Myth or truth?
tarheelboy
Posts: 74 Member
I wasn't sure which board to ask this but there are claims on television from all the fitness gurus that muscle burns fat "even while you sleep". Does muscle burn fat? Would it benefit a person with a higher BF% to not reduce calories and hit the weights hard to pack on some muscle? Would the new muscle help shed fat during a subsequent "cut" phase?
0
Replies
-
muscle burns calories...the more muscle you have, the more calories you are going to burn, even at rest...also, the more calories you are going to burn when you're moving and otherwise working out and using those muscles.
That said, when most people discuss this, they talk about it like they're burning a gazillion more calories than the next guy...reality is that it's not particularly huge. Also, you burn fat in your sleep regardless...you actually burn more fat in your sleep than pretty much any other time of day.0 -
Well the reason I ask is that I have been eating a deficit, doing cardio and lifting weights for 3 months. I have lost 14 pounds and 6% BF but nothing the last 3 weeks. I was thinking about raising my calories and keep hitting the weights to put on some muscle before I reach my BF% goal.0
-
Don't do a bulking phase before cutting. Muscle takes very long to grow, plus you'll gain more fat during the process. The real value of strength training when trying to lose fat is to minimize the loss of muscle that happens with fat loss. And when that happens, your metabolism drops. Follow a good lifting program though - don't just do curls and pushups.0
-
Per Lyle McDonald (table he is referring to by "above" is on this page:As you can see above, and quite contrary to what is commonly stated, skeletal muscle actually has a fairly low resting energy expenditure, roughly 6 calories per pound. This is contrast to very old values of 100 calories/pound or even more recent claims that a pound of muscle will raise metabolic rate by 40-50 calories per pound.
Additionally, an in contrast to what is commonly claimed, fat cells do burn calories. Admittedly the value is not massive (roughly 2 calories per pound) but the idea that fat cells are completely inert is also incorrect. We now know that fat cells produce a variety of hormones, etc. (e.g. leptin, adiponectin) and that expends calories. Again, not much per unit mass of fat, but for someone carrying a lot of fat mass, this does add up.0 -
Every biologic activity burns some calories, which could be carbs or fat depending on what and how much you eat. Muscle is biologically active, so it fits that bill. But realize that is a small amount of calories overall. So, you’d have to pack on 20 to 40 lbs of muscle to even notice the difference over a weekly basis.
Fat, on the other hand, is not biologically active. So, maintaining muscle mass while losing fat is the best option. That requires a small deficit, the right macros, and a weight lifting/strength building program.
Short answer, not a myth but grossly exaggerated.0 -
Fat burns calories too0
-
So basically stick with what I am doing and push through this plateau.0
-
tarheelboy wrote: »So basically stick with what I am doing and push through this plateau.
I always lose the fat then hit the weights harder....so I increase my cardio and adjust my diet first. To overcome plateaus I do what a great trainer I had showed me years ago...lift extra extra heavy for one session...that should shock your metab into moving.0 -
AllanMisner wrote: »Every biologic activity burns some calories, which could be carbs or fat depending on what and how much you eat. Muscle is biologically active, so it fits that bill. But realize that is a small amount of calories overall. So, you’d have to pack on 20 to 40 lbs of muscle to even notice the difference over a weekly basis.
Fat, on the other hand, is not biologically active. So, maintaining muscle mass while losing fat is the best option. That requires a small deficit, the right macros, and a weight lifting/strength building program.
Short answer, not a myth but grossly exaggerated.
It sounds like then you can only increase metabolism by adding muscle, and not by increasing strength?
0 -
AllanMisner wrote: »Every biologic activity burns some calories, which could be carbs or fat depending on what and how much you eat. Muscle is biologically active, so it fits that bill. But realize that is a small amount of calories overall. So, you’d have to pack on 20 to 40 lbs of muscle to even notice the difference over a weekly basis.
Fat, on the other hand, is not biologically active. So, maintaining muscle mass while losing fat is the best option. That requires a small deficit, the right macros, and a weight lifting/strength building program.
Short answer, not a myth but grossly exaggerated.
It sounds like then you can only increase metabolism by adding muscle, and not by increasing strength?
I try not to get bogged down in the technical details. For example, being strong may not increase your resting/base metabolic rate BUT the action of lifting progressively heavier and heavier weights (and/or building the the capacity to perform more reps, and/or more sets, and/or training with more frequency) will naturally burn more calories. More work == more calories. Add in potentially bigger muscles over time and your TDEE can be significantly higher in the long run.0 -
AllanMisner wrote: »Every biologic activity burns some calories, which could be carbs or fat depending on what and how much you eat. Muscle is biologically active, so it fits that bill. But realize that is a small amount of calories overall. So, you’d have to pack on 20 to 40 lbs of muscle to even notice the difference over a weekly basis.
Fat, on the other hand, is not biologically active. So, maintaining muscle mass while losing fat is the best option. That requires a small deficit, the right macros, and a weight lifting/strength building program.
Short answer, not a myth but grossly exaggerated.
It sounds like then you can only increase metabolism by adding muscle, and not by increasing strength?
I try not to get bogged down in the technical details. For example, being strong may not increase your resting/base metabolic rate BUT the action of lifting progressively heavier and heavier weights (and/or building the the capacity to perform more reps, and/or more sets, and/or training with more frequency) will naturally burn more calories. More work == more calories. Add in potentially bigger muscles over time and your TDEE can be significantly higher in the long run.
That's interesting - I guess I always figured that the effort determines the burn, ie the more I'm struggling to get an activity done, the harder I'm working. So am I really working harder now doing 10 lb curls than I was doing 5 lb curls, given that it doesn't *feel* harder?
0 -
AllanMisner wrote: »Every biologic activity burns some calories, which could be carbs or fat depending on what and how much you eat. Muscle is biologically active, so it fits that bill. But realize that is a small amount of calories overall. So, you’d have to pack on 20 to 40 lbs of muscle to even notice the difference over a weekly basis.
Fat, on the other hand, is not biologically active. So, maintaining muscle mass while losing fat is the best option. That requires a small deficit, the right macros, and a weight lifting/strength building program.
Short answer, not a myth but grossly exaggerated.
It sounds like then you can only increase metabolism by adding muscle, and not by increasing strength?
I try not to get bogged down in the technical details. For example, being strong may not increase your resting/base metabolic rate BUT the action of lifting progressively heavier and heavier weights (and/or building the the capacity to perform more reps, and/or more sets, and/or training with more frequency) will naturally burn more calories. More work == more calories. Add in potentially bigger muscles over time and your TDEE can be significantly higher in the long run.
That's interesting - I guess I always figured that the effort determines the burn, ie the more I'm struggling to get an activity done, the harder I'm working. So am I really working harder now doing 10 lb curls than I was doing 5 lb curls, given that it doesn't *feel* harder?
Perceived exertion really doesn't have much to do with it. Someone who can squat 700lbs as an easy warm-up is still going to be doing a lot more work than someone who is doing a 1RM of 100lbs.0 -
-
AllanMisner wrote: »Every biologic activity burns some calories, which could be carbs or fat depending on what and how much you eat. Muscle is biologically active, so it fits that bill. But realize that is a small amount of calories overall. So, you’d have to pack on 20 to 40 lbs of muscle to even notice the difference over a weekly basis.
Fat, on the other hand, is not biologically active. So, maintaining muscle mass while losing fat is the best option. That requires a small deficit, the right macros, and a weight lifting/strength building program.
Short answer, not a myth but grossly exaggerated.
It sounds like then you can only increase metabolism by adding muscle, and not by increasing strength?
I try not to get bogged down in the technical details. For example, being strong may not increase your resting/base metabolic rate BUT the action of lifting progressively heavier and heavier weights (and/or building the the capacity to perform more reps, and/or more sets, and/or training with more frequency) will naturally burn more calories. More work == more calories. Add in potentially bigger muscles over time and your TDEE can be significantly higher in the long run.
That's interesting - I guess I always figured that the effort determines the burn, ie the more I'm struggling to get an activity done, the harder I'm working. So am I really working harder now doing 10 lb curls than I was doing 5 lb curls, given that it doesn't *feel* harder?
Think of it this way. If you slam on the gas in a Honda Civic until you red line the engine you will use less gasoline than if you slam on the gas in a Ford F-150 until you red line the engine. Even though they did the same thing and they both gave out the same amount of perceived exertion, the one with the bigger, more powerful engine used more gasoline.
That's the same thing that happens when you lift. The more muscle mass you have, the less efficient you are at conserving energy. Also, the more work you achieve (i.e. moving a heavier weight) the more fuel is needed to facilitate that work.0 -
AllanMisner wrote: »
Yes, it does.
The only time tissue - any tissue - doesn't require energy is when it is dead.
0 -
AllanMisner wrote: »Every biologic activity burns some calories, which could be carbs or fat depending on what and how much you eat. Muscle is biologically active, so it fits that bill. But realize that is a small amount of calories overall. So, you’d have to pack on 20 to 40 lbs of muscle to even notice the difference over a weekly basis.
Fat, on the other hand, is not biologically active. So, maintaining muscle mass while losing fat is the best option. That requires a small deficit, the right macros, and a weight lifting/strength building program.
Short answer, not a myth but grossly exaggerated.
It sounds like then you can only increase metabolism by adding muscle, and not by increasing strength?
I try not to get bogged down in the technical details. For example, being strong may not increase your resting/base metabolic rate BUT the action of lifting progressively heavier and heavier weights (and/or building the the capacity to perform more reps, and/or more sets, and/or training with more frequency) will naturally burn more calories. More work == more calories. Add in potentially bigger muscles over time and your TDEE can be significantly higher in the long run.
That's interesting - I guess I always figured that the effort determines the burn, ie the more I'm struggling to get an activity done, the harder I'm working. So am I really working harder now doing 10 lb curls than I was doing 5 lb curls, given that it doesn't *feel* harder?
Think of it this way. If you slam on the gas in a Honda Civic until you red line the engine you will use less gasoline than if you slam on the gas in a Ford F-150 until you red line the engine. Even though they did the same thing and they both gave out the same amount of perceived exertion, the one with the bigger, more powerful engine used more gasoline.
That's the same thing that happens when you lift. The more muscle mass you have, the less efficient you are at conserving energy. Also, the more work you achieve (i.e. moving a heavier weight) the more fuel is needed to facilitate that work.
Good analogy. I like car-related comparisons. If you have a car with GM 350 V8 that makes 300hp and you have the same car with a 350 that makes 600hp, the latter engine will require more fuel to go down the 1/4 mile at full tilt.0 -
AllanMisner wrote: »
Check out the link that @jemhh posted. I'm fairly confident in Lyle's abilities, myself. Read it for yourself.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions