Do y'all realize that the more lean mass you have....
Replies
-
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 was just about to post something to this effect! People don't seem to get that by eating too little, BMR slows, you have to eat less, BMR slows more, you have to eat less, then they get fat eating practically nothing and wonder why.......
I'm all for maintaining my muscle and keeping my BMR / metabolism high so i don't regain the weight :-)0 -
For each extra pound of muscle you only burn a max of 9 extra calories a day. Extra muscle is hard to achieve. That is not really a compelling reason to gain LBM. What are compelling reasons, include:
- strength training you do also helps bone density which in turn helps mitigate the risks of osteoperosis
- strength training makes you, well...stronger
- aesthetics regarding body composition
Plus a host of other reasons.
This is the amount one pound burns while at rest. Just doing nothing. But it does not reflect the actual amount of calories that extra muscle will burn while performing work. Powering a few extra pounds of muscle during a workout or other daily activity will be much more.0 -
I weight 15lbs more than I did 3 years ago, but wear almost the same size clothing.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/729781-i-weigh-15lbs-more-than-i-did-in-20090 -
For each extra pound of muscle you only burn a max of 9 extra calories a day. Extra muscle is hard to achieve. That is not really a compelling reason to gain LBM. What are compelling reasons, include:
- strength training you do also helps bone density which in turn helps mitigate the risks of osteoperosis
- strength training makes you, well...stronger
- aesthetics regarding body composition
Plus a host of other reasons.
This is the amount one pound burns while at rest. Just doing nothing. But it does not reflect the actual amount of calories that extra muscle will burn while performing work. Powering a few extra pounds of muscle during a workout or other daily activity will be much more.
Are you referring to the fact that there will be added mass. The higher the mass, the higher the BMR and therefore the higher the TDEE? Sorry, just trying to clarify.0 -
For each extra pound of muscle you only burn a max of 9 extra calories a day. Extra muscle is hard to achieve. That is not really a compelling reason to gain LBM. What are compelling reasons, include:
- strength training you do also helps bone density which in turn helps mitigate the risks of osteoperosis
- strength training makes you, well...stronger
- aesthetics regarding body composition
Plus a host of other reasons.
This is the amount one pound burns while at rest. Just doing nothing. But it does not reflect the actual amount of calories that extra muscle will burn while performing work. Powering a few extra pounds of muscle during a workout or other daily activity will be much more.
Are you referring to the fact that there will be added mass. The higher the mass, the higher the BMR and therefore the higher the TDEE? Sorry, just trying to clarify.
Im sure extra mass could play a role I was just clarifying that the average calorie burn, per pound of muscle, was for muscle at rest. That figure does not include that extra muscle performing work.0 -
I sent an email to NIH regarding the lack of consideration of lean mass in BMI determination of being obese.
The reply that came said, (I could not read this with a straight face) that the heart has to work harder to push blood through muscle than through fat. So in the minds of the NIH brain trust, it is worse for your heart to be 6' 200 pounds fitness buff and 6% BF versus 6' 200 pounds and 25% BF and a couch potato.
That just doesn't pass the smell test.0 -
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.
Most people don't understand the difference between weight loss and body recomposition. They think that all they have to do is lose weight and they will look the way they want. The problem comes in when they want this weight loss to happen too quickly. They start some fad or very restrictive diet that they think will "jump start" weight loss. They want years of weight gain to magically disappear in a matter of weeks. When the results don't happen the way they thought, they get frustrated and give up. The excuse used, in my smarta$$ wording, "I'm must be a special little snowflake and this just doesn't work for me like does for everyone else."
The real reason it doesn't work is because they made it too difficult to begin with by being too restrictive. And, they are lazy and don't want to work for it.
Good post, OP!
But, if you don't have a lot of weight to lose it can work. If you only have 10-20 lbs of weight to lose and you are young, you can just diet it away and still look good. I miss those days of being naturally firm. What a drag it is getting old.
You're missing the point. It depends on what "good" means to you. For some, yes, that's true... you can just diet it away and be smaller. But for some, that's not what they are looking for.
No, I don't think I am missing the point. The fact that "good" doesn't always mean the same thing to everyone was my point. A high LBM is no guarantee that you'll look "good". The poster at the top of this particular thread seemed to not care about body recomposition, they were concerned about losing weight. The fact that she will be a smaller version of herself doesn't mean she will not look "good" or that losing weight through calorie restriction won't work.
Many people lose and maintain weight through calorie restriction. I would wager a lot more do it that way than through worrying about LBM.
Increased LBM has a host of other benefits that go far beyond increased BMR. Sarauk2sf gave a nice list of those benefits earlier.
For the record, you have a history of disagreeing with posts just because that isn't the way you do things. Whatever way you choose to go about being a healthier person is completely your business. However, just because it isn't "your way" doesn't make it wrong.
Um, I wasn't disagreeing. I was more or less agreeing with what the poster said about most just wanting to lose weight. Not sure if "most" care about LBM or not, but if I had to say most did or did not care, I probably would go with did not.
It is you who disagreed with her because you think differently.
I actually agreed with the OP and said "good post" in my first statement.
The OP asked a question. I'm not sure it's possible to agree or disagree with a question, but I too would answer "yes" to the question.0 -
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?!?! ^^^
No, what I am saying is that eating at a deficiency with only healthy, clean, minimally processed foods is still going to result in lost lean body mass because in order to keep lean body mass, the body has to be active. If a person ISN'T active and is eating well, then lbm may be lost, but it's because the dieter's goal is to be leaner and cleaner, not hulk and bulk.
You can combat the loss of LBM while eating at a deficit with resistance training. A person will still experience some LBM loss, but not as great as someone sedentary and eating at a deficit. People can't become "hulk and bulk" eating at a deficit.
And most people responding to this thread is either a hulk and bulk person who is on a 40/30/30 diet or are not at a deficient and are just running every day praying they can get the weight off. What ever happened to self control as the best defense? At the end of the day, everything starts and ends with what you eat and how well your nutrition is.
So, you came to that assumption how?0 -
Yup! My DXA scan shows I gained 1.5 lbs of lean body mass since last year. I lift heavy and that is not a lot of gain in lean body mass, but it's a lot for a girl. Girls will not gain much if they stay natural (I'm all natural, no steroids). Maybe younger girls will gain more than I did (I am almost 52), but still. Really you are not going to get to eat much more calories. Mainly I get to eat more calories now because I'm lean and don't have fat to lose, that is the true key to getting to eat a bit more. You no longer have to eat at so much of a deficit because you don't have the fat reserves to lose.
love your posts
0 -
I do realize, however that is relatively negligible. From what I've read, a lb of muscle burns fewer than 10 calories per day.
I think that the real benefit to maintaining or building lean mass is
1) Sexiness
2) Maintaining muscle means that losses are pure ugly fat, rather than some fat and some muscle.
50 calories per day. That's 5 pounds per year.
The 50 calorie/day thing is a hoax made up by fitness magazines. If it really burned that much, serious body builders would need to eat somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 000 calories/day just to maintain their weight. I don't know about you, but many of them eat 1800-3000/day.
Actually, professional body builders eat around 7500 calories per day.
Are you talking on a bulk? Because I troll a lot of bodybuilding forums and haven't seen above 4k while lean bulking. I haven't looked into any of the "I'm on steroids and just going to see how much I can gain" threads, but 7500 seems a bit ridiculous.
If we say 10 cals/lb of muscle added to BMR, then activity modifiers:
If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.2
If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.375
If you are moderatetely active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.55
If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.725
If you are extra active (very hard exercise/sports & physical job or 2x training) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.9
There would be a MAX of 20 cal/day due to 1 lb of muscle. And I don't think anyone but elite athletes actually hit that extra active level. Wearing my bodybugg, doing two-a-days going hard 6-7 days a week, my calculated burn falls short of extra active.
I'm not saying it doesn't help, I'm just saying it really isn't "worth" the effort for the increase to BMR. For that matter, it costs ~800 calories just to build that muscle, which is short term more useful than the BMR increase.0 -
Yep. My BMR is living proof. My maintenance calories just keep going up!0
-
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.
I wouldn't say most of us. *A lot* of us want to be healthier overall, and that includes fitness not just weight loss.0 -
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.
I know this is going to sound inflammatory but I'm going to say it anyway. Every time I come across something written by you on the boards I find you to be more and more of an idiot.
It doesn't sound inflammatory, it just is inflammatory. It's also rude.
I can't see that post so perhaps they have me blocked?
Look, I don't claim to be an expert (and NEITHER SHOULD ALL OF YOU). But I know what's worked for me so far. And like all of you, when I see results, I rally my results and try to help others.
Most of you need to accept that there are people out there who just don't care to exercise. I'm not one of them, but the last thing I want is my fat beating me up while I'm running.0 -
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?!?! ^^^
No, what I am saying is that eating at a deficiency with only healthy, clean, minimally processed foods is still going to result in lost lean body mass because in order to keep lean body mass, the body has to be active. If a person ISN'T active and is eating well, then lbm may be lost, but it's because the dieter's goal is to be leaner and cleaner, not hulk and bulk.
You can combat the loss of LBM while eating at a deficit with resistance training. A person will still experience some LBM loss, but not as great as someone sedentary and eating at a deficit. People can't become "hulk and bulk" eating at a deficit.
And most people responding to this thread is either a hulk and bulk person who is on a 40/30/30 diet or are not at a deficient and are just running every day praying they can get the weight off. What ever happened to self control as the best defense? At the end of the day, everything starts and ends with what you eat and how well your nutrition is.
So, you came to that assumption how?
Look, I've researched this at least 10 times in the last week. If a person is NOT leading a highly active life with high intensity workouts, then they don't need to eat 30% of their calories as protein. A person who is mostly sedentary if not light activity would only need to consume their weight in kg multiplied by 0.8g of protein. For me that turns out to be 56g. Anything over that would be useless to my body and I would be better off feeding my body nutrients or minerals instead of amino acids.
Now it IS true that people who are looking to build muscle or who do moderate to heavy exercises should get a greater amount of protein; that's because they have to repair ripped, sore, wore-down muscles and hopefully gain new muscle mass. So the 40/30/30 diet would be ideal for them. But a person who isn't looking to be hulk and bulk, or who isn't at a deficient wouldn't come to this thread because they would be eaten alive (like I am right now).0 -
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?!?! ^^^
No, what I am saying is that eating at a deficiency with only healthy, clean, minimally processed foods is still going to result in lost lean body mass because in order to keep lean body mass, the body has to be active. If a person ISN'T active and is eating well, then lbm may be lost, but it's because the dieter's goal is to be leaner and cleaner, not hulk and bulk.
You can combat the loss of LBM while eating at a deficit with resistance training. A person will still experience some LBM loss, but not as great as someone sedentary and eating at a deficit. People can't become "hulk and bulk" eating at a deficit.
And most people responding to this thread is either a hulk and bulk person who is on a 40/30/30 diet or are not at a deficient and are just running every day praying they can get the weight off. What ever happened to self control as the best defense? At the end of the day, everything starts and ends with what you eat and how well your nutrition is.
So, you came to that assumption how?
Look, I've researched this at least 10 times in the last week. If a person is NOT leading a highly active life with high intensity workouts, then they don't need to eat 30% of their calories as protein. A person who is mostly sedentary if not light activity would only need to consume their weight in kg multiplied by 0.8g of protein. For me that turns out to be 56g. Anything over that would be useless to my body and I would be better off feeding my body nutrients or minerals instead of amino acids.
Now it IS true that people who are looking to build muscle or who do moderate to heavy exercises should get a greater amount of protein; that's because they have to repair ripped, sore, wore-down muscles and hopefully gain new muscle mass. So the 40/30/30 diet would be ideal for them. But a person who isn't looking to be hulk and bulk, or who isn't at a deficient wouldn't come to this thread because they would be eaten alive (like I am right now).
Eating a certain amount of protein per day, by itself, would not cause someone to bulk. Total calories eaten, regardless of macronutrients, over TDEE is for bulking. Now, it would make more sense when eating over TDEE for bulking purposes to eat a certain level of protein.0 -
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 YEP!
edit: haha didn't see above debate, I just meant that I like to be lazy, lol0 -
Yup! My DXA scan shows I gained 1.5 lbs of lean body mass since last year. I lift heavy and that is not a lot of gain in lean body mass, but it's a lot for a girl. Girls will not gain much if they stay natural (I'm all natural, no steroids). Maybe younger girls will gain more than I did (I am almost 52), but still. Really you are not going to get to eat much more calories. Mainly I get to eat more calories now because I'm lean and don't have fat to lose, that is the true key to getting to eat a bit more. You no longer have to eat at so much of a deficit because you don't have the fat reserves to lose.
52 ? WOW
You look fantastic at any age, but at 52 you are a goddess !0 -
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?!?! ^^^
No, what I am saying is that eating at a deficiency with only healthy, clean, minimally processed foods is still going to result in lost lean body mass because in order to keep lean body mass, the body has to be active. If a person ISN'T active and is eating well, then lbm may be lost, but it's because the dieter's goal is to be leaner and cleaner, not hulk and bulk.
You can combat the loss of LBM while eating at a deficit with resistance training. A person will still experience some LBM loss, but not as great as someone sedentary and eating at a deficit. People can't become "hulk and bulk" eating at a deficit.
And most people responding to this thread is either a hulk and bulk person who is on a 40/30/30 diet or are not at a deficient and are just running every day praying they can get the weight off. What ever happened to self control as the best defense? At the end of the day, everything starts and ends with what you eat and how well your nutrition is.
So, you came to that assumption how?
Look, I've researched this at least 10 times in the last week. If a person is NOT leading a highly active life with high intensity workouts, then they don't need to eat 30% of their calories as protein. A person who is mostly sedentary if not light activity would only need to consume their weight in kg multiplied by 0.8g of protein. For me that turns out to be 56g. Anything over that would be useless to my body and I would be better off feeding my body nutrients or minerals instead of amino acids.
Now it IS true that people who are looking to build muscle or who do moderate to heavy exercises should get a greater amount of protein; that's because they have to repair ripped, sore, wore-down muscles and hopefully gain new muscle mass. So the 40/30/30 diet would be ideal for them. But a person who isn't looking to be hulk and bulk, or who isn't at a deficient wouldn't come to this thread because they would be eaten alive (like I am right now).
What does that have to do with the question of how you came to the assumption that the people responding are either a 'hulk and bulk' (whatever the eff that means) on a 40/30/30 macro or are not at a deficit.
ETA: protein and fat macros based on percentages are not ideal - they should be based on grams and LBM/body weight i.e. fixed irrespective of the calories.0 -
I am abandoning this thread. I will watch where I tread from now on and stick with my fellow dieters and not mingle with the muscle builders. Thank you for your time but I am just not that interested in drama on the internet to go on with defending my point of view. Bye.0
-
I do realize, however that is relatively negligible. From what I've read, a lb of muscle burns fewer than 10 calories per day.
I think that the real benefit to maintaining or building lean mass is
1) Sexiness
2) Maintaining muscle means that losses are pure ugly fat, rather than some fat and some muscle.
Yeah. Its not a big deal like people make it out to be. The good news is that if your carrying a lot of muscle mass your probably spending a lot of time lifting heavy things...which burns a lot of calories. 0 -
I do realize, however that is relatively negligible. From what I've read, a lb of muscle burns fewer than 10 calories per day.
I think that the real benefit to maintaining or building lean mass is
1) Sexiness
2) Maintaining muscle means that losses are pure ugly fat, rather than some fat and some muscle.
Yeah. Its not a big deal like people make it out to be. The good news is that if your carrying a lot of muscle mass your probably spending a lot of time lifting heavy things...which burns a lot of calories.
If only more people would "get this". And to those who feel that making it your business to make healthier food choices and "making time" to move around with any sort of effort = "what kinda life is that"? ...Y'all have my condolences. There is absolutely NOTHING that I or anyone else "who gets it" could ever say. Your growing waistline and increasing bp, cholesterol, etc as you speed towards Adult Onset Diabetes, etc while your general quality of life decreases will speak far louder.
'Of course, I am ONLY a 45 year old mother of four so WTH do I know? *giggle*0 -
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.
Nope - 8 lbs of fat would be 3500 x 8 or 28,000 calories. This would mean a pound of muscle would have to burn 76.7 calories everyday (28,000/365) .... wow, that's really overstated.
It's more like a SINGLE digit number. Even if it's 9 .... that's 9 x 365 or 3,285 (close to 1 pound)
The real BEAUTY of muscle ... it's sleek form. Fat is well, just a shapeless blob.0 -
I am abandoning this thread. I will watch where I tread from now on and stick with my fellow dieters and not mingle with the muscle builders. Thank you for your time but I am just not that interested in drama on the internet to go on with defending my point of view. Bye.
A word of advice if you cannot handle the debate - dont post on threads discussing muscle mass.0 -
Was there drama on this thread? Apparently I missed it... or ignored it. Whichever floats a body's boat. :flowerforyou:0
-
I do realize, however that is relatively negligible. From what I've read, a lb of muscle burns fewer than 10 calories per day.
I think that the real benefit to maintaining or building lean mass is
1) Sexiness
2) Maintaining muscle means that losses are pure ugly fat, rather than some fat and some muscle.
Yup. Unfortunately the clinical studies don't support the supposed caloric boon adding lean body mass is purported to yield. The brain and the liver are the real calorie burners per unit of mass. Too bad one cannot gain brain matter or liver. :laugh:0 -
Yup. Unfortunately the clinical studies don't support the supposed caloric boon adding lean body mass is purported to yield. The brain and the liver are the real calorie burners per unit of mass. Too bad one cannot gain brain matter or liver. :laugh:
Oh, man, I'm totally going to start marketing the Big Liver diet. I will make $MILLIONS$! (What? Cirrhosis you say? NONSENSE! It's maximizing your body composition by increasing your fat-burning potential! Have another beer!)0 -
I do realize, however that is relatively negligible. From what I've read, a lb of muscle burns fewer than 10 calories per day.
I think that the real benefit to maintaining or building lean mass is
1) Sexiness
2) Maintaining muscle means that losses are pure ugly fat, rather than some fat and some muscle.
Yup. Unfortunately the clinical studies don't support the supposed caloric boon adding lean body mass is purported to yield. The brain and the liver are the real calorie burners per unit of mass. Too bad one cannot gain brain matter or liver. :laugh:
I hear ya. LOL But the real benefit of increased mass (in addition to perhaps slightly higher BMR) is the fact that more mass = more strength = ability to move more heavier stuff = burning more calories than those who only possess the strength to lift the TV remote (as another already pointed out). :glasses:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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