ultimately as positive as people say. Just pay attention to the subject matter, and you will see why.

@DZhukovin I think you are interpreting an increase in muscle composition (body fat to muscle ratio) as only a very bulky extreme end body builder. There is quite a spectrum before a person obtains a very energy demanding physique. I would be curious about these unrelated sources to see how you came to your conclusions.

I've seen more studies suggesting the opposite of what you're stating... such as the one linked below about leg strength and cognitive function...what I'm suggesting is a very reasonable, balanced approach to fitness.

[ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

@livetodiscover

No. You are incorrect, and you are not being honest. Pay attention, because I am getting annoyed. This is your original post:

"I know cardio is most people's go to for losing weight but it actually doesn't tend to burn as much calories as people think. Resistance training should definitely be a part of your routine too. Having more muscle mass makes your body burn more calories at rest, helps prevent injury, and gives a nice shape to our bodies. "

@DZhukovin yeah. No contractions there. I suggested adding resistance training. You say you are a math guy so I'll phrase it this way. I did not suggest that this was some mutually exclusive thing for weight loss. Just suggested that cardio is not the end all be all of exercise for weight loss. Resistance training is an important part too. I'm not really sure why you're so hung up on this. If you want we can address some other issues with your 10 point breakdown which have questionable science backing (if any) like the green stinger recommendation or the dust breathing and people insulting you part....your appeal to nature fallacy with the supplements comment.....I mean how serious you wanna go man? I was trying to avoid being combative but..... Lol

@livetodiscover

Okay, so basically you have no disproof of my positions, but your memetic faction, which is rife with muscle-heads, will support you unquestionably, so you don't actually have to intelligently discuss the issue. Political theater failed you here. Your position is not constructive to the issue.

I apologize that I did not give my sources. I began my interest in fitness about twelve years ago, and I don't always remember where I learn my stuff. Bodybuilders and other people in fitness swear up and down by naturopathics, along with the US Navy Seals, as per one of their fitness books, so this is where I get my understanding from.

So forget about scientific backing. Science can still be bought by politics. Worry about whether I was telling the truth, or not.

Had seen this thread before but hadn't contributed. DZukovin really made some outlandish and unsupported claims. There is absolutely no research to support a correlation between muscle mass as a % of bodyweight or overall muscle weight and any kind of brain function other than a positive effect. Pretty much any kind of exercise, including anabolic ones, improve brain function. [sciencedirect.com]

@kmdskit3

It's common sense, there is no direct research required. If your body is going to take about 80% of your calories per day, then make the situation potentially worse by adding muscle? Not everyone is a competitive bodybuilder, or has a situation where they need to put on muscle mass, anyway. Stop with your robotic statements about fitness, you're not being constructive.

@DZhukovin I've been largely avoiding this thread as I can tell when a conversation has turned from intelligent discussion into egotistical posturing. Ya know the thing I love about science is that it has replicable data behind it. There are many times that our intuition or "common sense" is wildly wrong, and thankfully we have science and statistical analysis in our tool kit to make up for our pattern seeking brains that can lead us to faulty conclusions.

@livetodiscover Excellent response!

@livetodiscover

I would just counter-argue that you view reality purely through textual information on the issue of fitness, and I am thinking about much more than what the studies say. By the way, if the study is not showing a proper sampling methodology, it's not completely reliable.

@DZhukovin if by "textual information" you mean scientific studies, then yes. That's because I realize that any personal testimony or anecdotal experience is not true science. I value getting my basis for reality on science because the scientific method is the best system we have for determining truths. What other metric would you use as your basis for discerning truth from fiction then? As I stated earlier, our minds can lead us astray easily. Pick up a book on logical fallacies (or most intro to proof or discrete math classes) and you will see what I mean.

What you have presented are no more than thought experiments or maybe at most a hypothesis. You would need to put it to the test to see if there is any validity or statistical significance to anything you're presenting that you expect us to take as "truth" as you stated earlier.

Of course methodology matters...but what you are suggesting are statements that you admit yourself you have no sources or backing for....

@livetodiscover

I would say that your argument is more effective in the normative rather than the descriptive sense because you diverge from the language of the conversation to make phrases about why scientific studies are necessary to have this conversation, which are compatible to those with a political motivation.

Did you not notice this detail?

@DZhukovin Ok man, I’m going to...as we used to say in the Marines….break this down “Barney Style” for you, as a last attempt effort to help you become more logical in your approach to things because you mentioned being a self proclaimed “math guy.”

Here is your basic premise:

“With increased muscle mass the body will sap calories and nutrients from the brain, compromising baseline intellectual functioning.”

I am assuming that you came to this conclusion for a few reasons. One potential reason (and I am not saying this is your specific reasoning but will use it for example purposes) could be that you have made an observation in life that people who have very muscle dominant physiques (body builder types) have a stereotype of being stupid. So you have made an observation.

The next step is to see if there is actually any validity to this observation. Because, if you are familiar with confirmation bias, our brain will tend to notice what already reaffirms our preconceived ideas. Let’s now further assume that we have teased this out, run the statistics and found that there is indeed a trend that people who have very muscle dominant physiques have less intellectual capacity. You are not done yet. You can draw no conclusions yet here.

Now, you have to tease out more variables. For example, is it that people who already have lower intellectual capacity, and thus less ability to do other professions, tend to gravitate towards doing fitness related careers since they don’t require the same amount or type of intellectual demand that other professions might (or the specific type of intelligence you are basing as your definition for intelligence...that’s a whole nother can of worms there)? Or could it be that people who spend so much time working on sculpting their bodies, thus have less time to devote to other things and so they just cannot have as much knowledge in other things beyond the fitness realm? Now, unless you actually ran a study and took away all variables such as these...you STILL cannot make any definitive conclusions. You still only have CORRELATION!

Let’s keep going with this. Let’s say you ran a study that was conducted properly, and came to the result that there indeed was statistical significance and an actual CAUSAL (NOT CORRELATIVE) relationship between adding muscle mass and decline of intellectual capacity. You would STILL have more work to do. You would need to figure out if the amount of intellectual decline was significant for ALL RANGES of amounts of muscle added. For instance, maybe it is only significant past a certain point. Also, you would need to know if the decline was even an amount that would matter in the practical and grand scheme of things. Lastly, do the benefits outweigh the cost. Again, would the positive effects of adding the muscle mass outweigh the decline in intelligence? Could it be in an amount that could be “made up for” in other ways?

If you haven’t picked up my point here. It is that there is a LOT of work that needs to be done before you can make claims and have people just take your word on it. This is the scientific method. Are you well versed in logic? Do you understand things such as how correlation does not necessarily imply causation? I’m really not trying to be patronizing here, I just generally want to help you see the issues with the structure of your thought process, especially because thinking this way is very important in fields such as pure mathematics, applied mathematics, and physics, etc.

@livetodiscover

You are correct, but none of that changes what I said. Yes, I may have to tease variables and produce scientific work, but that doesn't mean I am not telling the truth. Language 101, there.

Eat every 2-3hrs. Especially protein.

@kmdskit3 Okay, thanks.