You have to consume approximately 3,500 calories above and beyond your body's maintenance levels, to gain a pound of fat.
Does the same figure hold true for gaining a pound of muscle?
Jim
|
-
01-13-2008, 03:25 PM #1
-
01-13-2008, 03:28 PM #2
-
01-13-2008, 03:41 PM #3
- Join Date: Jan 2008
- Location: New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
- Age: 72
- Posts: 4,125
- Rep Power: 260
OK, but
OK: I understand that it would take the extra calories, PLUS the muscle-building stimulus, to create the muscle tissue. But my question remains: would it be 3,500 extra calories, plus the necessary stimulus, to make a pound of muscle? Or would it be fewer than 3,500? Or - given the fact that muscle tissue is denser - more than 3,500?
Jim
-
01-13-2008, 04:27 PM #4
-
-
01-13-2008, 04:28 PM #5
-
01-13-2008, 04:37 PM #6
-
01-13-2008, 04:38 PM #7
-
01-13-2008, 04:42 PM #8
-
-
01-13-2008, 05:31 PM #9
- Join Date: Jan 2008
- Location: New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
- Age: 72
- Posts: 4,125
- Rep Power: 260
Ok...
OK, good info, and this is starting to make more sense.
1,600? That sounds about right!
I'd forgotten about 1 gram of protein being 4 calories, and 1 gram of fat being 9.
So, assuming that 3,500 extra calories would be needed to produce 1 pound of fat: 1,600 extras to produce one pound of muscle sounds about right.
Now: I've also heard that about 5 pounds of added muscle mass is a good, realistic gain for most folks in a single year.
1,600 X 5 = 8,000 extra calories one would have to consume within a YEAR. to put on those added 5 pounds of muscle mass.
8,000 per year = approximately 150 extra calories per WEEK!
All of which tells me one of two things: 1) either I'm somehow way off on my calculations or conceptions, or 2) the bodybuilding world is operating under a serious self-delusion about "bulking up".
150 "more" calories per week, over and above those required for bodily maintenance (including, admittedly, the increased caloric consumption that weight training itself imposes on the body, and the increased strain on the body's recuperation), equals a need for about 20 - 25 more calories per day.
If you want to say "but all of those 20 - 25 calories must be in the form of protein": OK, so what are we talking about? An extra mouthful of steak or chicken?
Where's the need for protein powder milk shakes, gorging yourself with food, etc. ?
Jim
-
01-13-2008, 06:37 PM #10
A lot of people use bulking as an excuse to eat more and eat dirty. You are right, you should only need about 150 - 200 cals extra to gain muscle. The trick is adjusting that number for your body and circumstances. If you are a newbie, out of practice, experienced, workout 3x a week, workout 6x a week, etc the requirements can change. Start with 150-200 a day for a month then judge the results and adjust accordingly. But you have to give it at least a month to give your body time to adjust. What you need may be more, but probably not less.
-
01-13-2008, 06:46 PM #11
-
01-13-2008, 07:15 PM #12
-
-
01-16-2008, 09:49 AM #13
- Join Date: Jan 2008
- Location: New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
- Age: 72
- Posts: 4,125
- Rep Power: 260
-
01-16-2008, 10:14 AM #14
-
01-16-2008, 10:18 AM #15
this is bull****, there's no way you can put a figure on it. If you want to know many calories are in a lb of muscle then just think about meat that you eat... its the same ****. So about 600-800cals/lb? That's what Sim882 was thinking of.
Now that's nothing like how much energy it actually takes to BUILD 1lb of muscle, which in turn is nothing like how much you need to EAT to build 1lb of muscle!
How much to build it? Well in theory it could be estimated since the energy costs of all the steps in gene expression for more muscle are known, so you could make some kind of guess IF only anabolism was occuring. But in reality, whenever you're building muscle you're catabolising it as well, so unless you somehow know the ratio of the two processes' rates then you can't work that **** out anyway.
And then, how much to eat to gain it? There's a thousand factors that go into that.
So yea, its not a question that can be answered, I'm afraid.
btw its the same with fat. 1lb of fat contains 3500 calories but that doesn't mean it takes that much to add 1lb of fat, and in turn it doesn't mean that eating 3500 calories in addition to an amount on which your weight doesn't change, will gain you 1lb of fat.
-
01-16-2008, 10:23 AM #16
-
-
01-16-2008, 10:35 AM #17
-
01-16-2008, 11:50 AM #18
-
01-16-2008, 12:13 PM #19
-
01-16-2008, 12:14 PM #20
- Join Date: Dec 2007
- Location: Connecticut, United States
- Age: 34
- Posts: 158
- Rep Power: 0
i forget the science behind it, but it is 3500 even though 4000 makes more sense mathematically. it might have to do with some getting used up as it is being stored, but thats just my assumption.
as for building muscle, it might be 1700 raw calories from protein and such to make up the muscle, but you have to take into account any energy put into making it. takes 500 cals extra of fat to make a pound fat, so probably 1900-2000 to make a pound of muscle, assuming 1700 is correct. regardless, i think you can only put on 1-2 pounds of muscle a week realistically.
-
-
01-16-2008, 12:20 PM #21
-
01-16-2008, 12:25 PM #22
3500 Calories burned may burn off a pound of fat, but 3500 extra Calories above maintenance consumed would not be a pound of fat, even for a sedentary individual.
I'm thinking that due to imperfect energy efficiency, 3500 Calories is what the body manages to get from one pound of fat. I would then think that for a person to manage to gain a pound of pure fat 5000+ calories would need to be consumed. Again, that is due to lack imperfect efficiency and conversions.
-
01-16-2008, 12:27 PM #23
-
01-17-2008, 12:20 AM #24
-
-
01-17-2008, 12:28 AM #25
- Join Date: Dec 2007
- Location: Adelaide, SA, Australia
- Age: 41
- Posts: 1,412
- Rep Power: 454
1 pound of body fat is 3500 cals, because 2/9's of it is water or something like that.
I pound of muscle is 600 or something quite, because 3/4 is water.
Hence, why a pound of meat is about 600 or less (http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C...-01c21EP.html).
I agree whether it actually takes more energy to build the tissue, because of other factors (is it metabolically expensive to create muscle?) is a different issue.
However, one person referred to catabolism as a reason why we would need to consume more catbolism - not sure about this, as maintenance calories is defined as enough to offset catabolism
-
01-17-2008, 05:14 AM #26
Well, a maximum of ~6-800 calories are found in 1lb of muscle, but what amount of that leads to ATP production will vary. Just like when you eat 1lb of meat, it doesn't at all mean that it will all be "burnt" for energy. Same for in a famine, when you break down 1lb of muscle, not all of it will lead to energy production, and that will depend on what's actually going on at the time and what your hormonal condition is.
-
01-17-2008, 05:18 AM #27
you might be referring to me?
Originally Posted by rock_ten
-
01-16-2009, 01:00 PM #28
-
-
01-16-2009, 01:09 PM #29
check out this article for more info ....
http://exercise.about.com/od/exercis...s/f/muscle.htmJournal but the 2020/2021 ed. ---> https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=141049421
ROAD RACES
Mississauga Marathon - Relay Challenge (my lap 8km) - 2015 - no time to record
Mississauga Marathon - 10 km - 2018 - 1:20:17
Tough Mudder (half course) - 2018 (no time to record)
Mississauga Marathon - Half Marathon - 2018 - 2:35:01
Toronto Women's 10km - 2019 - 1:12:14
Lululemon Toronto Waterfront 10km - 2019 - 1:12:20
-
01-16-2009, 01:17 PM #30
Bookmarks