Raw eggs in the morning/shakes

[Rataxes]

Originally posted by Violet: Read the texts. You can learn it for yourself.

I wouldn't have the first clue where to obtain these texts you're referring to, mind you I live on the other side of the atlantic. Links to some online abstract on the issue would be appreciated.

Different ideas based on...scientific fact or popular belief? And... By growing, do you mean in (literal) mass or by volume? [img]tongue.gif[/img] Sorry, I'll stop now.

Mass, as in body weight increases. I gather that your belief is that when muscles become larger as a result of weight training and proper diet, they don't increase in mass but simply expand their volume? How then would you explain the fact that people with a large musculature typically weigh a lot more than people with a small musculature? Fact is people with large muscles have more body mass than people with small muscles, and this difference in mass is not just made up of water.

[ 03-01-2005, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

[Violet]

I would recommend MSN.com's search feature if you want to explore clinical and biological nutrition online.
I am not sure where the texts can be found on the other side of the Atlantic but the one I own, Understanding Clinical and Biological Nutrition, is a (first or second year) pre-med college course if you are interested in looking for one or something similar.

Who says the difference would be in water?
Of course body weight increases, muscle weighs more than fat. Do you know that even though my husband increased the size of his muscles through weight-lifting that he only gained 8 pounds over 6 months time? He was pretty buff by the time he decided he'd had enough of the hard-core hurt and opted for maintenance too. By looking at him later you would have though that he had lost weight. I cannot deny that big people weigh more than small people. Of course there may be the stray, muscular, dwarf who even though 3 feet shorter than I am weighs 20 pounds more than I do because his muscles are nice and strong from all the hard work he does whereas I sit home and read and push pencils. After all, strengthened muscles weigh more than weaker ones.

[Rataxes]

Originally posted by Violet: Who says the difference would be in water?

I don't know, I've repetedly asked you what you believe this mass consists of, since you clearly don't believe it is muscle tissue.

he only gained 8 pounds over 6 months time? He was pretty buff by the time he decided he'd had enough of the hard-core hurt and opted for maintenance too.

Yeah, so? 8 pounds over 6 months is a pretty decent gain if you keep a strict diet with controlled energy surplus.

After all, strengthened muscles weigh more than weaker ones.

Yes, exactly. More weight = more mass = more muscle tissue. I'm willing to accept that this whole debate sprung from different ideas of what muscle tissue is and the concept of growth. The simple fact is that when muscles grow the muscle fibers (= muscle cells) increase in both mass and volume. Since this mass consists of protein-based elements that are already present as a component of the muscle cell, I define this increase in mass as an increase in muscle tissue mass. You do not, but honestly, what difference does that make?

[Violet]

Originally posted by Rataxes: quote: Originally posted by Violet: Who says the difference would be in water?

I don't know, I've repetedly asked you what you believe this mass consists of, since you clearly don't believe it is muscle tissue. [/QUOTE]I never said it was not muscle tissue. I merely stated that it isn't newly constructed muscle tissue, rather strenghtened and repaired pre-existing muscle tissue. I do believe I have also previously stated that the body human uses proteins to initially create and then to maintain and repair muscle tissues.

Yes, exactly. More weight = more mass = more muscle tissue. I'm willing to accept that this whole debate sprung from different ideas of what muscle tissue is and the concept of growth. The simple fact is that when muscles grow the muscle fibers (= muscle cells) increase in both mass and volume. Since this mass consists of protein-based elements that are already present as a component of the muscle cell, I define this increase in mass as an increase in muscle tissue mass. You do not, but honestly, what difference does that make? [/QB]

What I have learned through scientific evidence, more weight = more "mass" ("volume", whateva) = strenghtened and repaired muscle tissue. If it truly doesn't make a difference can we consider this discussion finished?

[Sir Degrader]

So... yes?

[Rataxes]

Originally posted by Violet: I never said it was not muscle tissue. I merely stated that it isn't newly constructed muscle tissue, rather strenghtened and repaired pre-existing muscle tissue. I do believe I have also previously stated that the body human uses proteins to initially create and then to maintain and repair muscle tissues.

If the body increases it's muscle mass then per definition this mass must be created somehow. I guess it's your use of the word "repair" I have a problem with, since repairing something usually doesn't mean adding to it, but when muscle mass increases, the body must add (=create) this mass somehow.

What I have learned through scientific evidence, more weight = more "mass" ("volume", whateva) = strenghtened and repaired muscle tissue. If it truly doesn't make a difference can we consider this discussion finished?

Volume isn't the same as mass and there's not necessarily any correlation betweeen the two. Other than that, yes, discussion finished.

[ 03-02-2005, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]