What is the point of getting muscle if it burns so few calories?
Options
Replies
-
DemoraFairy wrote: »For the GAINZ
lol, nice0 -
I believe muscle burns at a faster rate while in recovery, but I'd have to do some digging to verify that.0
-
CitricAcidCycle wrote: »If I remember correctly, fat burns 5-6 calories where as muscle burns roughly 9 calories (a lb per day). So having muscle is better in that sense.
Though that isn't the main reason that most people obtain muscle. It is to feel better, look better, and or pick up heavier things. I like my muscles, because I worked hard for them during my 33 year bulking period.
Fat burns roughly 2 calories per lb while muscle burns just under 6 calories per lb.
Then I stand corrected, thank you.0 -
I watched an attractive 60 something thin woman in white yoga pants walk out of a store the other day and her sagging hindend was giggling like crazy. That's why I just started weight lifting. Hope it's ok I said this....0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »For me? It's all about protecting my bones and bad joints. I want to be a strong middle aged woman and then a strong older woman. I don't want to be frail.
Ditto.
Any extra calorie burn is great. But mostly it's all about aging as well as possible.
0 -
To be able to walk up stairs with no issue. To be able to lift my kid up in the air. To change a tire on my van. To climb up rocks. It's pretty endless the amount of things that muscle actually assists in and disregard of it usually leads to inability to do some of the basic things in life without soreness or injury.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
For me? I'd throw that formula right out the window. It says I should weigh 130 lbs. I'd be a bag of bones.
Well judging by the number of people who say it doesn't work for them, seems like we're better off to talk body fat percentages than weights. Cooper recommends body fat in the 18-22% range for women.
As for you specifically, this article has recommendations for women who are 5'8" and the middle of the range is 140, which is quite a bit more than the 130 that the formula gives. Their overall range is 126-154, based on wrist measurement to figure out build.
Osric0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »For me? It's all about protecting my bones and bad joints. I want to be a strong middle aged woman and then a strong older woman. I don't want to be frail.
Me too. When I fall, I don't want a broken bone to be par for the course. I am SO much stronger after only 6-7 months of strength training. I can sit down on the floor, and get up from the floor, without using my hands. Haven't been able to do that for years and years!
Also, I like firm bodies and I'd like to see how close I can get to one
0 -
This^^^^PeachyCarol wrote: »For me? It's all about protecting my bones and bad joints. I want to be a strong middle aged woman and then a strong older woman. I don't want to be frail.
0 -
To look good naked, to be strong, to support my frame and lessen risk of injury... frankly, extra calorie burning is the least of my reasons to want to build muscle. It's just a bonus.0
-
benjamin380 wrote: »I heard that a pound of muscle only burns 5 calories a day. So what is the point of getting muscle then?
Muscle feels good. I like the envious looks when people look at my biceps (okay, so it's perceived envious, but I can dream.
).
Seriously, I feel so good being fit, and the fact that I believe I've built some muscle over the last few years, so how many calories it does or does not burn matters nil to me.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »For me? It's all about protecting my bones and bad joints. I want to be a strong middle aged woman and then a strong older woman. I don't want to be frail.
This too.0 -
healthier, you are less prone to injuries, being stronger is much nicer than being weak and you cna look much more shapely. Being in good or better shape is quite cool. When people get old they tend to get injuries more easily, buts fall off and you wear out. Strength reduces the chance you will have to deal with that.0
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »To look good naked, to be strong, to support my frame and lessen risk of injury... frankly, extra calorie burning is the least of my reasons to want to build muscle. It's just a bonus.
This. Why wouldn't you want muscle? It's firm, shapely and lean. It's amazing being strong.0 -
OsricTheKnight wrote: »For me? I'd throw that formula right out the window. It says I should weigh 130 lbs. I'd be a bag of bones.
Well judging by the number of people who say it doesn't work for them, seems like we're better off to talk body fat percentages than weights. Cooper recommends body fat in the 18-22% range for women.
As for you specifically, this article has recommendations for women who are 5'8" and the middle of the range is 140, which is quite a bit more than the 130 that the formula gives. Their overall range is 126-154, based on wrist measurement to figure out build.
Osric
Interesting. That formula gave me the exact weight I ended up weighing & maintaining for 4 years, when I was able to do near-daily exercise and ate mostly lower carb at 1800-2200 cals/day (gross). That wasn't my target, my goal weight was 150 and then 140, but I just got to 124 with those inputs and outputs and hung out there for ages.
Re why do strength training - joint protection & reducing health risks related to high body fat % . Mine is around the high end of the normal range, which is fine, but it could improve. (Moot point now, as real lifting isn't something I can do for probably another year, but I want to do what I can.)
0 -
So true. 2 personal trainers at 24hr fitness told me just a few weeks ago that I should be focusing more on weight training because 1 lb of muscle burns 50 calories/day. I said 'hold up, that ain't right!' If that was true, and I assume that as a woman I have 30% skeletal muscle, then at my wt of 125lbs, that's 37.5 lbs muscle. So by his math, 50x37.5=1875 calorie burn from muscle alone. And we haven't even added the energy used by organs, which is even higher, which would give me a BMR of nearly 4000!!(I'd be struggling to stay alive) So then I told him my BMR is only about 1350 and therefore he was wrong and it's actually supposed to be 6 cal/lb per day. Still, he insisted he was right because 'he has a degree in exercise phys and it's in all the textbooks, my internet source was wrong, etc'.benjamin380 wrote: »I heard that a pound of muscle only burns 5 calories a day. So what is the point of getting muscle then?
I gave up on him. Most trainers say 'do weight lifting to build muscle but don't worry, as a woman you won't bulk up. In fact it's very hard to gain even 1 lb of muscle per month'. Then I think, so why spend all that time and energy building muscle if I'll only get 6 calories/day, when my immediate concern is fat loss? Why can't I use the muscle I already have, to do a bunch of cardio which is the quickest way to burn off most of the fat(combined w/diet), and THEN when I like the way I look and can fit into nice skinny clothes, I can start focusing on building muscle at the slow but realistic pace of 0.5 lbs/month at best. That's exactly what I've done, cardio 90% of my exercise, down to 125, and now can start adding strength training.
0 -
Also bc it apparently lengthens telomeres & I want to live forever0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions