I have read here many times people say in response to various questions like should I cut down under 10% bf or bulk now at 12% invariably someone will say "bulk, you will build more muscle which will increase metabolism and burn more fat". But a couple of months ago in over 35 section someone posted a link that shows an increase in say 1 pound of muscle increases metabolism by a neglible amount. I have noticed even some of the respected seasoned posters will also tend to repeat that you should increase LBM which will increase your metabolism, is this an exaggerated myth or something that makes a big difference. What is the truth here? thanks
http://exercise.about.com/gi/o.htm?z.../news/cals.htm
|
-
09-28-2011, 11:27 AM #1
more muscle burns more calories, true or exaggerated myth?
-
09-28-2011, 11:58 AM #2
What are your goals? Muscle at rest does burn more calories than fat does. How much is a great question. I have no idea. There are a lot of varying opinions out there.
This guy seems to know what he is talking about: http://www.fitcommerce.com/Blueprint...lId=2&cid=1380
-
09-28-2011, 12:03 PM #3
-
09-28-2011, 01:18 PM #4
At 6'2 and 178...I think I would just look to build mass rather then cutting first. You already have reasonably good body composition. (you are certainly not obese)...So building muscle will be a good thing.
One thing people often overlook...is it is "bodyfat PERCENTAGE....EXAMPLE BELOW:
Say you are 178 at 12% bodyfat:
weight 178
lbm 156.6
fat 21lbs
Now say you spend the next year doing a great weight training program and eat right and you gain 12lbs of lean mass without losing an ounce of fat.....your bodyfat PERCENTAGE just went down.
weight 190
lbm 168.6
fat 21
New Bodyfat PERCENTAGE: 11%
That is all semantics.....but it just illustrates a point. I think you are more then lean enough to just jump right into gaining mass. Now if you were closer to 20%....I might say dropping weight would be beneficial...(for a number of reasons)...but lift away and grow...
That is unless you are dead set on a 6 pack....then by all means diet for a few months and you are there.... You are at a great starting point.RAW lifts
635 Dead http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mATRBZ0gwdg
585x7 Dead reps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yf2ZkdNNNQ
420 Bench (paused) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ2_Q-TLIB8
535 Squat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdgVaiTi4-8&feature=youtu.be
-
-
09-28-2011, 01:43 PM #5
-
09-28-2011, 01:55 PM #6
- Join Date: May 2011
- Location: Plymouth, Michigan, United States
- Age: 52
- Posts: 1,124
- Rep Power: 2936
I been wondering this. Well not this exactly but when I started losing weight 9 or so months ago I figured out after 3-4 months of counting wrong then right, messing up then finally figuring out what I am doing I found my daily maint was 3700 cal (at 305 weight). I cut my weight by eating 2700-3k cal a day. Was easy once i have it figured and did the work.
Now I weigh in at 262. Bodyfat% is about 20 and if my figures are right and I know they are my maint is now 4100 cal a day. I have added some cardio in but I was always doing that to some degree. How could this of gone up ? the addition of more solid muscle ? has to be. Nothing else has really changed.Keep it simple
-
09-28-2011, 02:58 PM #7
Thanks for the comments, well put and I agree, if I personally try to go under 10% or try for a 6 pack at my size/height it will be a waste of time as I do not have enough LBM and I will look too skinny, I don´t want to do that and that is not what I am trying to do. I want to build muscle while keeping fat gain in check.
But anyway my post was not about my personal situation I was just interested in the topic- does putting on a few pounds or so of muscle actually increases metabolism by a significant amount as most people seem to believe or really only makes an insignificant difference?
-
09-28-2011, 05:04 PM #8
FWIW....all I know about the game suggests the more lean mass you carry - the greater the metabolic load both at the resting metabolic rate (BMR) and in any exercise you do.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=154678393
If a guy's working harder than me - doing more than me - he fking well deserves to beat me.
Simple plan.
"Conceive. Believe. Perceive. Achieve", RMW
-
-
09-28-2011, 09:15 PM #9
-
09-29-2011, 03:06 AM #10
- Join Date: May 2011
- Location: Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 51
- Posts: 220
- Rep Power: 274
Myth: Passive muscle only requires 6-10 cals per pound per day. An insignificant amount when you consider that even an additional 5 pound of LBM would equate to probably less than 50 extra cals per day.
Fact: Breaking down muscle and rebuilding it (as we are constantly doing when we train/rest) is a metabolic process and requires additional energy.Last edited by chunkysnowman; 09-29-2011 at 03:14 AM.
-
09-29-2011, 09:03 AM #11
I don´t think the topic is "meaningless", its obvious more muscle will burn more calories but the question relates to the actual amount of difference each pound of muscle makes. Quite often people post here that supporting the idea that by gaining some muscle you are suddenly gonna have a raging metabolism and be a fat burning machine, not because of all the exercise you are doing but just because you have gained say 5 pounds more muscle. I read some articles which say the difference is very small so wanted to know what others thought, because IF the difference is so small it is strange why the opposite commonly repeated here in the forums.
-
09-29-2011, 09:53 AM #12
- Join Date: Jul 2011
- Location: Florida, United States
- Age: 53
- Posts: 1,987
- Rep Power: 1096
Just roughing the calculations, swapping out 10 lbs of lean mass for 10 lbs of fat yields about 90 calories to the base metabolic rate. Assuming the activity level is the same that ups the maintenance level by 145 calories.
Someone should check my math but if that's right I don't think it's insignificant. Of course it takes a lot of work to add on 10 lbs of lean mass.
-
-
09-29-2011, 11:07 AM #13
- Join Date: Sep 2008
- Location: Sandy, Utah, United States
- Posts: 6,988
- Rep Power: 16043
Well, the difference with only 1 pound of muscle will be small. But with 40-50 pounds of muscle, it's not small. Why do you think I eat 9000 calories a day? It takes food to feed the muscle.
BUT it almost sounds like you're looking for an excuse. What is your goal? IMHO focus on your goals, not stuff like this, you'll drive yourself crazy.
I doubt the difference is much for 5 pounds either. Do you only want to gain 5 pounds of muscle? Why limit yourself? So we're back to goals again, what are your goals?Qualifying for long drive contest with 328 yard drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKrGuFlqhaA
2017 Utah State Longest drive. This one went 328 and got me into finals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx-_3HrZzI4
2017 Rockwell challenge. 325 yards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeuB2rPMcBA
-
09-29-2011, 11:22 AM #14
- Join Date: Dec 2005
- Location: Waco, Texas, United States
- Age: 72
- Posts: 1,759
- Rep Power: 1025
Neal Spruce, founder of APEX fitness systems and CEO (not sure if he still is) of the National Academy of Sports Medecine (NASM) told me years ago, that a pound of lean muscle tissue in an active person would burn 35-70 calories a day, a pound of fat about 6. It's important to note that lean muscle tissue is not to be confused with lean mass which is comprised of everything that is not fat (bone, water, etc.).
The world breaks everyone, some become stronger.
Pain is candy
-
09-29-2011, 11:33 AM #15
-
09-29-2011, 11:42 AM #16
-
-
09-29-2011, 11:46 AM #17
- Join Date: Sep 2008
- Location: Sandy, Utah, United States
- Posts: 6,988
- Rep Power: 16043
My personal experience doesn't support that. Well, actually it's meaningless because you didn't state how much muscle.
He didn't ask about becoming more fit, he asked about building muscle. But IMHO isn't that basically by definition, i.e. "being more fit" is defined as your heart beats less, your breath slower, etc.Qualifying for long drive contest with 328 yard drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKrGuFlqhaA
2017 Utah State Longest drive. This one went 328 and got me into finals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx-_3HrZzI4
2017 Rockwell challenge. 325 yards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeuB2rPMcBA
-
09-29-2011, 12:09 PM #18
not looking for an excuse for anything, I was interested if there is a definitive answer. My goals aren´t relevant to the topic, but I stated them anyway before, simply it is to build muscle, I put on fat around the guts really easy so I want to try and do so without putting on too much fat but I accept some gain as inevitable. 5 pounds of pure muscle will be great, to start, and then another 5 and on! but I am not stressing about the topic, just interested.
9000 cals is alot, do you really need that amount just for muscle growth even at your size, or are you putting on heaps of fat at the same time out of interest?
anyway there is some great advice here on these forums and I have gained alot from many posters like yourself and Ironwill etc, but this particular question has been bugging me because I am not sure if there is some broscience in or not, some interesting answers.
-
09-29-2011, 01:19 PM #19
- Join Date: Sep 2008
- Location: Sandy, Utah, United States
- Posts: 6,988
- Rep Power: 16043
Yes. IMHO especially at my size. If I ate like a 275 pound man ( skinny for me ), I'd eventually become one (again).
I've put on a little fat over the past couple months, but not much, and it was planned. I wanted to get to 350 before nationals, which I've done, and I'll do a slight cut the month before so my speed athleticism isn't affected. Well and once ski season starts ( probably/usually/most likely right after strongman nationals ) I'm sure I'll be back down to 330 even eating 9000 cal/day.Qualifying for long drive contest with 328 yard drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKrGuFlqhaA
2017 Utah State Longest drive. This one went 328 and got me into finals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx-_3HrZzI4
2017 Rockwell challenge. 325 yards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeuB2rPMcBA
Bookmarks