The underappreciated role of muscle in health and disease [pdf]

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/3/475.full.pdf

by fasteo • 12 years ago

67 40 12 years ago

ajcn.nutrition.org

This is a good example of why the focus on developing magic pills that aim to curb obesity is so silly[1].

Body composition and strength are just as important, if not more important, than weight, especially as one ages. The reason this is ignored is that there's only so much you can do to significantly improve your body composition and strength without exercise and healthy eating.

Nonetheless, the maintenance of adequate muscle mass, strength, and metabolic function has rarely, if ever, been targeted as a relevant endpoint of recommendations for dietary intake.

It's kind of sad that the "official" recommendations basically ignore what even the most inexperienced personal trainer could tell you.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8736567

jessriedel2• 12 years ago

A magic pill that could curb obesity would deliver hundreds of billions of dollars worth of improved health outcomes in the US, regardless of whether getting everyone to put on more muscle would be preferable. (And that's not even accounting for the fact that people who hate exercise lose utility even if you can convince them to do it.)

7Figures2Commas3• 12 years ago

You seem to be assuming that the health conditions and costs commonly associated with obesity are all primarily caused by obesity. I'd suggest you consider the possibility that obesity is just as likely to be a symptom of poor health as it is to be the cause of it. On this point, there are plenty of people who aren't obese who have cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.

There's a lot we don't know about the human body, but based on what we do know, it's asinine to believe that folks can eat horribly and live sedentary lifestyles without serious consequence. That, however, is what magic pill research effectively promises.

fasteo5• 12 years ago

I wouldn´t say that it is silly. Rather, it is just pragmatic. Obesity costs billions of dollars per year and, sadly, only a pill can stop this.

toolz• 12 years ago

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but a pill is nowhere near as effective at causing weight loss as changing your diet can be.

fasteo5• 12 years ago

The pill[1]

[1]https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2014/12/and-if-the-resea...

mrfusion2• 12 years ago

So would this imply men should be healthier than women? Body builders healthier than other types of athletes?

newaccountfool• 12 years ago

I'm sure to an extent it helps you, then after a point like most things it will hinder you. I wouldn't expect some of the past and present Mr.Olympias to be very healthy.

bronbron• 12 years ago

The article doesn't say that.

As an aside, long-term (which is where we really care about "healthy" anyway), you would probably expect body builders to be healthier than some classes of athletes, with various circumstances obviously influencing that.

Professional sports are notoriously rough on the body (and mind) long-term. It's not a secret that athletes in certain sports (e.g. american football, boxing) often have debilitating health issues in their later years stemming from their career. I'd say Arnold is doing a hell of a lot better health-wise than Muhammad Ali, for example.

Floegipoky• 12 years ago

Except for the damage caused by steroid use.

fasteo5• 12 years ago

I don´t think the article is proposing "the more, the better". Rather, it is emphasizing that muscle mass is much more that pure force production or aesthetics in that it plays a key role in maintaining a healthy metabolism.

Replying to your question: if you compare two identical women differing only in their percentage of muscle mass, yes, one is healthier than the other.

As for the body builders; this is a tricky question, but I don´t think they are healthier than the general population...muscle mass being completely irrelevant.

ajcarpy2005• 12 years ago

Some bodybuilders over-train, which can stress critical organ systems such as kidneys.

EDIT: Rest/Recovery is necessary. Specifically, it's important not to increase the amount of metabolic requirements you stress yourself with too rapidly before the body has time to adapt. The body can adapt to stress and become stronger (hormesis) but it takes time, rest, and nutrition.

sillysaurus32• 12 years ago

if you compare two identical women differing only in their percentage of muscle mass, yes, one is healthier than the other.

Depends what you mean by "healthy." Plenty of overweight people live long lives.

I don't think anyone would disagree that muscles are desirable and that exercise helps, or that being overweight is a bad thing. But there's quite a lot of disagreement about the severity of the problem. If you look around, there are many old and overweight people. They got to that point without having the kind of muscle mass you're talking about.

A more persuasive approach is probably to focus on the benefits, rather than the implied downside of not having "health." For example, I had no idea that exercise would have such a profound effect on my brain. My mind is sharper when I exercise compared to when I don't. At least, it was true for me. Could be placebo effect, but, then again, the placebo effect is measurable, so sometimes it helps.

gadders2• 12 years ago

Strong people would be healthier than weak ones. As Mark Rippetoe (author of Starting Strength says):

“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people and more useful in general.”

adventured2• 12 years ago

The last half of his statement is especially invalid in roughly half of the world. Bill Gates isn't very strong, and he's more useful than any 'strongman' I've ever heard of.

See: Einstein, Newton, Aristotle, Tesla, Edison, Stephen Hawking et al. Brain has proven to be vastly more important and useful, than brawn, for thousands of years.

Bill Gates being particularly strong would not add anything to his overall value proposition, in fact I'd argue it's entirely irrelevant.

IndianAstronaut• 12 years ago

Interesting, I never realized muscle played a role in helping recover from critical injuries such as head trauma.

Mz• 12 years ago

However, over the past few years it has become evident that changes in the metabolic function of muscle itself plays a more direct role in the genesis of insulin resistance than previously appreciated.

This makes logical sense. Given that people with CF do not process fats correctly, tend to be severely underweight yet are highly prone to developing CF Related Diabetes, fat just about can't be the right explanation as to cause.

On the other hand:

The central thesis of the glucose–fatty acid cycle is that elevated plasma FFA concentrations limit glucose uptake in muscle by inhibiting the oxidation of glucose (33). Thus, according to this theory, the genesis of insulin resistance lay entirely with the increased availability of FFAs, and the muscle responded normally to that signal to limit glucose uptake and oxidation.

Can anyone tell me: If you are chronically insufficiently oxygenated for some reason (like lack of lung function), would that contribute to this process? I mean, it sounds to me like insufficient oxygenation of the system would play a role here.

Any takers?

NIL8• 12 years ago

There are several interesting aspects of this article, but it could have used a little more editing. As I read through, I can hear my 7th grade English teacher saying, "structure and grammar." This lack of attention to detail makes me wonder what else might have been overlooked in the study.

The underappreciated role of muscle in health and disease [pdf]

Related Stories