The Anabolic Vs. Catabolic Metabolism

[WillBrink]

I see this as a continuum going from Anabolic <---> Catabolic with people tending to fall on either side of point 0, tending toward one or the other. Me, I’d say I’m a 2 on the right side of point 0.


Anabolic
Metabolism 5- 4 – 3 – 2 – 0 – 1 -2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Catabolic Metabolism

Hallmarks of the Anabolic Metabolism:

• Put on muscle easily
• Has difficulty getting lean
• Will respond well to lower carb intakes (approx 30%)
• Responds well to higher training volumes

Hallmarks of the Catabolic Metabolism:

• Has difficulty adding LBM
• Gets lean easily (but has difficulty retaining LBM)
• Responds well to higher carb intakes (approx 50%)
• Responds best to lower training volumes

Where do drugs factor in?

The above is based on non drug using people. Drugs are the great genetic equalizer: those who add muscle easily but can’t get lean are able to do so, and those who have great difficulty adding LBM, but have no problems staying/getting lean, can do so while retaining LBM. Obviously, genetic traits still play a role (or everyone would look identical and respond identical, etc) but drugs allow for genetic limitations in the above, faster recoup, ability to tolerate higher training volumes, etc.

One obvious problem with my model is one needs to be training a while (at least a few years) before they really know where they fall, and many people (especially women...) are going to claim they are a 5 to the left of the scale as the reasons they carry too much fat. It always annoys me the number of women (you know the type!) who have clearly never spent any time in the gym claiming they "put on muscle way too fast" and other nonsense as reasons they don't lift weights.

[Reformed90]

Saved video, going to check this out later for sure

[ven33]

Interesting.....if this is fact it would definitely explain me putting on mass easy but cutting not so easy.

[WillBrink]

Interesting.....if this is fact

It's not "fact" in terms of objective data supporting it in the precise way I present it. I want that to be clear. It's observational/subjective hypothesis based on various sources, both hands on/clinical and others.

it would definitely explain me putting on mass easy but cutting not so easy.

Quite possible...

[SideSteal]

Interesting vid/theory.

Thanks for sharing.

[MikeK46]

I definitely lean toward the "anabolic metabolism."

If I didn't regulate my diet, I'd be obese (as I was before I developed an interest in fitness)...BUT I attribute that primarily to my love of food and the feeling of being full, which caused me to overeat during childhood. Not hormones, insulin sensitivity, etc.

My personal theory before watching this video was that hormones were the major factor, such as testosterone & to a greater degree, metabolic hormones produces by the thyroid.

Those with an "anabolic metabolism" I believe generally have lower basal metabolism. Therefore, stimulus from weight training and any extra calories are more easily allocated toward anabolism. At the same time, when calories are decreased to lose weight, its harder to maintain a substantial caloric deficit and lose fat.

With the "catabolic metabolism" its just the opposite. Basic metabolic function happen rapidly and, with surplus calories, the thyroid responds by increasing it further, leaving less excess energy to be allocated for anabolism. When calories are dropped, the high metabolic rate allows for a high caloric deficit and quick shedding of bodyfat.

[LittleMonstar]

Great video, thanks, i am really not sure where i fall on this, as i seem to put on muscle quite quickly, but also manage to keep my bodyfat low

[liammccarthy]

I always thought of the same theory. Just never had the science background to back it up.

Although one flaw with the model is the lack of a number for the genetic freaks (guys that would rate a pure mesomorph in the old model)... Guys that usually turn into bodybuilders but are big and ripped before they start training, eating right and ultimately using drugs.

repped

[WillBrink]

I always thought of the same theory. Just never had the science background to back it up.

Although one flaw with the model is the lack of a number for the genetic freaks (guys that would rate a pure mesomorph in the old model)... Guys that usually turn into bodybuilders but are big and ripped before they start training, eating right and ultimately using drugs.

repped

Not necessarily true. Plenty of pros fall on either end of that spectrum, and the drugs take care of the part their genetics don't such as getting big easy, but having difficult getting lean, etc.

Although some show obvious great genetics before they start, plenty are neither big or ripped before they get started, and many would not be pure mesomorph either.

That body ****totypes have been essential dropped from the science/med usage although it still gets used in fitness/bbing circles.