I'm not buying it. Muscles use energy even while at rest so in the case of an emergency I'm sure the body will first remove the useless consumption of unnecessary muscle mass than to start tapping the reserves.
In what world would the body prioritize consuming "unnecessary muscle mass" (the thing you need to hunt down and kill food) over fat, which is by definition energy stored for this exact scenario?
Muscle simply doesn't consume much more energy at idle than fat does but is far more useful and far less calorie-dense. A pound of muscle burns 4-6 calories per day at idle vs a pound of fat which burns 2-3 calories. Basically the same.
>In what world would the body prioritize consuming "unnecessary muscle mass" (the thing you need to hunt down and kill food) over fat, which is by definition energy stored for this exact scenario?
I would predict that the body would consume both, in a ratio that shifts from fat towards muscle as energy supplies dwindle, in an attempt to stretch the final reserves by reducing consumption.
With respect 'common sense' is frequently wrong which is why I was asking for some study, evidence, documentation etc. Along the lines of the articles I provided.
If you just want an anecdote it certainly works for this guy [1]. And he, in turn links out to a ton of studies.
To be clear at no point did I claim that fasting would grow muscle, I don't have any data to back that up. What I said was that your body will preserve muscle when fasting because muscle is useful and fat is not. This is backed up by the articles I cited indicating significant HGH increase, and articles citing the role of HGH as inhibiting the breakdown of muscle and promoting the breakdown of fat.
