Muscle Strength vs Calories Burned - Does it matter?

Justin_7272

I've been mulling this over and reached the conclusion I simply don't know the answer. So here it goes;

Does a stronger muscle result in lesser caloric burn when used?

In other words

Does a muscle's efficiency effect caloric burn?

Two examples;

Weight Lifting;
Lifter A is a well-conditioned weight lifter. He reps 10x100lbs, 1,000 lbs total.
Lifter B is out of shape, but same height, weight, etc. as Lifter A. He completes the same reps.

Is the caloric burn the same or is Lifter A's less due to greater muscle mass/efficiency/less strain/less exertion?

Cardio (Stationary bike to remove possible outlying influences, i.e. wind vs mass, pedal force, etc.);
Rider A rides every day for 5 years. He rides 13 mph for one hour, 13 miles total. He barely breaks a sweat.
Rider B, while in shape, does not typically ride or do cardio. He rides the similar duration and length, though the ride takes more exertion and he can barely stand after the ride.

Has Rider B burned more calories?

The raw physical force remains unchanged; both lifters lifted 1,000 lbs, both riders rode 13 miles. While the raw force is the same, the less conditioned lifter/rider physically exerted themselves more/closer to exhaustion than the well conditioned performers.

I've read muscle confusion is a myth; arguendo it is, conditioning of the muscle would not matter, but rather the simple raw force would determine the caloric burn. Thus, both lifters and riders would burn the same amount of calories regardless of condition. Is this correct?

Any help is appreciated!

BigT555

i would hazard a guess that in both situations person B is burning more calories, due to the exercise more than likely resulting in a higher heart rate, plus their body will have to work harder to recover from said exercise

though for the cardio situation the weight of the riders would also play a role, 2 people with similar cardiovascular endurance and experience in running will have different calorie burns if one weighs more than the other

Kimsied

I don't know, I am curious too. I am not sure if it really matters though. For some methods of estimating calorie burn, fitness in some way does factor in and indicators of good fitness can increase the calorie burn. A couple of examples...

If you look at the BMR estimating method that involves lean mass--all else equal the person with the higher proportion of their weight being lean mass has a higher BMR. Sure this is just calories burned at rest, but if doing a TDEE estimate and applying an activity multiplyer the person with more lean mass would have a higher activity burn as well (for the same factor). How accurate that is, I don't know, but some claim that if you have an accurate (or close) body fat estimate then that method of estimating BMR is usually more accurate.

Another example... Some of the more sophisticated heart rate monitor's factor in v02max. Mine does, and I noticed playing around with it that this really effects the calorie burn estimate--a higher vo2max results in a higher calorie burn all else equal. I think getting an accurate vo2max estimate outside a lab is a challenge though. But apparently higher lung capacity can result in a higher calorie burn during aerobic exercise all else equal.

I know lean mass and vo2max are quite different, but it seems that general profile being equal (height, weight, age, gender, activity level), if someone has a higher lung capacity and higher proportion of lean mass they may burn more calories for the same activity. And presumably such a person would be well conditioned and capable of pushing themselves to work harder. But I am sure there is a big margin of error applying these since it is difficult or involves expensive testing to get a good vo2max estimate and a good body fat/lean mass estimate. Using formulas that don't factor these in, fitness would make no difference in the estimate and might even cause you to burn less. Using a heart rate monitor if I don't alter the vo2max, I will typically burn less doing the same workout over time if I don't up the intensity.

I think "muscle confusion" is kind of a marketing gimmick. But, there are benefits to some cross training (someone who does strength training a few times a week, cardio a few times a week and maybe a yoga practice is cross training). Also, I think I might sometimes work harder when doing an activity I am not good at yet (my heart rate response and perceived exertion confirm). I think it is sometimes more a matter of technique since my body hasn't learned the efficient way to do that activity yet and I probably have some extra flailing/unnecessary movements. As you become skilled and conditioned at something it is natural to do the movements in the most efficient way. I am not sure how much difference that makes though. A few extra calories here and there probably don't really effect much

WalkingAlong

In my opinion, the more conditioned exerciser burns fewer calories. And it doesn't matter. At least not in terms of "gee, I burn more now as a sloth therefore I'll remain a sloth so I can continue to burn more the few times I do get on my bike or lift." Not that is what anyone was proposing, I'm sure.

I think that is partly the rationale to mainly lift heavy for exercise, in New Rules of Lifting. The body adapts to running, for example, and we can only run so fast so to keep challenging oneself you'd have to keep spending more and more time at it. Whereas with lifting you can always just add more weight. Or something.

AllOutof_Bubblegum

i would hazard a guess that in both situations person B is burning more calories, due to the exercise more than likely resulting in a higher heart rate, plus their body will have to work harder to recover from said exercise

though for the cardio situation the weight of the riders would also play a role, 2 people with similar cardiovascular endurance and experience in running will have different calorie burns if one weighs more than the other

This. The fitter you are, the harder you have to work to get a hard burn. Sucks, but hey! You're fit!

WeaponXI

I don't really know the answer to this, but if I were to guess, person B would burn more calories initially during the workout(noobie burn) and less at rest, but person A with more muscle and all will burn less from the workout, but more calories at rest, since his TDEE would be greater. But don't quote me, its just a guess.

MagnumBurrito

I don't really know the answer to this, but if I were to guess, person B would burn more calories initially during the workout(noobie burn) and less at rest, but person A with more muscle and all will burn less from the workout, but more calories at rest, since his TDEE would be greater. But don't quote me, its just a guess.

Well tough *kitten*, I'm quoting you. ) I was thinking the same thing.

Azdak

I've been mulling this over and reached the conclusion I simply don't know the answer. So here it goes;

Does a stronger muscle result in lesser caloric burn when used?

In other words

Does a muscle's efficiency effect caloric burn?

Two examples;

Weight Lifting;
Lifter A is a well-conditioned weight lifter. He reps 10x100lbs, 1,000 lbs total.
Lifter B is out of shape, but same height, weight, etc. as Lifter A. He completes the same reps.

Is the caloric burn the same or is Lifter A's less due to greater muscle mass/efficiency/less strain/less exertion?

Cardio (Stationary bike to remove possible outlying influences, i.e. wind vs mass, pedal force, etc.);
Rider A rides every day for 5 years. He rides 13 mph for one hour, 13 miles total. He barely breaks a sweat.
Rider B, while in shape, does not typically ride or do cardio. He rides the similar duration and length, though the ride takes more exertion and he can barely stand after the ride.

Has Rider B burned more calories?

The raw physical force remains unchanged; both lifters lifted 1,000 lbs, both riders rode 13 miles. While the raw force is the same, the less conditioned lifter/rider physically exerted themselves more/closer to exhaustion than the well conditioned performers.

I've read muscle confusion is a myth; arguendo it is, conditioning of the muscle would not matter, but rather the simple raw force would determine the caloric burn. Thus, both lifters and riders would burn the same amount of calories regardless of condition. Is this correct?

Any help is appreciated!

For the most part, yes, calorie burn will be the same. The calorie burn is more inherent in the activity itself rather than the relative intensity of the work to the individual.

A trained person will find the work easier because it represents a smaller % of their maximum not because they are doing less work.

Azdak

In my opinion, the more conditioned exerciser burns fewer calories. And it doesn't matter. At least not in terms of "gee, I burn more now as a sloth therefore I'll remain a sloth so I can continue to burn more the few times I do get on my bike or lift." Not that is what anyone was proposing, I'm sure.

I think that is partly the rationale to mainly lift heavy for exercise, in New Rules of Lifting. The body adapts to running, for example, and we can only run so fast so to keep challenging oneself you'd have to keep spending more and more time at it. Whereas with lifting you can always just add more weight. Or something.

Is there a limit to how fast one can run? As far as I know, running speed is only limited by fitness level. If one has the fitness capacity to run a 6:00 mile, there is no biomechanical reason why they would not be able to do so.

And, no, a more conditioned exerciser does not burn significantly fewer calories. What "mechanical efficiency" does occur is negligible and is easily offset by just working a little harder.

Azdak

i would hazard a guess that in both situations person B is burning more calories, due to the exercise more than likely resulting in a higher heart rate, plus their body will have to work harder to recover from said exercise

though for the cardio situation the weight of the riders would also play a role, 2 people with similar cardiovascular endurance and experience in running will have different calorie burns if one weighs more than the other

This. The fitter you are, the harder you have to work to get a hard burn. Sucks, but hey! You're fit!

You may have to work harder to "feel" a hard burn, since your max has increased, but not to burn more calories.

mayfrayy

person b is burning more calories.
the better you are at a movement the less energy it uses. (lbm to bodyfat ratios, cns stimuli ect.)
anyone who is saying otherwise does not know how a body works.

Azdak

person b is burning more calories.
the better you are at a movement the less energy it uses. (lbm to bodyfat ratios, cns stimuli ect.)
anyone who is saying otherwise does not know how a body works.

I know a little bit.