more muscle burns more calories, true or exaggerated myth?

[uhjin]

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

[hammerfelt]

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

[michail71]

I think if you calculate your BMR and then play around with your lean mass as a variable it should show the impact.

Little changes in metabolism can make a big difference in the long term.

Also, I think many would rather have some lean mass to cut down to.

[induced_drag]

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.

[ljimd]

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

If you are fortunate enough to build LBM w/o gaining fat you aren't going to give a shyz what your metabolism is.

[jayluk4600]

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.

[uhjin]

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.

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?

[yakabebe]

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.

[JerryB]

This is a meaningless topic. Increasing muscle mass requires additional calories for metabolism. It's living tissue. The goal is to balance your caloric intake for adding muscle mass without adding excessive body fat.

[chunkysnowman]

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.

[uhjin]

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.

[michail71]

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.

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.

[bigtallox]

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

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.

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 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?

[camau71]

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.).

[Rhinoclan]

Just read a recent study that shows that lean muscle will burn about an extra 5 calories per day over the fat. Once you become more fit, you actually lower your BMR...your heart beats less, you breath slower, and your blood pressure is lower...so actually less work for the body to do while resting.

[chunkysnowman]

Just read a recent study that shows that lean muscle will burn about an extra 5 calories per day over the fat. Once you become more fit, you actually lower your BMR...your heart beats less, you breath slower, and your blood pressure is lower...so actually less work for the body to do while resting.

I think its also worth noting that in a weight loss scenario you may have burned 50 pound of fat and put on 5 pound of muscle, but don't forget that lugging all that fat around takes calories, so often the net effect is actually to lower your calorific requirement.

[bigtallox]

Just read a recent study that shows that lean muscle will burn about an extra 5 calories per day over the fat.

My personal experience doesn't support that. Well, actually it's meaningless because you didn't state how much muscle.

Once you become more fit, you actually lower your BMR...your heart beats less, you breath slower, and your blood pressure is lower...so actually less work for the body to do while resting.

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.

[uhjin]

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?

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.

[bigtallox]

9000 cals is alot, do you really need that amount just for muscle growth even at your size

Yes. IMHO especially at my size. If I ate like a 275 pound man ( skinny for me ), I'd eventually become one (again).

or are you putting on heaps of fat at the same time out of interest?

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.