It is frustrating to me to answer hypotheticals because I think people engaging in them for this topic would be better served by investing the effort pontificating on these questions into training, eating correctly, etc.
There is a definition of the first law as stated. I am unsure what is not clear to you. You can take it up with Clausius and Kelvin, though if you are of a science background I encourage you to clarify your position more clearly.
Yes.The point of my post is this. Was there any study longer than 16 weeks that looked at trained individuals, on maintenance calories, and their total muscle / fat weight? It seems to me that such study is not really conductible because:
Sure you can- it just costs more.1. You can't rigorously control subjects for a long time
Sure you do, as you monitor weight changes (which they do in certain studies on weight loss, BMR, and various feeding protocols). You also assume that there is some linear relationship between training volume and daily energy expenditure, but there is not.2. You don't know the exact maintenance calories which are likely going to increase if training is done (volume going up).
Sure we do.3. We probably don't have measurement tools that would be able to measure such small changes in trained individuals so it has to be done for a long time.
What? I'm struggling to understand your angle here.Let's take a more obvious example of a person who is not getting older for 100 years. He is training and increasing volume. He is eating at maintenance calories every day. Maintenance calories likely changes every day for a really small unmeasureable amount but God tells him what his maintenance calories for the day are. God also tells feeds him with perfect macros with accuracy of +-0.001%. In 100 years he will partition his energy stores so that training volume doesn't kill him. Eventually he will die with a slow death because in order to tolerate more volume, he's going to have to be under 4% BF.
Yes, because it kind of seems like we are missing some background info on physiology and training, thus these questions persist.Now, all this is obviously theoretical and I can feel you are getting annoyed.
Ok.Also I can see the appeal in making discrete, "more aggressive" changes in calories for fat loss/gain.
what?You don't have to wait for a few years to see a change so it definitely helps with compliance.
What?I find it hard to believe that when obese untrained individual gets trained and not obese, he loses the power of doing what he did before.
Your belief system is wrong and does not comport with physiological parameters.I believe the process is continuous, definitely slows down, but we, the people, make it discrete so we can make our lives easier.
Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not.Every computer engineer and other engineers / scientists know that most of the things we believe are approximations and most of the things we measure are discrete changes. In training we measure 5lb jumps, not 2.8024 jumps.
In 3 months that is an unrealistic expectation.