Do calorie requirements change when you have more muscle?

Nothingbutflowers
Nothingbutflowers Posts: 8 Member
edited November 2024 in Goal: Maintaining Weight
Everyone says that having more lean muscle mass increases you metabolism, but how do you figure that in to calories that you need to maintain? I'm around 122 lbs, but about 18% bf and I would assume I need to eat more to maintain than someone the same weight with less muscle? Any advice on this would be useful and I'm happy to be corrected on this if I have it wrong.

Replies

  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    6 calories a day per pound of muscle.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited August 2015
    The difference would be so tiny as to be lost in the general inaccuracies and estimates of both calories in and calories out. Not worth the effort.

    The resting energy expenditure of skeletal muscle pound for pound is actually very small. About 6cals per pound per day. It's activity and exercise (actually using that muscle) that has a far greater impact on your TDEE.
  • Nothingbutflowers
    Nothingbutflowers Posts: 8 Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    6 calories a day per pound of muscle.

    Thanks! Any idea how to work that into BMR or other calculations?
  • Nothingbutflowers
    Nothingbutflowers Posts: 8 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    The difference would be so tiny as to be lost in the general inaccuracies and estimates of both calories in and calories out. Not worth the effort.

    The resting energy expenditure of skeletal muscle pound for pound is actually very small. About 6cals per pound per day. It's activity and exercise (actually using that muscle) that has a far greater impact on your TDEE.

    Okay thanks! I'll just start with that and do some trial and error adjusting to get maintenance calories down.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    What is the use of calculating BMR?
    If you want to play with numbers then much better to spend your time using your last few weeks food logging and weight loss to work out your actual TDEE. Now that is really useful data if you want to maintain.
  • Nothingbutflowers
    Nothingbutflowers Posts: 8 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    What is the use of calculating BMR?
    If you want to play with numbers then much better to spend your time using your last few weeks food logging and weight loss to work out your actual TDEE. Now that is really useful data if you want to maintain.

    ? Because BMR is part of TDEE. I just thought that if my BMR was being calculated low because of muscle it would throw off my anticipated TDEE as well, that's all. I'll try comparing my numbers from logging against the expected TDEE for my height/ weight/ activity level and adjust accordingly. Thanks. I've been more or less maintaining my weight, but I've lost some body fat unintentionally I think, based on measurements and how I look. I haven't had bf measured in 4 months so I might do that just for another data point.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    You can't accurately measure muscle anyway (short of dissection!) - you use one of various ways of estimating.
    So you then estimate BMR which is only of theoretical use anyway, RMR is more "useful".
    Then you estimate TEF, then you estimate NEAT, then you estimate exercise....

    That's a hell of a lot of estimates to add together! And it's counterbalanced on the other side of the equation by estimates of calories in your food and subject to logging accuracy.

    As you say "I've been more of less maintaining my weight" you have the real world number you need anyway. In the end it's results on your scales that matter not the mathematics.

    This is an interesting read:
    bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-the-energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html/
  • Clarewho
    Clarewho Posts: 494 Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    6 calories a day per pound of muscle.

    And just to add - I believe it's 4 calories per day per lb of fat. As no one has given you the fat figure this might help you see how negligible the difference is. If you're managing to maintain I think @sijomial among others has given you good advice, just carry on as you are x
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Clarewho wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    6 calories a day per pound of muscle.

    And just to add - I believe it's 4 calories per day per lb of fat. As no one has given you the fat figure this might help you see how negligible the difference is. If you're managing to maintain I think @sijomial among others has given you good advice, just carry on as you are x

    True!

    The difference obviously is that when you work out, your muscles will work out, and not your fat, so you will burn more calories if you have more muscles to move.

    It's probably still not a huge difference though.
  • scrittrice
    scrittrice Posts: 345 Member
    One of the standard TDEE formulas (Katch-McArdle) uses body fat %, so you could calculate your TDEE with the various formulas and see the difference: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/

    But sadly, as everyone has noted, it's not a big difference and probably well within the margin of error for most people.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    edited September 2015
    scrittrice wrote: »
    One of the standard TDEE formulas (Katch-McArdle) uses body fat %, so you could calculate your TDEE with the various formulas and see the difference: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/

    But sadly, as everyone has noted, it's not a big difference and probably well within the margin of error for most people.

    The BF% calculation is really only meant for people with low BF and who know their BF%. For me, my TDEE is about 400 calories higher than would be predicted by the standard, which is outside the margin of error, but actually not by as much as most would assume. I think the SD is something like 150 IIRC so I'm still within 3SD's of the mean.
  • scrittrice
    scrittrice Posts: 345 Member
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    scrittrice wrote: »
    One of the standard TDEE formulas (Katch-McArdle) uses body fat %, so you could calculate your TDEE with the various formulas and see the difference: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/

    But sadly, as everyone has noted, it's not a big difference and probably well within the margin of error for most people.

    The BF% calculation is really only meant for people with low BF and who know their BF%. For me, my TDEE is about 400 calories higher than would be predicted by the standard, which is outside the margin of error, but actually not by as much as most would assume. I think the SD is something like 150 IIRC so I'm still within 3SD's of the mean.

    Agreed, but that seems to include the OP (or at least I'm assuming that when she says she got her body fat measured she did so using a reliable method). 18% is relatively low for a woman. I just think most people have an exaggerated idea of how much "extra" they get to eat because they have low BF.
  • CasperNaegle
    CasperNaegle Posts: 936 Member
    Honestly it's not much I set my macros by calculating the grams by the pound and then if I'm cutting figure that in.. If I'm exercising figure that in. That gets you close and then trend you scale and bf over a few weeks and adjust..
  • BigGuy47
    BigGuy47 Posts: 1,768 Member
    On MFP and on the interwebs in general there's an overabundance of advice about "adding muscle to burn more".
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    scrittrice wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    scrittrice wrote: »
    One of the standard TDEE formulas (Katch-McArdle) uses body fat %, so you could calculate your TDEE with the various formulas and see the difference: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/

    But sadly, as everyone has noted, it's not a big difference and probably well within the margin of error for most people.

    The BF% calculation is really only meant for people with low BF and who know their BF%. For me, my TDEE is about 400 calories higher than would be predicted by the standard, which is outside the margin of error, but actually not by as much as most would assume. I think the SD is something like 150 IIRC so I'm still within 3SD's of the mean.

    Agreed, but that seems to include the OP (or at least I'm assuming that when she says she got her body fat measured she did so using a reliable method). 18% is relatively low for a woman. I just think most people have an exaggerated idea of how much "extra" they get to eat because they have low BF.

    True, there is a myth, accidentally created by research with bad calculations, that muscle burned 50 calories/lb/day. It's unfortunate that much of the issues we see today in diet and nutrition were created by bad reaseach and bad statistics.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    edited September 2015
    BigGuy47 wrote: »
    On MFP and on the interwebs in general there's an overabundance of advice about "adding muscle to burn more".

    Certainly, adding more muscle will only add a smal amount to your BMR but in my view it's the process in which you create and maintain that extra muscle that is the real benefit, and not just in terms of lossing weight but also in the greater aspect of overall health and well being.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories