this is Part 1 of Body Comp Basics, an attempt to explain the mysteries of body composition and uncover the first principles of fat loss and muscle growth.

PRE

your body composition is influenced by energy balance, which is the relationship between energy demand (the amount of energy your body needs), energy supply (the amount of energy you feed your body), and energy reserves (the amount of energetic material you have stored inside of you).

this throuple has a rather straightforward relationship:

• supply > demand = ↑ reserves
• demand > supply = ↓ reserves

don’t confuse “straightforward” with “single-dimensional.” when looking at energy balance, you see a snapshot in time. the information you can extract is useful but limited. hidden beneath the superficial summation is a complex 3-D world you’ll miss unless you squint your eyes and look beyond what you initially see.

also, important to keep in mind: stored energetic material isn’t the only type of energy reserve inside of you. when the body is desperate (or thinks a certain adaptation is advantageous for survival), it can break down and use other tissues for energy. i won’t pretend to know every internal element your body is willing and able to break down for energetic material, but i know this: muscle tissue is one of them. (muscle tissue is different from the energy [glycogen] contained within a muscle.)

ENERGY EQUATION

Otherwise known as: the laws of thermodynamics say you’re fat because you eat too much

the relationship between energy demand, energy supply, and energy reserves gives rise to the high and mighty Energy Balance Equation. the Energy Balance Equation is a mathematical formula stating the relationship between energy demand and energy supply leads to changes in the amount of internal energetic material you have.

SUPPLY
minus
DEMAND
equals
Δ RESERVES

within a discrete window of time, there are three potential outcomes:

energy surplus

supply is greater than > demand. you have a surplus of incoming energetic material, which results in an increase in energy reserves. this is known as positive energy balance and generally increases your body weight.

energy deficit

this is when demand is greater than > supply. you have a deficit of incoming energetic material, which results in a decrease in energy reserves. this is known as negative energy balance and generally decreases your body weight.

energy equilibrium

this is when demand is similar to supply, which keeps energy reserves somewhat stable. this is known as maintenance energy balance and doesn’t usually impact your body weight.

the Energy Balance Equation provides a financial freezeframe, like a bank statement.

• income > expenses = surplus
• expenses > income = deficit

this information is useful but limited. for instance, energy balance’s influence on fat loss seems obvious: fat cells are sacks of stored energy. and so, an energy deficit should lead to fat loss.

although true, the Energy Balance Equation says an energy deficit will decrease energy reserves, but it doesn’t specify which specific reserve.

not good.

energy balance’s influence on muscle growth is even foggier. muscles store energy, but real muscle growth, the kind that makes t-shirts fit tighter, is a byproduct of fiber enlargement, not increased energy storage. in other words, muscle growth isn’t a byproduct of inflating a balloon, it’s a byproduct of increasing the thickness of the balloon’s skin.

this adaptation isn’t independent of energy balance, but, as with fat loss, there’s more to the story that the Energy Balance Equation can’t explain. and so, instead of trying to squeeze more insights from the Energy Balance Equation in isolation, let’s zoom out and look at how energy balance fits into the bigger picture of body composition.

Onto Part 2

this is Part 2 of Body Comp Basics, an attempt to explain the mysteries of body composition and uncover the first principles of fat loss and muscle growth

PRE

as seen in Part 1, both body fat and muscle mass are tied to the Energy Balance Equation, which says the relationship between energy supply and energy demand affects energy reserves.

• supply > demand = ↑ reserves
• demand > supply = ↓ reserves

the information you can extract from the Energy Balance Equation is limited because it’s superficial, like a low-resolution picture extracted from a full-color movie. for instance, you have multiple types of energy reserves (internal substances capable of repairing your energy-producing firecrackers). the Energy Balance Equation doesn’t distinguish between them. not good.

and so, even though energy balance has a heavy hand in how your body composition came to be and what your body composition will become, it doesn’t contain enough color to paint a complete picture of the situation. understanding survival-based signaling will add some reds and blues to the superficial snapshot.

according to the Energy Balance Equation, your body uses energy reserves when there’s an energy deficit.

when energy demand is greater than energy supply (within a discrete window of time), energy reserves are used to glue the gap between supply and demand. unfortunately, as mentioned, “energy reserves” is a category, not a singular entity.

body fat is an energy reserve. muscle tissue is also an energy reserve (albeit a reluctant one). this means a favorable energetic environment for fat loss is also a favorable energetic environment for muscle loss. (queue the tears.)

fortunately, body fat is the frontline energy reserve, the substance your body sacrifices first during an energy deficit. in other words, you will almost always lose some body fat during an energy deficit. you’d never lose muscle tissue and only muscle tissue. similarly, when there’s a surplus of energetic material, you’ll almost always store some as body fat.

muscle tissue’s relationship with energy balance isn’t as predictable.

whether or not your body follows these orders is another story. the human body is a complex beast with multiple answers to the riddles it receives. still, regularly overcoming an ever-increasing amount of mass makes muscle tissue more important than it otherwise would be and will make your body less likely to “sacrifice” it during an energy deficit.

this is why supergravity stimulation is important regardless of your objective and why building muscle and losing fat are more similar than they are different.

supergravity stimulation is a constant need if you care about having well-developed muscles at a low body-fat percentage.

for muscle growth, you need supergravity stimulation; if you don’t smack yourself in the face with supergravity stress, your body has no reason to build more muscle tissue.

for fat loss, supergravity stimulation isn’t necessary, but it’s beneficial. especially if you care about losing fat more than you care about losing weight. at worst, you’ll better retain the muscle you have. at best, you’ll build muscle.

unfortunately, building muscle and losing fat at the same time isn’t likely. it’s possible, but it’s not practical. the blame for this falls on the shoulders of supply.

On to Part 3

this is Part 3 of Body Comp Basics, an attempt to explain the mysteries of body composition and uncover the first principles of fat loss and muscle growth.

PRE

losing fat and building muscle are more similar than they are different. as seen in Part 2, supergravity stimulation encourages the all-powerful lizard inside of you to rethink its relationship with muscle tissue, to make it less expendable and more important for survival.

how the lizard responds to supergravity stimulation depends a great deal on supply (what you eat). if supply supports muscle growth, odds say your body will begin the long arduous process of manufacturing more muscle.

regarding supply, there are three main considerations. 

the macronutrients (proteins, carbs, and fats) and the energetic consideration usually steal the spotlight because fat loss is more sought after than muscle growth (by the general population). and, for fat loss, energy is almost everything; you won’t lose a significant amount of fat unless you create and sustain an energy deficit. the amount of energy your body demands must exceed the amount of energy your body is supplied (within a discrete window of time).

to be more specific, it’s widely accepted that one pound of body fat “contains” 3500 calories worth of energetic material. and so, to lose one pound of fat, you need to dig a 3500 calorie deficit at minimum relative to any given start time.

you may not lose one pound of fat upon creating a 3500-calorie deficit for reasons that should be obvious (unless you’re a skim-reading bottomfeeder): body fat isn’t synonymous with body reserves.

the easiest way to create an energy deficit is by getting more detailed with your diet.

i know some people don’t like the word “diet,” as we’ve been conditioned to associate “diets” with temporary weight-loss interventions involving crippling deprivation and food that could be easily mistaken for foliage. the real definition of “diet” is less sinister and simply refers to the kinds of food you habitually eat. if you eat an entire box of Toaster Strudels every day, that’s your diet. it’s not a good diet. but it is your diet. and so, for the record, i use the word “diet” in accordance with its definition.

you drive fat loss with diet by making sure your energy demand is always greater than your energy supply. this will force your body to break down and use your energy reserves. and since body fat is the sacrificial soldier on the front lines, the energy reserve your body prefers to use to bridge the gap between a low supply and a high demand, you’re bound to lose fat.

of course, you could dig yourself into an energy deficit by moving more and increasing energy demand. “cardio” is usually the weapon of choice for this endeavor because body fat fuels aerobic exercise, whereas other types of exercise and supergravity stimulation use other types of energy reserves for fuel.

although true, you don’t need to do cardio to lose fat because the act of existing is also fueled by body fat. if you stop eating tomorrow, you will lose fat eventually. even if you lie in bed all day.

cardio will increase the amount of fat your body “burns” on any given day, but not by much as you think.

my complete thoughts on cardio live here. moral of the story: diet can drive fat loss independent of cardio, but cardio can’t drive fat loss independent of diet.

if your diet is solid and you’re subjecting your body to supergravity stress, then cardio can be a nice cherry on top of your overall strategy (your heart will thank you). otherwise, to increase energy demand for fat-loss purposes, just try to be as active as you can outside of the gym. instead of sitting on the couch, clean the kitchen. plant flowers in a garden. walk. have sex. play with a yo-yo (while you have sex?).

wrestling with your diet is a much better way to ensure fat loss, by way of supplying less energy than your body demands.

beyond being beneficial for muscle growth, a high protein intake will also bias your body to break down body fat instead of muscle tissue during an energy deficit. (and for reasons i won’t explain here, proteins aren’t typically used for energy-recycling purposes, which makes them great for fat loss.)

if you want to maximize muscle growth, you might be best off spreading your daily protein intake evenly across meals 3-4 meals.

there might be a limit to how much protein your body can use for muscle growth and repair within a certain period of time. might. most research pointing at a protein half-life is done with protein supplements, which have notoriously fast absorption rates.

whole-food proteins take longer to digest, especially when eaten alongside other foods. also, certain factors influence how many proteins your body can use for non-energetic purposes in a certain period of time. for instance, your body might be able to use more proteins after exposure to supergravity stress or after a period of fasting.

i haven’t eaten more than two meals per day since 2011. and during the most muscularly-prosperous time of my life, i was only eating one meal per day. (of course, i’m not dumb. i might have gained more muscle if i was eating more often. who knows?)

if you want to live and die by the (somewhat incomplete) science, eat 3-4 meals and split your protein intake evenly across those meals. if not, just make sure you’re reaching your protein quota for the day.

increasing your protein intake is a bit more complicated than “eating more proteins” because many foods that contain proteins also contain carbs and/or fats.

wars have been waged over both of these macronutrients. years ago, fats were demonized. CHOLESTEROL KILLS! EGGS WILL MAKE YOU DROP DEAD! FAT MAKES YOU, UHHH, FAT? today, carbs are under the microscope. INSULIN IS EVIL! ANTI-NUTRIENTS! FRUIT IS SUGAR! YOU DON’T NEED CARBS TO SURVIVE!

well…

the Okinawans eat a decent amount of carbs (purple sweet potatoes). they have one of the longest reported life spans of any culture and they aren’t nearly as fat as carbohydrate-conscious First World goobers. and the Inuits eat a lot of fat (whale blubber), and they rarely ever get heart disease.

i don’t have the audacity (stupidity?) to condemn quality carbs or fats without valid medical reasons. (if your throat swells up and you almost die when you eat bread, you have a robust medical backbone.) both are useful.

fats are essential, meaning we need them to survive, yet we can’t produce them ourselves. in other words, if you don’t eat fats, your body won’t be very happy (or alive, for that matter). granted, fats have over twice the energy as an equivalent amount of carbs. they’re easy to overeat, which is why I can’t be within a ten-foot radius of pistachios. this doesn’t make them “evil,” though.

the primary argument against carbs is that they are non-essential, meaning we don’t need them to survive. true. but this doesn’t mean they’re “dangerous.” in the late 1930s, Dr. Walter Kempner put his patients (many had high blood pressure and kidney issues) on a strict diet consisting mostly of white rice, fruit, juices, and sugar. in one study of 106 patients, everyone lost at least 99 pounds.

when you control for nutrients and the negative qualities of food, the most important thing to consider, with regards to carbs and fats, is eating an amount that supports your goal: for fat loss, you want to eat less of them, but enough to avoid metabolic damage; for muscle growth, you want to eat more of them, but not enough to become a fat slob.

FAT LOSS & DAMAGE

as you know, fat loss requires an energy deficit. this creates an interesting dynamic: the need for nutrients is at odds with the need for an energy deficit. lowering your food intake inherently lowers your nutrient intake. not good.

the safest solution is to supply less than your body needs, but not too much less. you should eat an amount that facilitates fat loss at a reasonable rate and will also keep you somewhat nourished. this is the best way to avoid “metabolic damage.”

recall the analogy from Part 2: how your body handles energy is like how an accountant handles money. what would you do if your expenses consistently eclipsed your income? if you were regularly pulling from your savings?

your metabolism can adapt in response to a chronic energy deficit, making it more difficult to lose weight because a chronic energy deficit is life-threatening.

throw all of these adaptations into a pot and you get “metabolic damage,” which is a shame. i don’t like referring to these adaptations as “metabolic damage” (even though i do, for effect). it’s a nocebo; it’s like referring to muscle growth as “muscle cancer.” your metabolism is supposed to adapt to better survive in a world without as much energetic material.

regardless, you probably don’t want to flirt with “undesirable” metabolic adaptations. join the club. ready for the bad news? you can’t avoid them. they will happen, the degree to which is unknown. some people experience harsher adaptations than others. remembering these two things will help you sleep at night:

first, these adaptations are, for the most part, long-term adaptations. they won’t happen overnight. they happen in response to a chronic energy shortage. if you don’t eat anything for one day, you won’t “damage” your metabolism.

second, these metabolic adaptations aren’t permanent. your metabolism will rebound (somewhat) once the energy shortage ends.

third, these metabolic adaptations can be minimized by not starving self. eat enough to nourish yourself, yet not so much that it takes forever to lose fat.

MUSCLE GROWTH & FAT

the big difference between fat loss and muscle growth is one facet of supply:

for fat loss, you need less energetic material (but not too much less). for muscle growth, you need more energetic material (but not too much more).

everything else stays the same.

you want supergravity stimulation. you want to nourish your body with quality foods. you want to avoid destroying your insides with harmful foods. you want to flood your body with plenty of proteins so it has enough raw materials to support muscle growth.

this is the playbook.

good luck.

Back to Arcade