Body Fat vs. Muscle

714rah714

We've all heard the story that muscle burns more calories than fat. My question is, how much more? For example, a 200 pound man whose body fat is 5%, what would his BMR be compared to a 200 pound man whose body fat is say 20%. Is there a calculation for this, are we talking hundreds of extra calories per day or an insignificant amount. Just curious to know.

DrHDLM

I can't exactly tell you how much, but the thing is: OK, fat does consume calories, because it makes your heart pump more blood to the systemic circulation to be able to conserve the oxygen supplementation to that tissue(fat), but the thing is too much fat will actually produce insulin resistance at any level even if is a reduced resistance and this is not good for you, besides that fat produces hormones that reduce you metabolic rate and you never "move your fat" fat is just a reserve tissue (besides what i said before) you're always moving your muscles even if you're sleeping the muscle need to maintain a certain passive force, that means you are burning calories all the time, the more muscle you have the more blood it'll need, this increases your metabolic rate and this by consequence will increase your calorie consumption and the muscle by consequence will try by indirect effect to eat your body fat.

StarryEyed500

A 200lb person at 5% fat would have a BMR of 2,231.54.

A 200lb person at 20% fat would have a BMR of 1,937.62

This is using the Katch-Mcardle BMR formula. BMR = 370 + (21.6 x lean body mass in kg)

714rah714

A 200lb person at 5% fat would have a BMR of 2,231.54.

A 200lb person at 20% fat would have a BMR of 1,937.62

This is using the Katch-Mcardle BMR formula. BMR = 370 + (21.6 x lean body mass in kg)

That's a big difference. MFP calculated my BMR at 1,795 without knowing what my body fat %.

StarryEyed500

Yes, there are differences in all formulas. Katch-Mcardle, for instance, takes no account of height or age or even gender, all of which are a factor in your BMR.