1lb of muscle only burns 10 cals
21million
Posts: 113 Member
Does this sound right? I have been reading the benefits of lifting (besides the obvious) and came across this. I currently maintain at 1700cals and have seen women with similar stats eat 2500 because they lift. Is lifting a big calorie burner, or is this figure wrong?
http://www.builtlean.com/2013/04/16/muscle-burn-calories/
http://www.builtlean.com/2013/04/16/muscle-burn-calories/
0
Replies
-
Yep that's about correct. Lots of previous "broscience" was passed around for years about how muscle burned an extra 50-60 calories per pound.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Yep that's about correct. Lots of previous "broscience" was passed around for years about how muscle burned an extra 50-60 calories per pound.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Oh, that sucks!
0 -
Burns at what rate and what activity level?
0 -
Several studies use and or found the value of 6 cal/lb per day for muscle, and 2 cal/lb per day for fat.
That is metabolic expenditure level. Which is usually the myth that is thrown out ninerbuff mentioned.
Obviously if you use it you burn more, and if you woke up and moved you did.
But it's still not the increase that is thrown around as a benefit.
The metabolically active organs burn more than the muscles.
But you must increase the intensity to use all the muscle at higher level so you can burn more.
Meaning - lifting a 20 lb dumbbell takes the same amount of energy whether you are using 3 or 5 lbs of muscle to lift it with. That just determines how easy it is to you, and how the load is spread out.
- But the person with 5 lbs of muscle should be able to lift say a 30 lb dumbbell the same number of times as other person.0 -
I've found age makes a bigger daily calorie allowance than the amount of muscle. Younger = much higher calorie allowance0
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »I've found age makes a bigger daily calorie allowance than the amount of muscle. Younger = much higher calorie allowance
Isn't that based on muscle loss though?
I have a proportion of LBM at 47 than I had at 27 - would that be true of me too?0 -
-
Yep that's about correct. Lots of previous "broscience" was passed around for years about how muscle burned an extra 50-60 calories per pound.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
What he said ^
But you're also getting a calorie burn during and after performing the exercise unlike most cardio where you're only burning during.
Loads of other benefits too like improving/maintaining bone density and muscle and feeling strong
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
dolliesdaughter wrote: »
It is actually ´bromath´ that is the problem. The science is generally correct, but people extrapolated it out and did some really bad math to arrive at the numbers that get passed around.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »I've found age makes a bigger daily calorie allowance than the amount of muscle. Younger = much higher calorie allowance
Isn't that based on muscle loss though?
I have a proportion of LBM at 47 than I had at 27 - would that be true of me too?
I have more muscle at age 50 than I had at 27, but I still can't eat as much as I did back then without gaining. I think it's more lifestyle than amount of muscle. Maybe if I still had young children to deal with I'd still be able to eat as much as back then. Or, maybe not.0 -
This would suggest that you were more active at 27 than currently 47. Also, how do you know you have more muscle? Did you have test comparing then and now?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »I've found age makes a bigger daily calorie allowance than the amount of muscle. Younger = much higher calorie allowance
Isn't that based on muscle loss though?
I have a proportion of LBM at 47 than I had at 27 - would that be true of me too?
I have more muscle at age 50 than I had at 27, but I still can't eat as much as I did back then without gaining. I think it's more lifestyle than amount of muscle. Maybe if I still had young children to deal with I'd still be able to eat as much as back then. Or, maybe not.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »I've found age makes a bigger daily calorie allowance than the amount of muscle. Younger = much higher calorie allowance
Isn't that based on muscle loss though?
I have a proportion of LBM at 47 than I had at 27 - would that be true of me too?
I have more muscle at age 50 than I had at 27, but I still can't eat as much as I did back then without gaining. I think it's more lifestyle than amount of muscle. Maybe if I still had young children to deal with I'd still be able to eat as much as back then. Or, maybe not.
That makes sense. BMR and NEAT are the biggest factors in TDEE. If those drop, especially if NEAT changes due to lifestyle changes, a little bit more muscle probably won't outweight the change in NEAT, thus the overall lower TDEE.
0 -
Yes, that's how much it burns AT REST. If you have more muscle, you burn more calories when you're up and moving around and using that muscle.0
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »I've found age makes a bigger daily calorie allowance than the amount of muscle. Younger = much higher calorie allowance
Isn't that based on muscle loss though?
I have a proportion of LBM at 47 than I had at 27 - would that be true of me too?
I'll have to play around with the stats here. I'll try to put weights / activity levels at the same and only change the age. Then see the calorie allowances.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »I've found age makes a bigger daily calorie allowance than the amount of muscle. Younger = much higher calorie allowance
Isn't that based on muscle loss though?
I have a proportion of LBM at 47 than I had at 27 - would that be true of me too?
I'll have to play around with the stats here. I'll try to put weights / activity levels at the same and only change the age. Then see the calorie allowances.
So just changed my age. At 22-25 years old, I only get about 200 more calories to burn. So age doesn't seem like much of a factor0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »I've found age makes a bigger daily calorie allowance than the amount of muscle. Younger = much higher calorie allowance
Isn't that based on muscle loss though?
I have a proportion of LBM at 47 than I had at 27 - would that be true of me too?
I think it's mostly muscle loss. At least if you play with the calculator estimates the one that uses body fat percentage doesn't vary based on age if you keep BFP stable, whereas the ones without it do, suggesting that the variation is based on assumed muscle loss.
Another big reason, of course, is that people tend to be less active.0 -
Katch McArdle said:
BMR = 370 + (21.6 x Lean Body Mass(kg) )
which would suggest an extra pound of non-fat on average adds just under 10 cals/day to the resting energy rate. It was just a correlation though, they didn't add 1 kg of muscle to a sample population and determine the extra BMR, nor do they differentiate between muscle and any other non-fat substance.0 -
This post was just what I needed. I'm the Queen of Cardio and my results never quite reach where I would like it to. I'll definitely be switching up my game plan.0
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »I've found age makes a bigger daily calorie allowance than the amount of muscle. Younger = much higher calorie allowance
It is probably still muscle related though. Age related loss of muscle (sarcopenia) is kind of a spiraling effect.
Muscle loss can mean strength loss. Strength loss makes all activities harder. This leads to less activity which leads to atrophy of muscle, bone density, health problems and increased injury risk.
This is probably why the lower calorie requirements dont align with just muscle loss.0 -
One thing is mfp doesn't have any provision to account of you are older but still retain a good amount of muscle. It just must assume a great amount. I'm probably holding onto a similar amount of muscle as I had 20 years ago. But as mentioned, shaving off 20 years only netted me about 150-200 calories.0
-
It's interesting to play with. Holding my estimated body fat and weight equal, my estimated TDEE remains the same 20 years from now. If I drop workouts from 5 days/week to 3 days/week, it goes from 1925 to 1810. If I use the no body fat measure (so it assumes there's a drop), it goes from an estimated 1776 now to 1629 at 5 days/week, and to 1532 if I also drop exercise to 3 days/week.
(The estimates are just estimates based on calculations anyway, of course.)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions