Does muscle burn fat?
NasMax
Posts: 138 Member
I’ve seen this mentioned quite a few times recently & it seems like most people are a bit mis-informed or confused about this, so this is to help clarify:
Skeletal muscle tissue is metabolically active tissue (just like the brain, heart, liver, etc)
Now metabolically active doesn’t directly mean ‘fat burning’, it means that it requires more energy (calories) to operate, this is great because we can maniplulate muscle tissue by adding more, thus raising our metabolic rate.
So somebody with a larger amount of muscle tissue will be metabolically in a better position to burn fat, than someone without much muscle tissue, as they can eat a higher amount of food (which makes dieting alot easier)… therein lies the mis-understanding.
We know that to add mass, we need to add energy (caloric surplus) eat big to get big etc.
We also know that to lose mass, we need to remove energy (caloric deficit), these are the fundamental laws of the universe that we cannot escape no matter how much we’d like to.
Now, the good news is that for a newbie, you CAN do both at the same time for a short period (usually between 3–6 months or so)..
..and while some people will ‘recomp’ by replacing the scale weight they’ve lost via fat, with new muscle tissue, thus pretty much staying at the same weight…. this is extremely rare.
Fat loss is & will always be easier & faster than building new tissue for the very, very vast majority, so even for a newbie… in a caloric deficit, while losing fat, you should be able to build some new muscle tissue during that time, but the balance won’t be the same (for most people).
I see it very often when people are staying the same scale weight & just say “I’m losing fat & building muscle, so that’s my weight isn’t changing”… this is not the case for most people, they’re just simply not in a caloric deficit.
Another point is that mass for mass muscle tissue is more dense than fat, so it will affect the scale, but at a relatively small amount
..for example, for an overweight person, it should be easy to drop at least 2lbs per week if you’re on track correctly.
Now as a newbie in a caloric surplus, you can be putting on anywhere between 0.5–1lb of tissue per week, but since you’re in a deficit, you can pretty much half that.
So, lets say you’re losing a good 2lbs of fat, and you’re also adding 0.5lbs of muscle per week, means you’d still be losing weight at approx 1.5lbs per week, while losing fat & building muscle at the same time…
The GREAT news is that the added muscle tissue is metabolically active, thus meaning it requires more energy to exist… in short, this means you get to eat MORE calories while burning fat/losing weight.
This means thatyou get to eat more overall food (calories) while losing weight, because your body/muscle tissue needs more energy than someone without the extra muscle tissue mass.
So in short, having extra muscle tissue doesn’t just magically burn fat tissue (that’s a mis-conception)… but it does put you in a better position to do so.
Skeletal muscle tissue is metabolically active tissue (just like the brain, heart, liver, etc)
Now metabolically active doesn’t directly mean ‘fat burning’, it means that it requires more energy (calories) to operate, this is great because we can maniplulate muscle tissue by adding more, thus raising our metabolic rate.
So somebody with a larger amount of muscle tissue will be metabolically in a better position to burn fat, than someone without much muscle tissue, as they can eat a higher amount of food (which makes dieting alot easier)… therein lies the mis-understanding.
We know that to add mass, we need to add energy (caloric surplus) eat big to get big etc.
We also know that to lose mass, we need to remove energy (caloric deficit), these are the fundamental laws of the universe that we cannot escape no matter how much we’d like to.
Now, the good news is that for a newbie, you CAN do both at the same time for a short period (usually between 3–6 months or so)..
..and while some people will ‘recomp’ by replacing the scale weight they’ve lost via fat, with new muscle tissue, thus pretty much staying at the same weight…. this is extremely rare.
Fat loss is & will always be easier & faster than building new tissue for the very, very vast majority, so even for a newbie… in a caloric deficit, while losing fat, you should be able to build some new muscle tissue during that time, but the balance won’t be the same (for most people).
I see it very often when people are staying the same scale weight & just say “I’m losing fat & building muscle, so that’s my weight isn’t changing”… this is not the case for most people, they’re just simply not in a caloric deficit.
Another point is that mass for mass muscle tissue is more dense than fat, so it will affect the scale, but at a relatively small amount
..for example, for an overweight person, it should be easy to drop at least 2lbs per week if you’re on track correctly.
Now as a newbie in a caloric surplus, you can be putting on anywhere between 0.5–1lb of tissue per week, but since you’re in a deficit, you can pretty much half that.
So, lets say you’re losing a good 2lbs of fat, and you’re also adding 0.5lbs of muscle per week, means you’d still be losing weight at approx 1.5lbs per week, while losing fat & building muscle at the same time…
The GREAT news is that the added muscle tissue is metabolically active, thus meaning it requires more energy to exist… in short, this means you get to eat MORE calories while burning fat/losing weight.
This means thatyou get to eat more overall food (calories) while losing weight, because your body/muscle tissue needs more energy than someone without the extra muscle tissue mass.
So in short, having extra muscle tissue doesn’t just magically burn fat tissue (that’s a mis-conception)… but it does put you in a better position to do so.
4
Replies
-
One thing: Fat mass is also metabolically active, just needs a bit less to maintain than muscle. Basically, every living cell in your body needs energy to stay alive.
The increased burning from extra muscle isn't all that much, it's more the activity level required to build and maintain it that's gonna make a difference.3 -
Define 'newbie'. How long without strength training can you be qualified as a 'newbie' again? 6 months? One year? 5 years?0
-
Define 'newbie'. How long without strength training can you be qualified as a 'newbie' again? 6 months? One year? 5 years?
I would imagine someone like me - 35 years no strength training (I'm 35).
But seriously maybe less than that Not really making any serious input here
ETA: Oh forgot to say, the post is great. Thanks a lot, OP!1 -
Define 'newbie'. How long without strength training can you be qualified as a 'newbie' again? 6 months? One year? 5 years?
That's the tough question and varies I would imagine.
I do know a person can lose 20-25 of fat while adding that amount of muscle in 2 years as a noob following a recomp plan. Not sure that it would apply to all though.2 -
Define 'newbie'. How long without strength training can you be qualified as a 'newbie' again? 6 months? One year? 5 years?
Completely individual, but I definitely wouldn't expect someone to still be having 'newbie' gains after 6 months on a smart training & nutrition plan. (I'd shoot to rinse it as much as possible for 3/4/5 months0 -
stevencloser wrote: »One thing: Fat mass is also metabolically active, just needs a bit less to maintain than muscle. Basically, every living cell in your body needs energy to stay alive.
The increased burning from extra muscle isn't all that much, it's more the activity level required to build and maintain it that's gonna make a difference.
I agree, just trying to keep it simple and not overwhelming 0 -
You just confirmed EVERYTHING I was needing to be confirmed.
THANK. YOU.
I think I am exhibit "newbie".
5'5 woman, 43 y/o
SW 225 (Jan 12th)
CW 188
GW 140? 145? 150?
The first 2.5 months of my journey I was doing cardio ONLY and set a deficit to lose 2 pounds a week. Which I did and a little more. Average out to 2.5 a week including the ever so fun intial Whhoooshh.
On March 28th I finally started a weight training program (First ever). Chalean Extreme, a 3 month, 3 phase program. My "scale loss" definately slowed down to a tiny bit over a pound a week (same deficit) but BECAUSE of the threads on this site, I was prepared for not losing on the scale. I had (was recommended here) taken measurements to track a diffrent sort of progree. Yesterday was the end of Phase 2 and I measured again as I did at the en of phase 1 and the numbers speak for themeselves. The cm (canadian, yes) are my proof that what I am doing is working. 9 cm off my waist in 2 months ? OK. I'll spare you the rest of the stats but it's just crazy to me. "Only" lost 9 pounds in these last 2 strength training months (where I still do my cardio 4 times a week) but by reading your post I am even happier about it (if that's even possible) because you are confirming what I thought was happening.
So thank you
2 -
Define 'newbie'. How long without strength training can you be qualified as a 'newbie' again? 6 months? One year? 5 years?
That's the tough question and varies I would imagine.
I do know a person can lose 20-25 of fat while adding that amount of muscle in 2 years as a noob following a recomp plan. Not sure that it would apply to all though.
A women?0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Define 'newbie'. How long without strength training can you be qualified as a 'newbie' again? 6 months? One year? 5 years?
That's the tough question and varies I would imagine.
I do know a person can lose 20-25 of fat while adding that amount of muscle in 2 years as a noob following a recomp plan. Not sure that it would apply to all though.
AA women?
No clue. Just one example. Lol. Me.1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Define 'newbie'. How long without strength training can you be qualified as a 'newbie' again? 6 months? One year? 5 years?
That's the tough question and varies I would imagine.
I do know a person can lose 20-25 of fat while adding that amount of muscle in 2 years as a noob following a recomp plan. Not sure that it would apply to all though.
AA women?
No clue. Just one example. Lol. Me.
LOL. I would love to gain 20-25 lbs of muscle though 1 -
-
-
singingflutelady wrote: »
There's the problem. Gold spandex = GAINZ2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions