Muscle Burns Calories?

Denerick

I'm a bit confused by this.

I've lost over two stone in the last two/three months - not as dramatic as you might think because I was over 20 stone at the start. I lost this by intense aerobics 4/5 times a week (Cross trainer/rower/cycling) and keeping my diet between 2000-2100 calories a day. I've recently started a proper weights programme to accompany my aerobic activity. Does increasing my muscle mass have a positive or negative impact on my weight loss? I'm a tall guy (6:3) so ideally I'd like to be around 13 and a half stone with a bit of muscle on me. I've read that increasing your muscle mass improves your resting metabolism rate, which in turn leads to your body burning even more calories. Can anyone clarify this please? Thanks.

Mellor

More muscle mass will raises your metabolic rate. Absolutely.

But the notion (that's repeated everywhere) that you should lift weights to build muscles to burn fat is jumping the gun a bit.

Losing fat is the results of using more energy than you take in.
Lifting weights uses energy on its own whether you build muscle or not. That's the reason you should do it, not because muscle raises your BMR as it will be minor when your diet is based around a deficit.

DAINGNE

Mellor wrote: »

More muscle mass will raises your metabolic rate. Absolutely.

But the notion (that's repeated everywhere) that you should lift weights to build muscles to burn fat is jumping the gun a bit.

Losing fat is the results of using more energy than you take in.
Lifting weights uses energy on its own whether you build muscle or not. That's the reason you should do it, not because muscle raises your BMR as it will be minor when your diet is based around a deficit.

This.

Congrats on the weight loss OP but, also, if you're looking to gain muscle you're going to have to eat at a caloric surplus and cut down on the cardio.

Denerick

DAINGNE wrote: »

This.

Congrats on the weight loss OP but, also, if you're looking to gain muscle you're going to have to eat at a caloric surplus and cut down on the cardio.

Ha! That would be something of a contradiction in terms for me. My first focus is on losing a steady two to three pounds a week. My second consideration is making sure I turn some of those lost pounds into muscle mass so that I don't get all of that loose skin etc. that seems to come with big weight loss.

The Davestator

Mellor wrote: »

More muscle mass will raises your metabolic rate. Absolutely.

But the notion (that's repeated everywhere) that you should lift weights to build muscles to burn fat is jumping the gun a bit.

Losing fat is the results of using more energy than you take in.
Lifting weights uses energy on its own whether you build muscle or not. That's the reason you should do it, not because muscle raises your BMR as it will be minor when your diet is based around a deficit.

The additional calories burned is neglible. Saw a study recently that measured it at 12 calls a day or something.

I'd still recommend doing weights op as you don't want to be saggy and skinny fat

househero

Muscle burns calories when you are not in the gym so its good to build up.

Think of it as having 2 cars. You are an engine and petrol is food.

The car with the big engine (muscles) uses more fuel (food) than the car with a small engine.



Excellent job on the weight loss by the way, congratulations.

Cheat Meal Master

The more lean muscle you have the better, every lb of muscle we have burns between 30-70 calories at rest.

Any questions let me know.

Cheers

Denerick

Cheat Meal Master wrote: »

The more lean muscle you have the better, every lb of muscle we have burns between 30-70 calories at rest.

Any questions let me know.

Cheers

This is what I question. People tell me its neglible and that its an urban legend almost, yet you come along and say 1lb burns 30-70 calories at rest. I don't know what to believe to be honest.

Tefral

Thats Bro Science for you...

Op, your goal is to loose weight. In that if your lifting weights, it has to be lots of reps and keep up the cardio. Weight lifting will help you loosing weight along with your cardio because you are using energy. If your eating less than your maintence requirement in Cals, your body will take the bit it needs from your fat stores.

So more energy excertion and less cals means more fat burn.

nice_guy80

Lift weights
Have a clean diet, keep an eye on the calories
the rest will look after itself - ie bodyfat loss and muscle development

people make things complicated when really, they aren't.

Hanley

I'd actually be REALLY interested in seeing some of the studies on kcals burned by fat -v- muscle.

....and I know there's a ton of other reasons why having muscle is preferential to fat, but for the sake of my question, assume it's a metabolic benefit only.

Mellor

Cheat Meal Master wrote: »

The more lean muscle you have the better, every lb of muscle we have burns between 30-70 calories at rest.

Any questions let me know.

Cheers

I've a question, where did you get the figure 30-70 cals per lb of muscle?
It's looks like a completely made up figure to me. For a start why a huge range, what are the variables?

An easy way to test it, add it up for a whole body. Somebody 200lbs will have maybe 100lbs of muscle. Your suggestion that will burn up 3000-7000cals at rest. Which is miles over a persons BMR, and you still have to add the energy your organs burn.

The numbers were probably misinterpeted from a study somewhere. In reality, muscle burns very little energy at rest, about 6 cals/lb a day. Which is pretty low compared to other tissue.

househero

Mellor wrote: »

I've a question, where did you get the figure 30-70 cals per lb of muscle?
It's looks like a completely made up figure to me. For a start why a huge range, what are the variables?

An easy way to test it, add it up for a whole body. Somebody 200lbs will have maybe 100lbs of muscle. Your suggestion that will burn up 3000-7000cals at rest. Which is miles over a persons BMR, and you still have to add the energy your organs burn.

The numbers were probably misinterpeted from a study somewhere. In reality, muscle burns very little energy at rest, about 6 cals/lb a day. Which is pretty low compared to other tissue.

I don't think somebody weighing 200lbs would have anywhere near that amount of muscle. Skin, brain, organs and skeletal mass would take up a large chunk of the body mass.

I think the study I read was about muscle development after regular resistance workouts. So the muscle was repairing its self and using protein and calories to do this. It was not a study on simple muscle calorie use. I'll try and dig it out.

Mellor

househero wrote: »

I don't think somebody weighing 200lbs would have anywhere near that amount of muscle. Skin, brain, organs and skeletal mass would take up a large chunk of the body mass.

The exact number does matter, I was using 100 for convenience to show how its off. It may be a bit less, but "not anywhere near" is a bit silly. You are still missing the point, up to 7000cals is so far over the mark that it doesn't matter than 100lbs isn't accurate.

The fact that your brain and other organs make up your weight will drive the numbers even higher, which backs up mu point. Kidneys and heart burn 200cals per lbs. Liver and brain a little less.

I think the study I read was about muscle development after regular resistance workouts. So the muscle was repairing its self and using protein and calories to do this. It was not a study on simple muscle calorie use. I'll try and dig it out.

I'm pretty sure I can guess where the study misinterprets the numbers.

Take some untrained guys. Measure BMR and body comp.
12 weeks of resistance training
Measure BMR and body comp again.

Muscle mass increased by 4lb on average, and BMR increased by 160-280 cals.
Therefore muscle tissue burns 40-70 calories at rest.

The flaw, the fact that there are a numourous other metabolic process at play here that increase the BMR, not just extra muscle mass.

BlueIsland

Denerick wrote: »

I'm a bit confused by this.

I've lost over two stone in the last two/three months - not as dramatic as you might think because I was over 20 stone at the start. I lost this by intense aerobics 4/5 times a week (Cross trainer/rower/cycling) and keeping my diet between 2000-2100 calories a day. I've recently started a proper weights programme to accompany my aerobic activity. Does increasing my muscle mass have a positive or negative impact on my weight loss? I'm a tall guy (6:3) so ideally I'd like to be around 13 and a half stone with a bit of muscle on me. I've read that increasing your muscle mass improves your resting metabolism rate, which in turn leads to your body burning even more calories. Can anyone clarify this please? Thanks.

This (in bold) is the most important reason you lost the weight IMO.

Adding a good weights programme along with the cardio you been doing will keep you motivated/ interested longer and nearly certainly have a positive effect on your weight loss ( as opposed to constant chronic levels of cardio).

You seem to be going the right direction and asking the right questions. Advice- dont overthink it. The next 2-3 stone will shift maintaining doing what you doing.

rubadub

househero wrote: »

I don't think somebody weighing 200lbs would have anywhere near that amount of muscle.

Another example would be to take a bodybuilder, Jay cutler shows on wiki as 5'9" and 274lb as contest weight. So that could be seen as 100lb above what a normal lean 5'9" person might be. So it would similarly suggest he needs up to 7000kcal more than the average lean 5'9" guy.

Mellor wrote: »

Muscle mass increased by 4lb on average, and BMR increased by 160-280 cals.
Therefore muscle tissue burns 40-70 calories at rest.

The flaw, the fact that there are a numourous other metabolic process at play here that increase the BMR, not just extra muscle mass.

While he did say 30-70kcal at rest -he did later say

househero wrote: »

It was not a study on simple muscle calorie use.

So the study might not be flawed. It was probably taking into account muscle building. Which I have seen stated as a reason for lifting being good for fat loss.

The OP said 2 things, before the 'at rest' thing he said

Denerick wrote: »

Does increasing my muscle mass have a positive or negative impact on my weight loss?

Which could include both reasons, calories used building, and calories used maintaining once on. I would think the calorie building uses a lot more.

I also wonder about bodybuilders, would maintaining their muscle take more energy per kg than mine per kg?Here's my broscience alert!- Since they are so muscular I expect their body will shed muscle fairly quickly if allowed to, the body doesn't really need it. And so it could be like they are continually topping up with 'new muscle' and so need new calories for this. While if a typical person puts on 5lb of muscle it would be maintained with little effort, and the body would not see it as a huge surplus.

This site had several studies on the subject. This one mentions the 70kcal per kg but I would have to read the full study, it might be paraphrased wrongly
http://www.ergo-log.com/after15minutesstrengthtraining.html
http://www.ergo-log.com/heavystrengthtrainingburns.html

Put EPOC in the search box for more.

Mellor

rubadub wrote: »

While he did say 30-70kcal at rest -he did later say

househero wrote:

It was not a study on simple muscle calorie use.

You are mixing up two different posters. CheatMealMaster mentioned 30-70 cals at rest and said nothing else. That's who my post was directed at.

Cheat Meal Master wrote:

The more lean muscle you have the better, every lb of muscle we have burns between 30-70 calories at rest.

Any questions let me know.

Cheers

So the study might not be flawed. It was probably taking into account muscle building. Which I have seen stated as a reason for lifting being good for fat loss.

If the study jumped to the conclusion that every lb of muscle burns 70 calories, then its very flawed.
Or even if the study didn't state that but somebody interpreted it that way, then that assumption is flawed.

The OP said 2 things, before the 'at rest' thing he said
Which could include both reasons, calories used building, and calories used maintaining once on. I would think the calorie building uses a lot more.

I'd still think that calories burned physically lifting weights is far more significant than EPOC or increased BMR, at least when the diet is structured around a deficit.

Gbear

Before you even get in to an argument about this or that being the best way to do things, you're not at a stage where working in the margins like that makes any sense.

It's the same with everything - 20% of the work yields 80% of the results. Be broadly sensible: eat well and excercise regularly and you'll get to a very satisfying position without having to go hurting your head by doing loads of pointless research. Once you get to your desired weight, if you want to get into bodybuilding proper, then you can start getting seriously anal about what you eat and how to precisely engineer a training routine.

I'm not a million miles away from the OP in terms of current weight and height but the progress you've made in only 3 months is incredible and really shows what you can do. Well done kid. That's some serious motivation.

Alas for my gluttony!:p

BlueIsland

Gbear wrote: »

Before you even get in to an argument about this or that being the best way to do things, you're not at a stage where working in the margins like that makes any sense.

It's the same with everything - 20% of the work yields 80% of the results. Be broadly sensible: eat well and excercise regularly and you'll get to a very satisfying position without having to go hurting your head by doing loads of pointless research. Once you get to your desired weight, if you want to get into bodybuilding proper, then you can start getting seriously anal about what you eat and how to precisely engineer a training routine.

I'm not a million miles away from the OP in terms of current weight and height but the progress you've made in only 3 months is incredible and really shows what you can do. Well done kid. That's some serious motivation.

Alas for my gluttony!:p

In theory thats all well and good but most people who end up overweight need to take control by researching and learning to make better choices. Saying to them just be sensible is not overly great advice as if it was that simple they would have most likely sorted out the problem long before being 20 stone IMO.

rubadub

Mellor wrote: »

You are mixing up two different posters.

ah right, sorry!

Mellor wrote: »

I'd still think that calories burned physically lifting weights is far more significant than EPOC or increased BMR

With 'normal' training it probably is. I imagine there is a crossover point though, e.g. say a guy does 3 fullbody workouts a week with 3sets of 15 reps, another does a single set of 6 rep negative only exercise once a fortnight. The 'normal' guy will burn far more calories than the 'negative only' guy during exercise. But there could come a point where the "negative only" guy is burning say 100kcal in his once a fortnight exercise & could use up 200kcal between then and his next exercise 'recovering'. (before anybody says it of course 300kcal in 2 weeks is low, but I am interested in the theory)

I would expect a wide range of variation of this 'cross over point', a beginner with wasted muscle will have their body itching to put on muscle. Or elderly people.

There could be other training methods which expend very little energy, and cause a big after effect. e.g. occlusion training, AKA Kaatsu training. Where they can restrict bloodflow to peoples legs and just regular walking can stimulate muscle growth.

The major finding of the present study was that
two weeks of twice daily LIT-Kaatsu produced
increases in skeletal muscle size (7-8%) that were
similar in magnitude to those reported in traditional
HIT of 3-4 months

I am not saying its the best way to go about it by the way. Its like this heartrate fat burning zone thing, it may be in theory the most efficient, but not advisable.

It could be of interest to some people though, the minimal effort needed, or people who cannot set aside time to train for whatever reason.

swededmonkey

BlueIsland wrote: »

This (in bold) is the most important reason you lost the weight IMO.

Adding a good weights programme along with the cardio you been doing will keep you motivated/ interested longer and nearly certainly have a positive effect on your weight loss ( as opposed to constant chronic levels of cardio).

You seem to be going the right direction and asking the right questions. Advice- dont overthink it. The next 2-3 stone will shift maintaining doing what you doing.

This has pretty much hit the nail on the head. Don't get bogged down in complicating what you are doing. Good diet, plenty of varied exercise (weights and cardio - maybe look into adding a kettle bells or body pump class into your routine which incorporates the two elements) and you'll do fine. Keep it up!

Denerick

BlueIsland wrote: »

In theory thats all well and good but most people who end up overweight need to take control by researching and learning to make better choices. Saying to them just be sensible is not overly great advice as if it was that simple they would have most likely sorted out the problem long before being 20 stone IMO.

To be honest I hit 20 stone mainly out of laziness, denial and very mild depression (Add in a general demeanour of quiet resignation and poor self esteem...) I was and am fully aware of what I needed to do to be trim, slim, and healthy. I didn't really need to research that I need to burn more calories than I consume, or that southern fried chicken rolls with extra mayo mightn't help in trying to losing weight.

Losing weight is surprisingly easy to be honest, all it takes is optimism and motivation. Unfortunately when your down and out (figuratively speaking) its rather difficult. I don't have a lot of time for weight loss gurus or fad diets, it is within every fat person (barring a serious disability) to lose weight. They just need to work hard and be serious about what they eat. Most fat people know this as well, I don't buy into the idea that obesity is a result of poor education or misinformation, the logic is so obvious that anyone who isn't retarded should be able to grasp it.

Just saying...

Tigger

3 things
1 being strong is awesome
2 muscle will fill you out a bit so the loose skin dosent be as bad
3 newb gains allow a first time trainer to eat a deficit and grow muscle by burning fat, in other words you should lift heavy+complex and eat clean

the answer is always lift heavy and complex and eat clean

Gbear

BlueIsland wrote: »

In theory thats all well and good but most people who end up overweight need to take control by researching and learning to make better choices. Saying to them just be sensible is not overly great advice as if it was that simple they would have most likely sorted out the problem long before being 20 stone IMO.

It is that simple. 20 stone is very overweight and having a common sense approach - a decent diet and a decent amount of exercise - will stop you from getting that heavy.

Getting from 17 to 13.5 requires a bit more effort but it's still fairly straightforward and overthinking it isn't necessary.

I know exactly what I need to do to get into decent shape and I've done very little reasearch. It isn't knowledge that's the problem. It's the will to eat more appropriately and consistently exercise that is.