weight loss, muscle and fat

[Nick666]

One lb of fat contains 3500 calories. Correct me if I'm wrong, but one lb of muscle contains 600 calories ( muscle is 70+% water and proteins have 4 calories per gram ).

This means that if say 3500 calories are burnt, it can be either in the form of 1 lb of fat or about 6 lbs of muscle.

Said differently, if we know relatively accurately the caloric deficit that we have accumulated, as well as the weight loss, we should be able to determine how much was muscle and fat.

For instance, if we have burnt 7000 calories, it can be either 2 lbs or fat, or say 1 lb of fat ( 3500 cal) and 6 lbs of muscle (~ 3600 cal).

In one case we loose 2 lbs of weight and 7 in the other.

So if we seem to loose too much weight for the caloric deficit that we've had, we are likely to have lost quite a lot of muscle. On the contrary if it seems to fit with 3500 cal/lb, it's likely that most of it is fat. Of course I'm talking about figures of weights that are comparable ( after carbups for instance).

Does this sound about right to you?

[KingWill]

You lost me on the 1 lb of muscle is 600 calories. Where or how did you get that number?

[LivinOn2]

How are you going to know how many calories your are bruning during the day?

[Nick666]

Originally posted by KingWill
You lost me on the 1 lb of muscle is 600 calories. Where or how did you get that number?

454g*.27% of protein in muscle*4cal ~ 500 calories

Ok, I should have said 500g. I said 600 because I remembered this number from I don't know where.

[Nick666]

Originally posted by LivinOn2
How are you going to know how many calories your are bruning during the day?

You have a general idea if you count your calories and the cardio you do.

It doesn't have to be very accurate. The difference of calories between muscle and fat is so great - by a factor of 6 - that a rough estimation is enough.

[atticus_a]

It isn't that simple of math. it is true a pound of fat is approximately 3500 calories. A pound of muscle i remember reading was 400 and something but you 500 number doesn't sound that off. I would be recalling a wrong number. But that isn't the only thing that is at work.

Think of your carbs and lean muscle mass as the spark plugs and your fat as the gas tank for your body energy. You body starts by using calories of carbs that are in your muscle stores and your liver. When you burn calories it first begins to take from your carbs or your glycogen stores and slowly from you fats stores. As time progress in aerobic activity, the amount taken from your carb decrease and the amount taken (energy) taken fat increases as you move though the energy cycle. Soon you run out of carb stores in your muscles and your body starts to you your lean muscle mass that it converts in to glycogen to be the preverbal spark plugs..

So when you are lossing weight, you are decreasing carbohydrate stores, lean muscle mass, and fat. You body in its muscle stores and liver can hold up to like 2600 calories in the form of glycogen.

[Nick666]

Well, I know that, it's not really what I'm talking about.

If you compare your weight with comparable glycogen levels, say after 2 carbups, the weight that has been lost comes either from muscle or fat.

The question really is: how many calories are lost when 1 lb of muscle is lost. Is it 400-500 calories, or do we have to add the glycogen that is contained in that pound of muscle, in which case could be significantly more.

Check that for instance..
http://www.diet-i.com/calorie_chart/beef.htm

Calculate the calories without fat, and you will see that you get about the ratio of 1lb for 500 calories ( after removing the fat).


It is said that to gain 1lb of muscle, it takes 2800 calories. Why is it 2800 and not 500? I have never found a real explanation for that. I guess it's because of the glycogen in contains, I don't know.

[atticus_a]

Originally posted by Nick666
Well, I know that, it's not really what I'm talking about.

It is said that to gain 1lb of muscle, it takes 2800 calories. Why is it 2800 and not 500? I have never found a real explanation for that. I guess it's because of the glycogen in contains, I don't know.

I never figured it out either but somethings that might help explain that are.

I know that protein synthesis in imperfect. It isn't a function of grams of protein but a function of correct ratios of amino acids required. Moveover, you body has a limited amount of protein that can be bioavailable at one time so you can't just eat protein. Also protein synthesis does increase with carbohydrates.

I think you need a positive nitrogen balance as well. That means that you can be using any of your lean muscle mass for energy. So you would never to make sure that you have adequate carbohydrates for that. Maybe it is 500 calories of the right ratio of amino acids and lipoproteins to make a muscle. So you would have to on average consume a greater about of food to ensure that you protein goes to develop your muscles and not to replace the protein lost in you lean muscle mass.

[Nick666]

Mmmh maybe.. I don't know.

Some people say that it takes 600 cal to gain one lb of muscle. Mentzer used to say that for instance in his writings. I used to believe him, and was most probably undereating when I was doing HIT.

When I started HST, I read what Bryan Haycock said, and he was saying - and it's not the only one - that it takes really 2800 calories. SInce he's a scientist I guess he's right.

But there's something here that's hard to grasp here..

It's like the amount of protein that we take.. A BBer who takes 1g/lb takes WAY MORE than for maintenance, maybe 130 g more. If really those 130g went into building muscle directly, since there is 75% of water in muscle, that would translate to 130/0.75 = 500g of muscle per day, about 1 lb. This is obviously not possible. So like you said it probably takes much more protein to build muscle for whatever reason..

[atticus_a]

Yeah, I was thinking on it. Maybe it comes down to the amount that your body can process at one time. There is a limit the amount of protein that can be synthesized at one time. The rest can not be processed for protein synthesis in that manner. I don't remember the ratio of protein to body weight. I have it in one of these books I would have to look but it isn't as high as one would like to think it is. So there could be a limit to the amount of protein that one can use for muscle building and maintanence each day. But that said it doesn't account for why you would have to eat such a large number of calories to grow a pound of muscle. Maybe, you have to eat the carbhydrates and fats to preserve the muscle from being used for energy. Plus the growing and healing of muscles takes glycogen. Maybe, to grow a pound of muscle you need the initial endowment of protein, the carbhydrates to support the mass, and the fats to help for protein synthesis. That would sound about right. And that is a lot more than the 600 hundred calories

[nithos]

Don't forget that your body is constantly rebuilding worn out muscles. Once you have one pound of muscle, it takes a lot of work for your body to keep it. Also your calorie surplus isn't going strictly to building muscle (if you can find a way to make that happen, you will a wealthy man)..

[atticus_a]

one pound of lean muscle mass consumes 11 calories a day.

[Nick666]

That's really not much. It may even be less than that. Check what Lyle says here..

http://www.cyclingforums.com/archive/index.php/t-94486

[Romac]

Originally posted by Nick666
So if we seem to loose too much weight for the caloric deficit that we've had, we are likely to have lost quite a lot of muscle. On the contrary if it seems to fit with 3500 cal/lb, it's likely that most of it is fat. Of course I'm talking about figures of weights that are comparable ( after carbups for instance).

Does this sound about right to you?

well it sounds like you are getting way too mathematical in your guessing game.

Stop guessing and spend $15 on some cheap calipers ($10 off ebay) and measure your LBM while you diet. That way you can make immediate changes if you notice you are dropping too much LBM.

[bakers11]

Here is something I found on another site regarding how many calories it takes to actually build a pound of muscle, not sure how accurate it is. We may want to ask Alan Aragon to see if he knows:

Your body's primary consideration when building muscle mass is its caloric intake. When you place energy demands on your body for strength training, your caloric needs increase dramatically. The body only accumulates mass -- lean or otherwise -- when it has excess calories. According to Grandjean, the body needs approximately 2,500 calories to develop one pound of muscle. If your body can build a pound of muscle each week, that translates into 350 calories each day in addition to what you generally eat to maintain health.

[Romac]

Originally posted by bakers11
According to Grandjean, the body needs approximately 2,500 calories to develop one pound of muscle. If your body can build a pound of muscle each week, that translates into 350 calories each day in addition to what you generally eat to maintain health.

that's pretty cool, and means that for optimal muscle growth without the aid of legal or illegal gear you need a minimum caloric surplus of 350 calories per day. (Apparently adding 1lb of muscle per week is all that is physiologically possible but most people add less because nutrition and training are not perfect.)

[Nick666]

Originally posted by bakers11
Here is something I found on another site regarding how many calories it takes to actually build a pound of muscle, not sure how accurate it is. We may want to ask Alan Aragon to see if he knows:

Your body's primary consideration when building muscle mass is its caloric intake. When you place energy demands on your body for strength training, your caloric needs increase dramatically. The body only accumulates mass -- lean or otherwise -- when it has excess calories. According to Grandjean, the body needs approximately 2,500 calories to develop one pound of muscle. If your body can build a pound of muscle each week, that translates into 350 calories each day in addition to what you generally eat to maintain health.

According to HST, hypertrophy happens by the fusionning of satellite cells with the muscle cells ( those that have microtrauma ).

So maybe it's possible that the body creates much more satellite cells than the number that really fusions.

For instance, I remember Bryan say that the proliferation of satellite cells ( protein synthesis ) doesn't translate necessarily to hypertrophy. It takes microtrauma for that.

Who knows..

[Nick666]

Originally posted by Romac
that's pretty cool, and means that for optimal muscle growth without the aid of legal or illegal gear you need a minimum caloric surplus of 350 calories per day. (Apparently adding 1lb of muscle per week is all that is physiologically possible but most people add less because nutrition and training are not perfect.)

I don't think you need less protein if you're on steroids.

Except for a beginner, 1lb/week seems about a good average indeed.

[atticus_a]

Trauma is what makes the lean muscle mass develop. Strength training damages the muscle. The protein synthesis is what the body uses to repair it and gather mass to that muscle. Otherwise, you would grow constantly on nothing but protein so protein is need for maintanence of internal functions and to build and sustain muscle mass.

1 lb growth a week is really good actually. Hell, 2 pounds of lean muscle mass is really good.

I read that on most bulking diets only 35% is actually muscle the rest is fat, water, and glycogen. which is an interesting number if you consider the about of calories in a pound of muscle and what they recommend that we eat above that.

AS to the calibor comment, I don't think that is what we are trying to figure out. For me, it was always why do I ahve to eat so much to gain muscle. And why do I have to do a bulk and cut cycle. If i could figure out the math, I wouldn't have to do a cutting cycle just a bulking one. I have had pretty good success with gaining muscle with little fat but to gain muscle I always have to gain fat. I have been doing the cycle a long time.

[Romac]

Originally posted by Nick666
I don't think you need less protein if you're on steroids.

of course not...you need more a lot more protein if you're on gear

[atticus_a]

Well, I would think you would want to be on more protein while on the riods. Otherwise, you wouldn't be developing the muscles to there fullest potential and what would be the point of taking the steriods if not to gain muscle unless you are actually taking them for some medical purpose

[Nick666]

Trauma is what makes the lean muscle mass develop. Strength training damages the muscle. The protein synthesis is what the body uses to repair it and gather mass to that muscle. Otherwise, you would grow constantly on nothing but protein so protein is need for maintanence of internal functions and to build and sustain muscle mass.

That's right. There is little of any indirect training effect. Training the legs will never make the arms grow because it won't make microtrauma to them. On the contrary from what I understand, when testosterone level increase after a workout, it increases the proliferation of satellite cells not only in the muscle that are trained. An example of that is someone who doesn't train and take steroids, he will still gain a lot of muscle without microtrauma.

So to summarize whay I'm trying to say, there may be a proliferation of satelite cells all over the body because of testosterone - protein synthesis -, but this will translate to actual hypertrophy only where microtrauma are present - through a local increase of muscular IGF-1.

[atticus_a]

hm.

Steriods effect growth as well though due to the ratio of testronsterone receptor sites in the shoulders, chest, and back. That is why people that juice will have a different ratio of muscles in those areas compared to the rest of there bodies.

[Nick666]

I was talking about people who don't take steroids. And of course what I say is just an idea to explain why it takes so much calories and protein to build muscle.

As for the effect of steroids, the affect they have is caused by the huge increase of testosterone levels. It is not the same situation compared to a "natural" who grows because of local IGF-1 effect. That's why "naturals" should train differently by the way. They should concentrate on making microtrauma and getting the most out of IGF-1, instead if other growth factors like testosterone.

That's why people who take steroids have a more general growth, and the shape of their muscles is also different - rounder - because it is not the microtrauma which make them grow - microtrauma are more done close to the tendons.

But like I said I don't really know why it takes so much calories to build muscle. What's weird is that it seems to be a relatively fixed number - 2500-2800 calories-, which seems to suggest that it is the entire process of hypertrophy which requires these calories.

As for the reverse, atrophy, I have no idea how many calories 1 lb of muscle loss gives to the body.

Mystery mystery..