Do y'all realize that the more lean mass you have....

Zylahe

I heard that 1 lb of muscle burns 8 lb of fat in a year.
So i figure if i can build 1 lb of muscle, in a year i will reach my GW.
Pity that its almost imposible for me to build muscle, but thats a whole different thread.

BikinimomE

Yes but muscle weighs more than fat therefore the more muscle I have the fatter I become! And I drank a gallon of water and weigh 8 pounds more so I got fatter!

You have a very dry sense of humor, I see. :laugh:

BikinimomE

Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.

Are you serious? :noway:

I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)

If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.

And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^

BikinimomE

Most BMR calculators exclude an offset for lean body mass because it doesn't make a big difference in your calorie requirement - maybe 5%.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a woman my height and weight with 15# less lean body mass (I am saying I have 15# more muscle) wouldn't burn far less calories when they sleep (or just go about the business of life)? Are you also saying that her physical activity isn't far less intense (thus burning even fewer calories) because of her comparative weakness and lack of endurance?

BikinimomE

I heard that 1 lb of muscle burns 8 lb of fat in a year.
So i figure if i can build 1 lb of muscle, in a year i will reach my GW.
Pity that its almost imposible for me to build muscle, but thats a whole different thread.

Do you have hormonal issues that preclude you from building lean mass? Or is this due to physical injury/joint issues?

BikinimomE

yes the more lean muscle mass requires more calories but dont be fooled its not ton of extra calories
1.fat burns 2 calories, compared to 2 muscle which burns 5-7 calories.

All calories are also not created equal. A big bag of chips does not equal a tunafish sandwich on whole wheat with lettuce and tomato even though they may have the same amount of calories. I am still mystified that so many people fail to comprehend this.

chivalryder

Yes, it does.

HOWEVER

More muscle doesn't really burn as many calories as people think. We're talking 10-15 more cal per day per pound of muscle.

If you want to build muscle to burn off fat faster, you need to put on 10 lbs of muscle to burn an extra 100 cal/day. That's a LOT of muscle.

Not saying people shouldn't strive to build muscle. It has many other great benefits, but if you're doing it to burn more calories, think again.

chivalryder

yes the more lean muscle mass requires more calories but dont be fooled its not ton of extra calories
1.fat burns 2 calories, compared to 2 muscle which burns 5-7 calories.

All calories are also not created equal. A big bag of chips does not equal a tunafish sandwich on whole wheat with lettuce and tomato even though they may have the same amount of calories. I am still mystified that so many people fail to comprehend this.

I lol at people who don't get that.

Elen_Sia

...the higher your BMR will be?

Just curious. Because according to the majority of posts that I've seen in the short time I've found this groovy site, the answer would lean more towards, "No."

Thoughts?

Yes.

The composition and calorie density of my meals have continually evolved as my body's needs dictate.

126siany

yes the more lean muscle mass requires more calories but dont be fooled its not ton of extra calories
1.fat burns 2 calories, compared to 2 muscle which burns 5-7 calories.

All calories are also not created equal. A big bag of chips does not equal a tunafish sandwich on whole wheat with lettuce and tomato even though they may have the same amount of calories. I am still mystified that so many people fail to comprehend this.

I lol at people who don't get that.

And they are usually the ones who gain it back, too.

athensguy

yes the more lean muscle mass requires more calories but dont be fooled its not ton of extra calories
1.fat burns 2 calories, compared to 2 muscle which burns 5-7 calories.

All calories are also not created equal. A big bag of chips does not equal a tunafish sandwich on whole wheat with lettuce and tomato even though they may have the same amount of calories. I am still mystified that so many people fail to comprehend this.

I agree that the food you eat matters. How does that relate to the post you replied to?

flynnfinn

I think people also lose sight of the fact that if they don't work to preserve their lean mass, even when they lose all the weight they will be a smaller person of the same shape they were when at a weight they felt was too high. :noway:

Personally, I don't want to be a smaller bowling ball. :sad: I want to get my waist back and see the muscles in my arms and legs again!:bigsmile:

bwahahahahaha! omg..this made me laugh outloud! LOVE IT! it is absolutely true. losing weight is one thing. changing the way you look...that's another story!

bcattoes

Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.

Are you serious? :noway:

I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)

If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.

And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^

I think a lot of people do want it. They just want not to be fat without making a lot of major changes in their life. I think a lot of people exercise simply to burn more calories to lose more quickly, rather than thinking about how much muscle they will have in the end.

And I may be way off base, but I took that post to mean "cost more" not in terms of money, but in terms of time and effort. It does take time and effort to maintain muscle mass while losing weight. Especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.

amy1612

I would much rather be lean and have more muscle Lean muscle mass is awesome.

BrianSharpe

Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.

You've taken a poll?:laugh: :laugh:

Who is "us"? I got the impression that most of "us" wanted a healthier life which may not require becoming body builders but a commitment to fitness (especially those of "us" over 40 who don't want to lose our lean muscle mass to aging)

ninerbuff

Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.

Lol, isn't sedentary and "light" activity the reason that most people GAIN WEIGHT along with over consumption?

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

jacksonpt

Yes, it's true.

But honestly, adding a couple lbs of lean muscle isn't suddenly going to turn you into a calorie burning furnace. Does your BMR go up? Yes. Does it go up significantly? Not in most cases.

126siany

Lean mass equals higher maintenance cost (upkeep). Not just in calories, but to maintain muscle mass. Most of us are trying to figure out how to be sedentary or light activity and keep the weight off; not build muscle.

Are you serious? :noway:

I'm truly stunned at this answer. In what way does it "cost more" to maintain lean mass? (Please don't even TRY to give me that bogus argument that it costs more to eat healthy. And you can work out in outside or in your home FOR FREE just as I did for a few months between gym memberships. Didn't lose an ounce of mass or strength.)

If you have less mass, your metabolism is lower ALL THE TIME so you must consume less calories in order not to gain bf. Less activity + less calories = your body metabolizing your lean mass for sustenance which leads to even lower metabolism ALL THE TIME... and so the vicious circle continues until you are a morbidly obese couch potato that needs to sleep sitting up, is totally dependent on others for your every need.

And "most" of the people here WANT this?!?! ^^^

I think a lot of people do want it. They just want not to be fat without making a lot of major changes in their life. I think a lot of people exercise simply to burn more calories to lose more quickly, rather than thinking about how much muscle they will have in the end.

And I may be way off base, but I took that post to mean "cost more" not in terms of money, but in terms of time and effort. It does take time and effort to maintain muscle mass while losing weight. Especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.

There are also folks who start out thinking that way and evolve their opinion over time.

I can understand that, especially as it's overwhelming for some folks to just hit their calorie goals and make healthier food choices in the beginning. They have to focus on one thing at a time so they don't give up. And then they eventually realize that they aren't getting the body they'd hoped for without exercise and the restriction of calories is too difficult to maintain, so they embark on exercise plans.

ninerbuff

Having more lean muscle means you can lift heavier poundages which will help with more calorie burn while working out. Yes this is true.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

bcattoes

Most BMR calculators exclude an offset for lean body mass because it doesn't make a big difference in your calorie requirement - maybe 5%.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a woman my height and weight with 15# less lean body mass (I am saying I have 15# more muscle) wouldn't burn far less calories when they sleep (or just go about the business of life)? Are you also saying that her physical activity isn't far less intense (thus burning even fewer calories) because of her comparative weakness and lack of endurance?

I won't speak for the poster to which you replied, but in your answer it is the second part that really makes the most difference. From what I've read, it is in the calories burned to build/maintain muscle that really makes the difference. The small boost in BMR doesn't really burn very many extra calories, but the work required does.