The Instigator
Existentialreasonist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RyuuKyuzo
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points

an increase in metabolism results in lower life expectancy?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
RyuuKyuzo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,620 times Debate No: 30587
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

Existentialreasonist

Con

if i eat small frequent meals, do weight lifting every odd day and high intensity cardio every even day with protein will i age faster?
My goal is to just get decent muscle (as muscle burns fast during rest apparently) and reduce body fat to a healthy amount (10-16% and i think i'm about 20% which is a bit of excess) what is better for overall life expectancy, getting my body fat to 10% while doing all the exercises mentioned above or just eating less to live longer like bbc horizon?

is it better to eat small frequent meals throughout the day or to just eat less overall because if i keep my metabolism running i might age faster and if i don't eat much (calorie deficit) I might possibly get an imbalance in insulin or body sugar i'm not exactly sure but the starvation mode isn't good either, any help please?
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

Hello Existentialreasonist! Thanks for starting this debate.

Yes, increasing your metabolism will lower your life expectancy. It's become the new "in thing" to eat smaller meals more often because it raises your metabolism which makes it easier to lose weight, but doing so can be dangerous. I'm sure you've noticed that when you cook meat, it turns brown. It turns brown due to sugars binding with protein. This is known as the Maillard Reaction [1]. Since we are warm-blooded creatures, the Maillard Reaction can happen within our own bodies if we keep our blood-sugar levels at a constant high (above 85 dl/mg). Eating several smaller meals in a day will boost your metabolism, but it also causes you to "slow cook" yourself resulting in insulin resistance [2].

Insulin resistance can result in:
        1. Brain fogginess and inability to focus.
        2. High blood sugar
        3. Intestinal bloating – most intestinal gas is produced from carbohydrates in the diet, mostly those that humans cannot digest and absorb.
        4. Sleepiness, especially after meals.
        5. Weight gain, fat storage, difficulty losing weight – for most people, excess weight is from high fat storage; the fat in IR is generally stored in and around abdominal organs in both males and females. It is currently suspected that hormones produced in that fat are a precipitating cause of insulin resistance.
        6. Increased blood triglyceride levels.
        7. Increased blood pressure. Many people with hypertension are either diabetic or pre-diabetic and have elevated insulin levels due to insulin resistance. One of insulin's effects is to control arterial wall tension throughout the body.
        8. Increased pro-inflammatory cytokines associated with cardiovascular disease.
        9. Depression. Due to the deranged metabolism resulting from insulin resistance, psychological effects, including depression, are not uncommon.
        10. Acanthosis nigricans.
        11. Increased hunger
(List from Wikipedia) [3]

Insulin resistance can also cause type II diabetes [4], which can lower one's lifespan by 10-20 years [5].

It seems paradoxical, but keeping your metabolism at a constant high can actually cause you to get fat. You said you do weightlifting? Well, think of it like an adaptation response to lifting weights. The more you lift, the easier that particular weight feels over time. Your body adapts to the change by increasing its ability to resist that weight. Likewise, when your blood is constantly supplying sugar, your cells (specifically your muscle cells) become resistant to insulin so they aren't being constantly bombarded with glucose. It too is an adaptation response. It just so happens that this adaptation response can lower your life expectancy.

As it turns out, a little hunger is good for you. It keeps your cells sensitive to insulin. So if you want to gain weight (muscle) from working out, eat large meals a few times a day. This way, you'll remain sensitive to insulin and your slower metabolism will actually cause you to gain weight faster than a slow metabolism as you won't be burning through food as quickly.

As a side note, you can't gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. That would require both a calorie surplus and a calorie deficit simultaneously -- which is impossible. the idea is to gain as much muscle as possible while minimizing the amount of fat gained in the process, then cutting the fat once you've finished your bulk. It's easier to keep your fat-gain low when your insulin sensitivity is high, so eating large meals less often is the way you should go about this if you want to pack on slabs of muscle.

Conclusion

Eating smaller meals more often keeps your blood sugar levels high, which over time will result in diabetes-like symptoms, if not full-blown diabetes. Diabetes has been known to lower ones life-span by 10-20 years. Therefore, an increased metabolism can result in a lower life-expectancy. The resolution is affirmed.

Debate Round No. 1
Existentialreasonist

Con

I will follow what you said. Does that mean i should reduce my cardio activity from high intensity to a moderate amount?
and how do free radicals and antioxidants play their role in all of this?
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

I'll take this as a concession.

Yes, while you're bulking you want low cardio.

Free radical damage occurs when reactive oxygen species (e.g. oxygen ion) steal an electron from your DNA. Since your cells are designed to replicate themselves based on their DNA, this damage carries over replication to replication, gradually resulting in DNA that is more and more damaged. This damage can be seen in what we consider to be the natural effects of aging, such as grey hair, inelastic skin, loss of bone-density, and eventually organ failure. Therefore, the more free-radical damage you sustain, the faster you will age [1].

Antioxidants, as the name suggests, serve to mitigate this issue by allowing themselves to be oxidized by our bodies. That is to say, they give up an electron to our DNA [2]. My guess is that you're still young, so free-radicals shouldn't be a noticeable problem for you, but if you want to knick this problem before it becomes an issue then I suggest taking supplements which include Astaxanthin and Zeaxanthin. These are the two strongest antioxidants I know of [3][4].


1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Existentialreasonist

Con

Existentialreasonist forfeited this round.
RyuuKyuzo

Pro

Extending arguments
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Obviously I'm not saying 100% of what you eat will become muscle, but with a slower metabolism, gaining weight is much easier.
Posted by wallfly 4 years ago
wallfly
"Why would you add muscle when you literally are starving?!! (calorie deficit)"

Because you can go into a calorie deficient state without slowing down your metabolism. (ketosis diet + HIIT program). And a fast metabolism will only eat muscle if you don't have the hormones and/or receptors in your muscle cells to protect them from being cannabilized by your body. Leaving your body the only option but to use fat stores. During a ketosis diet, the body still believes it's in starvation but the metabolism remains the same or increases. And ketosis is an extremely ineffecient state of energy use to be in, which is good. It causes your body to burn 2 fat molecules to equal 1 glucose molecule as an energy source. You're body will also want to burn amino acids, so as long as you eat plenty of protein, you'r body won't eat muscle tissue. If you manage to find the most suitable workout program for your genetics whilst on a ketosis diet, you could put yourself in a state of muscle growth and fat loss. If you read 'the TNT diet', there is alot of research and anecdotal reports to confirm this. But everyones body reacts differently to diet and exercise.

If you were to shut down your metabolism using the methods you suggest (eating 1 - 2 meals perday), consisting of carbs. your metabolism would shut down, causing every gram of fat to be stored when u finally eat and Your workouts would be weak as piss coz u'd be starving hungry and flat as a tat. And your body is very unlikey to store majority of the massive build up of protein you finally eat. You'd have to be a genetic superfreak to make gains on such a diet OR be following the 'carb backloading' diet, which calls for such a regime.
Posted by wallfly 4 years ago
wallfly
"Therefore, two 2,500 calorie meals will add mass to your frame faster than five 1000 calorie meals.

First off, You're body will only store are certain amount of muscle at a time. Fat cells are unlimited, muscle cells are not. Which means if you ate 3000 calories, you're body has the ability to store those entire 3000 calories as fat (depending on which way it's inclined. gentics.).The same is not true for muscle. It's completely absurd to think your body will store 2000 calories of muscle after to one meal (just under 1kg of muscle). At that rate you'd be gaining 5kgs of muscle a week, whilst managing to only eat 1 - 2 massive meals perday. And you'd have to be on all sorts of roidz. If it's even possible.

Find one health and fitness expert that recommends you eat 2 meals of 100 grams of protein, carbs and fat per day to gain muscle as oppose to 6-8 smaller meals of 30 grams of protein, carbs and fat.

However, John keifer's diet, dictates you eat ONLY fat for the first half of the day, then after having a massive sweat sesh in the evening, you absolutely gorge simple carbs and massive amount of protein at night. Definitley not calorie deficit diet, but similar to your idea of saving all your calories to one massive meal, for mass gains. Different reasoning than yours though.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and look into it.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and look into it.
Posted by wallfly 4 years ago
wallfly
"Just do a bunch of roidz and anything is possible. Gotcha"
Roid's just mimmick naturally occuring chemicals in our body. Some Islanders (the rock) and Africans have the genetics of a skinny asian on a bunch of steroids. I'm stereotyping here, I have a japanese mate that has the physique of that guy in your DP and he is completely natural. So if you agree that by pumping heaps of roids you can achieve this goal, you agree it's possible given the right hormonal enviroment, natural or unnatural. The point is, burning fat whilst preserving or even gaining muscle is possible.

So if you're %20+ bodyfat individual and you did weightlifting for the first time in your life, you'r body would react so effeciently to this new stimulus, that it would jack up all your hormones, sending you into a anabolic state or muscle repair, even if you were in a 1000 calorie deficit. Unfortunately, this miracle doesn't last long and the body reverts back to its original state of 'muscle building reluctance' very shortly. Unless you're genetically gifted like the aforementioned africans and islanders.

I suggest you research 'carb backloading' by John Keifer. It's the most revolutionary muscle building, fat burning diet out the internet. It was highly criticised by all the health and fitness experts in the industry. until they tried the diet and they're all now fully endorsing this diet.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
"The metabolism slows down, in reaction to dietry changes (lack of food), because the body thinks you're going into a state of starvation."

Which means you'll pack on weight easier, as your body tends to make the most of what it gets when it thinks it won't get any more for a long while. Therefore, two 2,500 calorie meals will add mass to your frame faster than five 1000 calorie meals.

"Why would it add muscle mass if thinks you're going into starvation?"

Why would you add muscle when you literally are starving?!! (calorie deficit)

You can't have it both ways, buddy. You're contradicting yourself.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
You also have to look at the time-frame. Most lifters get a size/strength boost right after coming off a cut cycle, so if you weight yourself, diet for a month, then decide your lean enough to justify eating more for the following two weeks, THEN weigh yourself again, you'll see that you weigh about the same, but you're leaner and stronger, and you'll assume you did both at the same time.

But even if it's possible, it's not practical. You'll get much more much faster from bulk/cut cycles than you will from trying to do both at the same time. You can't rise two horses with one a$$, as the saying goes.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
"If you have a high amount of testosterone, GH and/or IGF hormones running through your body, and you eat adequate amount of protein, but still remain in a calorie deficient state. your body will burn fat and build muscle."

Just do a bunch of roidz and anything is possible. Gotcha

The only way I could see burning fat and gaining muscle simultaneously as a possibility is if you cut carbs out 100%, but are still eating a calorie surplus of red meats. Your body needs some carbs, so it'll break down fat stores, but you should still gain weight due to having a calorie surplus.

The problem is, I've never seen a valid study show this. I've been around the interwebs, I know about all the people claiming they gained muscle and lost fat at the same time. Stating their opinion and insisting on their experience is about as specific as they ever get though, so call me crazy but I'm skeptical.

It's much more likely that these people are just losing fat, which makes them look leaner, which makes them assume they've added muscle. Also, as i'm sure you already know strength gains =/= muscle gains necessarily. You can gain strength by training your CNS, so you can't use strength gains as a proxy for determining muscle gains.
Posted by wallfly 4 years ago
wallfly
"but your metabolism will still work faster, so it's not ideal for a bulk cycle"

The metabolism slows down, in reaction to dietry changes (lack of food), because the body thinks you're going into a state of starvation. Why would it add muscle mass if thinks you're going into starvation? esp considering 1kg of muscle mass requires 100 cals a day to maintain. You're not making any sense. Bodybuilders know all this type of information, weightlifters don't. This details arn't important to a weightlifter. Hence the reason why a bodybuilding lifestyle is a better path to pursue than weightlifting. It forces one to educate themselves
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
ExistentialreasonistRyuuKyuzoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF + Concession
Vote Placed by Hemanth_Nambiar 4 years ago
Hemanth_Nambiar
ExistentialreasonistRyuuKyuzoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
ExistentialreasonistRyuuKyuzoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by lewis20 4 years ago
lewis20
ExistentialreasonistRyuuKyuzoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Ya...