sweet jesus people
from williams m. nutrition in health and fitness sport:
'"Muscle tissue consists of about 70% water, 22% protein and the remainder is fat, carbohydrate and minerals. Because the vast majority of muscle tissue is water, which has no caloric value, the total caloric value is only about 700-800 calories per pound of muscle. However, extra energy is needed to synthesize the muscle tissue.
It is not known exactly how many calories are necessary to form 1 pound of muscle tissue in human beings, nor it is known in what form these calories have to be consumed. The National research council notes that 5 calories are needed to support the addition of 1 gram of tissue during growth, while Forbes cites a value of 8 cal per gram in adults. Because 1 pound equals 454 grams, a range of 2300-3500 extra calories appears to be a reasonable amount....A study by Robert Bartels and his associates at Ohio State U revealed that an additional 500 calories per day resulted in nearly a 1 pound increase in lean body mass per week during a resistance-training program."
01-16-2009, 06:48 PM #31
- Join Date: Mar 2003
- Location: New York, United States
- Age: 31
- Stats: 5'9", 190 lbs
- Posts: 1,194
- BodyPoints: 4100
- Rep Power: 1760
01-21-2009, 01:15 PM #32
1 pound of muscle = how many calories?
To build a pound of muscle tissue requires over 45,000 calories from what I read.
It's true the total caloric value is only about 700-800 calories per pound of muscle, but anabolism and catabolism are not reversibly equivalent.
For an explanation see MUSCLE BUILDING ... , about half way down the page gets into specifics.
01-21-2009, 02:15 PM #33
02-20-2009, 11:52 AM #34
02-21-2010, 11:38 AM #35
02-22-2010, 10:23 AM #36
you mean 7000-9000 cal or kcal? because if you mean cal then thats 7-9 kcal which is approximate to what icery said before.
btw i dont know what i was thinking at the time of my previous post but i have found a cambridge study that cites 1 kcal per gram of protein synthesized. i can post the link, but i am not sure if i am allowed to here. this would mean that for a pound of muscle 454 kcal are needed.
what i wanted to comment on what icery cited before now that we are necroposting is the pound per week gain that was observed in the study. it is the topic of a thousand other threads, but i think that half a pound is more reasonable for anyone past their first 6 months or so of lifting.
with this in mind then we should need 909 kcal per month, which yields 30 kcal per day surplus.
is it just me or is this too little?
if we take the 8 kcal of Forbes however we have a more reasonable 242 kcal per day...
02-22-2010, 10:51 AM #37
lyle mcdonald made reference to the number somewhere. Check his main site for articles.How to be HEALTHY and fit.
Check to see if your supplements work.
Realize that most people with an affiliation to a supplement company in their signature have ulterior motives when making recommendations. They're primarily concerned with pushing their products. Not your safety or what's best for you.
02-23-2010, 10:28 AM #38
03-04-2010, 04:27 PM #39
03-04-2010, 07:06 PM #40
- Join Date: Feb 2010
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
- Age: 34
- Stats: 6'2", 265 lbs
- Posts: 181
- Rep Power: 26
It really is not a calorie thing so much as a protien timing thing.
One pound of muscle will come from eating or drinking at least one pound of protien. The protien is digested in the stomach and the amino acids enter the blood where they go into the torn muscle to repair it and it gets bigger.
Your kidneys filter the aminos out of your blood about every 4 hours or so. If you do not replace them with new protien your blood is basicaly just blood and no aminos so muscle building stops.
When you finish working out, the torn muscle will continue to soak up aminos and build itself up for about 4 days, so you need to keep replenishing the protein in your stromach about every 3 waking hours for those 4 days to make fast gains.
How long it takes to gain one pound of muscle and how much protein you must ingest will vary from person to person. Maybe 1 weeks worth of protien, maybe 1 months worth of protein. Everyone is different.
Back to the calorie question. 50 grams of protein from whey protein in water is less calories than the amount of eggs you would need to eat to get 50 grams of protein, but the muscle only sees the amino acids from the protien and doesnt really care how many calories are there.
A certain number of calories are needed to put yourself into an anabolic state though, but they can really come from whatever. The ratios of fat to carbs to protien are mainly for trying to stay lean vs just build muscle.
If you want to make fast muscle gains, work out hard and eat about 2 grams of protein per pound of body weight spread over 6 meals every day.
Hope that helps :-)
Last edited by vegas_dude; 03-04-2010 at 07:12 PM.
03-06-2010, 06:38 AM #41
BradLargeMil, how did you come up with the 2500 calories?
vegas_dude, what you said about the certain number of calories needed? that's the caloric surplus.
I don't think that muscle will be built at the cost of deposited energy (ie. fat) in the body. At least not without any steroids or something. Because, if that were to happen, then it would have been possible to lose fat and built muscle at the same time. But it is not since the former requires a caloric deficit and the latter a caloric surplus. Our bodies, at least as far as i am concerned, will not invest in the building of an energy-costly tissue, that is muscle, when it doesn't have the adequate energy to even sustain itself.
03-06-2010, 06:48 AM #42
- Join Date: Aug 2008
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Stats: 6'2", 225 lbs
- Posts: 2,356
- Rep Power: 1012
03-06-2010, 07:01 AM #43
03-06-2010, 08:04 AM #44
454 gram x 4 Cals/gm = 1816 Calories
The 2500 Calories quoted above is from the gross amount of Calories that are in a pound of protein. If you burn the protein in a calorimeter it would yield over 5 Cals/gm. However, the body will only net the reported 4 Cals/gm due to an increase in energy expenditure during digestion.
In the body muscle tissue contains approximately 20-30% water. So if you were to add a pound of muscle tissue approximately 70-80% of that weight would be water so the wet weight of a lb of muscle would yield 360-450 Cals.
However, you can't just eat 360-450 kcals above maintenance and expect to increase you muscle mass by 1 lb as there is also an energy cost required for protein synthesis to occur. I don't know exactly what this is and even after reading some of the links above I am not really convinced anyone knows exactly what this is.
When you are talking about the Caloric requirements to either gain or lose weight it is commonly prescribed that you should eat approximately 500 Cals above or below your maintenance. This may seem confusing because a lb of muscle muscle and lb of fat fat have different energy contents. However, fat storage is a very energy efficient process requiring almost no energy and muscle protein synthesis requires a large amount of energy to occur. The exact difference between the 2 processes is probably more of an academic question then it has practical relevance. When trying to gain weight eating 500 Cals above your maintenance is most likely a pretty good guess and the exact amount would probably be within the margin of error of couting your Calories after you take into account the measurement error of what is reported on food labels, differences in portion sizes, estimations from Calorie calculators, etc.Morons to the left of me,
Idiots to the right, here I am,
Stuck in here posting with you.
03-06-2010, 10:51 AM #45
03-06-2010, 12:42 PM #46
03-06-2010, 01:34 PM #47
03-15-2010, 11:36 PM #48
I'm not an expert on muscle growth, but I am doing my PhD studying Myosins (among other things), the motors used for muscular contraction. Its hard enough to understand the actual process of regulation of the production of individual proteins in the process let alone the entire process and the number of calories required.
Body building is an art, not a science (despite what product marketing may say).
09-14-2010, 03:20 PM #49
09-14-2010, 03:37 PM #50
- Join Date: Feb 2009
- Location: United States
- Age: 27
- Stats: 6'0", 185 lbs
- Posts: 13,650
- Rep Power: 24588
06-12-2011, 02:37 AM #51
- Join Date: May 2011
- Location: United States
- Age: 23
- Stats: 6'1", 180 lbs
- Posts: 95
- Rep Power: 30
some one said it earlier, you have to see how many cal to consume and watch your body over time. there is really way to many variables.
ex 2000 cal just for a normal day. really low body fat ++ cal, lift/run a lot ++ ever more cal, and if you have a job that's not a desk job, add a little more. then add your own genetic make up. this is just to maintain a health body and have some gains, unless i read wrong and what i thought about cal burning was all completely wrong.
but to answer your question, i think its around 1700 like they said.
06-12-2011, 02:47 AM #52
09-24-2011, 08:52 PM #53
- Join Date: Oct 2009
- Location: Langley, British Columbia, Canada
- Age: 24
- Stats: 6'2", 169 lbs
- Posts: 1
- Rep Power: 0
09-24-2011, 09:37 PM #54
11-11-2011, 03:39 AM #55
Theory on cals to gain lean muscle!!!
This is the way i read it, and i intent to try a bulk based on this (im a light 8-9% and want to gain 15lbs).......given you are doing everything possible to promote muscle growth and minimise fat; sensible macro ratios, etc:::::
- 1700cal/ pound of muscle.
- Max lean muscle gain of .5 lbs/ week.
1700cal / 2 = 850cal
850cal / 7 days = 121cal per day above maintenance to gain .5 lbs per week.
.5 lbs per week x 4.333 = 2.1665 lbs per month
2.1665 x 12 = 25.998 lbs per year OR 11.8kg for others
25.998 LBS PER YEAR on 121 cal/day surplus.....
This to me, along with a good 40-40-20 or 40-30-30 diet, keeping it clean, etc would suggest that 121 cal above maintenance is all you would need to gain lean muscle with minimal fat........but again, its just guess work...
Still gotta be smashing the gym to see any gain anyway....
Anyone got any thoughts??????
11-11-2011, 04:07 AM #56
11-11-2011, 05:45 AM #57
Good luck trying to track your food intake and energy expenditure down to 121 calories. That's not going to happen.
Don't take into acount that this formula (if correct) accounts for a gain of 100% muscle, which won't happen, don't take into account that gain potential diminishes over time, don't take into account that when you change weight your BMR changes with it. There is no static number that will get you 100% lean gains.
It's fun to theorize but it's all mental wanking that amounts to overthinking in reality."Worrying about GI is a waste of time & energy." - Alan Aragon.
11-11-2011, 06:10 AM #58
- Join Date: Mar 2006
- Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
- Age: 29
- Stats: 6'0", 168 lbs
- Posts: 6,408
- BodyPoints: 56
- Rep Power: 13403
The original (and very old) OP was asking about calorie consumption needs to actually synthesize muscle, not how many are contained inside it.
Because fat storage requires no actual stimulus to occur ( like muscle building does ), you cannot simply say that mucle is mainly protein, and protein has 4 calories per gram, so it needs such and such grams to grow - everybody synthesizes at different rates depending on the degree of muscle damage, hormones, genetics, and other factors. Thus, someone eating 300 cals above maintenance per day who trains really hard isgoing to gain more muscle than someone eating 300 above who just does 15 push ups a week.
If you take it too literally (the calorie part), youre going to be very disappointed. For instance, 1lb or 454g of chicken may have 80g of protein and say 600 calories, but that doesn't mean by eating 3lb of chicken (or 1800) calories you will GAIN everything you eat in muscle... Muscle growth takes WAY longer and is much more difficult than gaining fat - hell if it were that simple, there would be far more fit people walking around.My head weighs in excess of 85 pounds.
11-11-2011, 07:17 AM #59
10-03-2013, 06:36 PM #60