For those of you who have a better grip on metabolism and diet, here's a question I have.
What would be the pros and cons of having a fast metabolism and eating a lot of food vs slow metabolism and eating less food (assuming that the net calories gained or lost is the same for both cases).
One guy is taking caffeine pills and his metabolism during a normal day (including workout) burns up 3500 Calories. But he also eats 3500 Calories a day. Guy #2 isn't taking any pills or anything and his natural metabolism burns about 2000 Calories a day. He also eats about 2000 Calories a day.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is whether or not one of the two examples would have an advantage over the other when it came to maintaining and gaining muscle. Perhaps the fast metabolism guy is more likely to have protein available for muscle synthesis, but on the other hand maybe his body is getting so much done that it could cause problems if his body didn't have protein readily available to build muscle.
Maybe someone with scientific proof can chime in, but I hypothesize/theorize that higher metabolism equals better nutritional partitioning.
I think the more you can eat and still be at maintence, I think the better your body composition is. I could be full of ish though.
Well one thing for sure the guy on 2000 cals is going to live a lot longer.
I would tend to believe this, but I couldn't support it scientifically.
Originally Posted by Mr. D
people who eat less have been proven to live longer and the longer you digest your food, the more of its nutrients you can absorb