• GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Due to not wanting to move the goalposts, I’ll cede regarding organs.

    That said, I meant vs fat. I should have clarified. One does does does not build or shed more organs, so I thought that was clear, but I see I was not

    Also said, I’ve seen the brain one contested quite a bit.

    Again I cede to your source and acknowledge it, only clarifying I was comparing to non organ tissue.

    Edit my meaning was a pound of fat, at rest, burns less and contributes less to TDEE than a point of muscle. Therefore muscle is less efficient, using more calories to continue existing per unit time.

    • woop_woop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Fair enough. And I’ll give you the vs fat part. It was unfair for me to say anyway - what was in my head when I said it was that a pound of fat is considered worth 3500 kcal, which is more energy than most things in a body. It was a shit argument that mixed points.

      Overall, I think my issue is just with the simple statement that “muscles are inefficient”.

      The way I interpreted that statement is that “muscles waste energy”, since that’s all the context I could get from those words. I see muscles as super efficient, just like anything else in the body in that they do as little as possible compared to what is demanded. I view that type of laziness as ultimate efficiency.

      Through the rest of the thread I got little additional context, so I kept on keeping on.

      I still think the op of this thread didn’t get his point across very well

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah it’s a funny thing.

        Efficiency has multiple meanings for a living body, and a goal. (Is the goal to survive, is the goal to be strong, etc)