Looking for clear explanation re: muscle = fat burning.

Koldnomore

Hello lifting gurus!

I have been at this for just about a year now. Down 60 lbs. I'm at net 1400 - eating around 2k / day and losing .5 to 1lb / week (roughly) I have quite a bit of muscle already as I walk tons and have done a lot of physical work over the years. I am starting to see a lot of my definition coming back as the weight is coming off but I am still on the fence about perusing a formal lifting program.

I am hoping that I can get some clear information regarding the concept that if you build muscle you will burn fat faster. There is a push for people who are currently losing weight to start lifting heavy in order to burn more fat. My confusion comes from obviously not understanding how it is possible to build this muscle when weight loss requires that we eat at a deficit. I have seen many people say that it is impossible to build muscle when eating at a deficit so why then the big push for lifting? Are we supposed to eat at a surplus for a while? And if not then how am I supposed to build muscle?

Thanks!

flex500

Good question...

the first part is there is no question the more muscle you have the more calories you burn. That is on webmd and every biology book written since 1910. I won't put a bunch of sources it is clear cut science you can research that part. But it is 100% factual the more muscle you have the more calories you burn. At 240 pounds and 10% bodyfat I need almost 3500 calories to maintain weight. If i was 20% or 30% body fat it would be drastically less.

Secondly...building muscle on a deficit. For most this is not possible. I could not do this on boatloads of performance enhancing drugs. However...people knew to lifting often can. It's called "newb gains" in the bodybuilding world. Someone can get on a good eating routine in a deficit, lift hard, do cardio and next thing you know they are gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time. As you become more advanced it becomes more difficult to damn near impossible to do these at the same time.

In general a formal lifting program can only help. Building lean muscle will increase your metabolism helping shift your body composition. Not only that for a woman it can even be more beneficial for bone health. Heck resistance training has as much of an effect on bone health as calcium.

There are so many great sources of info about this I'd suggest you also check out webmd and other online medical sources there is also plenty of peer reviewed studies and there is no doubt shifting body composition to lean mass and less fat will overall contribute to a healthy body.

phjorg1

for a simplified reason..

when you're in calorie deficit, you don't just lose fat. you lose everything. and for the body it's very much a case of you don't use it, you lose it.

lifting uses muscles. the body then is like zomg, they are in use, we can't drop them. So the body will instead drop more fat to reach energy balance.

jhgreer

Heavy lifting will also help change the shape of your body...you may not lose scale weight, but should see inches drop and your body will begin to look and feel leaner. In my case, my shoulders became wider and even though my hips are the same size I look smaller overall because they are more balanced with my shoulders. Start lifting and you'll soon discover that scale weight isn't all that important. If you're looking for a lifting program New Rules of Lifting for Women is a great one - there is an active group here and one on facebook that can answer any questions you may have. Good luck!

Calliope610

I am also told that although one cannot build muscle while in a caloric deficit, one CAN build strength.

Getting stronger while losing weight is a good thing.

Check out the Stronglifts 5x5 for Women group - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/4601-stronglifts-5x5-for-women

AJ_G

Good question...

the first part is there is no question the more muscle you have the more calories you burn. That is on webmd and every biology book written since 1910. I won't put a bunch of sources it is clear cut science you can research that part. But it is 100% factual the more muscle you have the more calories you burn. At 240 pounds and 10% bodyfat I need almost 3500 calories to maintain weight. If i was 20% or 30% body fat it would be drastically less.

Secondly...building muscle on a deficit. For most this is not possible. I could not do this on boatloads of performance enhancing drugs. However...people knew to lifting often can. It's called "newb gains" in the bodybuilding world. Someone can get on a good eating routine in a deficit, lift hard, do cardio and next thing you know they are gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time. As you become more advanced it becomes more difficult to damn near impossible to do these at the same time.

In general a formal lifting program can only help. Building lean muscle will increase your metabolism helping shift your body composition. Not only that for a woman it can even be more beneficial for bone health. Heck resistance training has as much of an effect on bone health as calcium.

There are so many great sources of info about this I'd suggest you also check out webmd and other online medical sources there is also plenty of peer reviewed studies and there is no doubt shifting body composition to lean mass and less fat will overall contribute to a healthy body.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

rybo

What also happens is that when you lift and "tear down" your muscle, your body needs calories to repair it besdies the muscle burning calories on its own.

Koldnomore

Thanks guys

So basically it's not actually 'new' muscle. That makes more sense. I will be looking into this more for my winter 'activity' since I am so busy right now doing other things that I can enjoy outdoors - like hiking.

So another question.. do you have to do a 'formal' program or wouldn't just using your muscles help you keep them? I hike tons. My thigh muscles are huge, calves are rock hard, no fat anywhere on them. I lift stuff at work and home too and I am stronger than a lot of the guys I work with. If I flex, you can definitely see the muscles in my arms / back . Is this good enough to keep it?

eazy_

bump

lporter229

The general consensus on the subject is this:

Eating at a deficit will cause you to lose body mass, both lean and muscle.
With less fat left to lose, you will lose increasingly more muscle.
Lifting in a deficit will help you to preserve this muscle and continue to lose more fat.

At least that is how it has been explained to me. Don't worry too much about "building" muscle at this point. You will be working to preserve the muscle you have, increase your strength, and continue to lose fat to increase the definition of your muscles.

leannerae40

for a simplified reason..

when you're in calorie deficit, you don't just lose fat. you lose everything. and for the body it's very much a case of you don't use it, you lose it.

lifting uses muscles. the body then is like zomg, they are in use, we can't drop them. So the body will instead drop more fat to reach energy balance.

Best explanation I've heard...thanks!

born2drum

Good question...

the first part is there is no question the more muscle you have the more calories you burn. That is on webmd and every biology book written since 1910. I won't put a bunch of sources it is clear cut science you can research that part. But it is 100% factual the more muscle you have the more calories you burn. At 240 pounds and 10% bodyfat I need almost 3500 calories to maintain weight. If i was 20% or 30% body fat it would be drastically less.

Secondly...building muscle on a deficit. For most this is not possible. I could not do this on boatloads of performance enhancing drugs. However...people knew to lifting often can. It's called "newb gains" in the bodybuilding world. Someone can get on a good eating routine in a deficit, lift hard, do cardio and next thing you know they are gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time. As you become more advanced it becomes more difficult to damn near impossible to do these at the same time.

In general a formal lifting program can only help. Building lean muscle will increase your metabolism helping shift your body composition. Not only that for a woman it can even be more beneficial for bone health. Heck resistance training has as much of an effect on bone health as calcium.

There are so many great sources of info about this I'd suggest you also check out webmd and other online medical sources there is also plenty of peer reviewed studies and there is no doubt shifting body composition to lean mass and less fat will overall contribute to a healthy body.

for every lb of muscle you burn 6 calories in order to maintain said lb of muschle. Whereas fat, require only 2 calories to maintain. Read that in a bodybuilding.com sticky somewhere. Point is, my man up here is absolutely correct. Plus, who doesn't want muscle? It supports bone health

geebusuk

Good question...

the first part is there is no question the more muscle you have the more calories you burn. That is on webmd and every biology book written since 1910. I won't put a bunch of sources it is clear cut science you can research that part. But it is 100% factual the more muscle you have the more calories you burn. At 240 pounds and 10% bodyfat I need almost 3500 calories to maintain weight. If i was 20% or 30% body fat it would be drastically less.

Sources would be good because the stuff I've read based on recent research suggests that the difference just having muscle makes is fairly small - something like no more than 4 calories difference per lb of muscle compared to having a lb of fat.
So if we were talking 60lb of muscle vs 60lb of fat, no more than 240 calories different and probably less.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-many-calories-does-muscle-really-burn-and-why-its-not-about-calories-anyway/
Here's an article that I believe has references (first result on google):

lporter229

Good question...

the first part is there is no question the more muscle you have the more calories you burn. That is on webmd and every biology book written since 1910. I won't put a bunch of sources it is clear cut science you can research that part. But it is 100% factual the more muscle you have the more calories you burn. At 240 pounds and 10% bodyfat I need almost 3500 calories to maintain weight. If i was 20% or 30% body fat it would be drastically less.

Sources would be good because the stuff I've read based on recent research suggests that the difference just having muscle makes is fairly small - something like no more than 4 calories difference per lb of muscle compared to having a lb of fat.
So if we were talking 60lb of muscle vs 60lb of fat, no more than 240 calories different and probably less.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-many-calories-does-muscle-really-burn-and-why-its-not-about-calories-anyway/
Here's an article that I believe has references (first result on google):

Interesting, because you are saying the exact same thing as the poster above you, but in his syntax, it sounds like a much more convincing argument for lifting. Just thought I'd point that out...

The way I look at it...a picture is worth a thousand words. People that lift regularly have an appearance of more defined muscle. Whether or not their muscles are actually "bigger" or not is irrelevant. They look good.

And let's not forget building strength. No one can argue that lifting increases your strength. And who doesn't want to be stronger?

Dre8604

bump

Cherry_T

To put it simply, muscle burns calories just being there, and being at a deficit doesn`t necessarily mean your body can`t be anabolic.

flex500

Thanks guys

So basically it's not actually 'new' muscle. That makes more sense. I will be looking into this more for my winter 'activity' since I am so busy right now doing other things that I can enjoy outdoors - like hiking.

So another question.. do you have to do a 'formal' program or wouldn't just using your muscles help you keep them? I hike tons. My thigh muscles are huge, calves are rock hard, no fat anywhere on them. I lift stuff at work and home too and I am stronger than a lot of the guys I work with. If I flex, you can definitely see the muscles in my arms / back . Is this good enough to keep it?

any resistance training will work. You don't to go to the gym and have some formal training routine. I was working with someone and honestly they put on substantial muscle with a good diet and doing the below 2 to 3 times a week:

20 bodyweight squats
30 crunches
15 pushups
10 lunges each leg
15 reps shoulder press with dumbbell or bands
10 pullups (assisted)

I had her do one after another...no rest...then wait 2 minutes and do it again. The first time she couldn't move weeks later she was adding weight, holding dumbbells, and able to do it 4 times in a row.


It's a very quick workout. If you start by doing this twice it will take you 15-20 minutes max.


Anyway long story short resistance training of any type works.

Azdak

Hello lifting gurus!

I have been at this for just about a year now. Down 60 lbs. I'm at net 1400 - eating around 2k / day and losing .5 to 1lb / week (roughly) I have quite a bit of muscle already as I walk tons and have done a lot of physical work over the years. I am starting to see a lot of my definition coming back as the weight is coming off but I am still on the fence about perusing a formal lifting program.

I am hoping that I can get some clear information regarding the concept that if you build muscle you will burn fat faster. There is a push for people who are currently losing weight to start lifting heavy in order to burn more fat. My confusion comes from obviously not understanding how it is possible to build this muscle when weight loss requires that we eat at a deficit. I have seen many people say that it is impossible to build muscle when eating at a deficit so why then the big push for lifting? Are we supposed to eat at a surplus for a while? And if not then how am I supposed to build muscle?

Thanks!

I have time for only the quickest answer, but let me say that the "increased muscle burns more calories" is highly overstated. Yeah, if you gain 20-30 lbs of muscle, there might be an impact, but for most people the effect is more modest--or even negligible.

Strength training has a direct effect on calorie burn, in addition to conserving lean mass. It's more of a "slow burn" rather than the aggregate lump of calories burned during a longer cardio session, and it is not easy to quantify, but it exists.

Strength training is beneficial for weight loss independent of any "resting metabolic increase" supposedly caused by increasing muscle.

Bottom line: while the "building muscle burns more fat" argument is by far the LEAST important justification for lifting weights, lifting is crucial to long-term sustained weight loss and there is no reason to put off starting a program.

"Being active" and "walking" are not strength training, nor are they increasing muscle to any substantial degree (unless you are a bricklayer or something).

Azdak

The way I look at it...a picture is worth a thousand words. People that lift regularly have an appearance of more defined muscle. Whether or not their muscles are actually "bigger" or not is irrelevant. They look good.

Like these guys: