What is the point of getting muscle if it burns so few calories?
Options
Replies
-
I can't recall anyone ever bringing calories burned into the decision to gain muscles.
Appearance, strength, fitness, health, being able to crush coconuts behind your knee like a nut cracker seem 1000 times more relevant that calories burned.
Isn't muscles the reason men have 1500 and women have 1200 minimums on mfp?
So if women gain muscles to the same point as an average man they could eat 300 more calories a day?0 -
I do my strength training to supplement my cardio. I run faster, bike faster, swim faster when I have more muscle. I have more energy, burn Joe calories just standing there and my body looks soooooo much better. Add that with the triathlons I've been in where a 70 year old woman was running past the 20 something's and saying, "Good job, keep going!" as she breezes past them. I want that to be me. My focus is on being healthy, and strength is an essential part of that. Dropping weight is a lovely byproduct. Plus, when my three year old is being one of satan's minions, I have no problem hefting him up and dragging his butt off to his room.0
-
Traveler120 wrote: »
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.
The overwheleming number of posts on this are from people who regret not having done both cardio and resistance at the same time for losing weight. They complement each other but by doing resistance whilst you are losing, then you are starting to get the benefits straight away and reatin more lean muscle, which measn your weight loss will have a greater % of fat loss, which is everyones ultimate target. Being stronger also helps with cardio as aspects of your endurance should increase.
With cardio only then people run the risk of skinny fat.0 -
Id rather have muscle than fat any day.....
0 -
OsricTheKnight wrote: »Yikes, that would put me at 12% body fat at my current lean mass.
Sure, but it looks like you still have about 18lb to go, and most likely as you lose that 18lb you'll lose 3-6lb of lean mass. For me, if I held my lean mass constant I'd have 0% body fat at my target weight, but that's not worth worrying about as it's essentially impossible not to lose some lean mass along with fat mass.
Osric
I've worked pretty hard to gain the muscle and bone I've gained. Yeah, I overshot a bit. But honestly, my goal is to lose no more than 2 lbs of lean mass on this cut. I only had about 89 lbs of lean mass when I was at my lowest. I'd personally rather keep the muscle I've worked to build. I gained an estimated 20 lbs of muscle and bone and 10 lbs of fat. I was the poster child for skinny fat when I originally got to 139. But I fell a lot and broke bones over and over. So for me, losing lean mass isn't an option if I want to keep my bones.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?
Strengthening muscle within you normal body composition and reducing body fat (not by too much though) is optimal for health.
Building extra muscle, beyond normal body composition is purely for vanity and personal achievement! Similar to people that choose to train for long distance running or any other physical goal that is not optimal to long term health.
It takes hard work and dedication and comes with a cost (which most are happy to pay).
Nothing wrong with that and more power to their elbows for the guys and gals that choose to do it - most of them look great.
0 -
For vanity
For the almost immediate increase in energy and strength.0 -
OsricTheKnight wrote: »benjamin380 wrote: »I heard that a pound of muscle only burns 5 calories a day. So what is the point of getting muscle then?
You can weigh your target weight and still feel and look flabby if you have no muscle. Building some muscle will give you the look you want.
Say what you will about crossfit, there are an enormous number of pictures and videos of crossfit enthusiasts of both genders who look excellent. Not overbuilt crazy muscle, just fit and strong. Sure, some of the men look like bodybuilders and some of the women have overdone it but for the most part crossfit maniacs look like really healthy, really lean normal people. You can't look like them at their weight without muscle. (I'm not saying do crossfit; I'm saying muscle has a point for appearance.)
Aside from appearance a moderate amount of muscle is good for any gender. Surprisingly Dr Kenneth Cooper's simple formula for target body weight will give you a very reasonable goal weight (that does require some exercise). For men, your height in inches * 4 - 128; for women, height in inches * 3.5 - 108. Of course a fat percentage scale will do a better job than this but it gives you a target.
Osric
Yikes, that would put me at 12% body fat at my current lean mass.
112 for me, which is BMI 19.8 -- fine, but hardly ideal for everyone.
At my current level of LBM (which I'd like to build up, as I am by no means muscular), it would be 15% body fat, which is lower than I'd like.
The main thing is a single weight target based on height is never going to work. Bodies are too different.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.
Yes, all this and what PeachyCarol said.
And even though I'm not that strong yet it makes me feel accomplished when I'm able to back squat a particular goal weight or bench it, etc., and same with cranking out proper pushups and someday when I get that pull-up!0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »
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.
The overwheleming number of posts on this are from people who regret not having done both cardio and resistance at the same time for losing weight. They complement each other but by doing resistance whilst you are losing, then you are starting to get the benefits straight away and reatin more lean muscle, which measn your weight loss will have a greater % of fat loss, which is everyones ultimate target. Being stronger also helps with cardio as aspects of your endurance should increase.
With cardio only then people run the risk of skinny fat.
Bollocks. Based on my body fat calculations, I've retained muscle just fine. Using the US Navy method, I was at 32% at 152 lbs, that's 48.6 fat mass and 103.4 lean mass. Now I'm at 19% at 125 lbs, that's 23.7 lb fat mass and 101.3 lbs lean mass. So out of 27 lbs weight lost, 24.9 lbs was fat mass and 2.1 lbs was lean mass.
It's considered normal if 20% of weight lost is lean mass. I did better. Of my 27 lbs lost, only 8% was lean mass and 92% was fat mass. And of the original 103.4 lbs lean mass, I lost 2.1 lbs which is only 2%. Which means I retained 98% of my lean mass. I give myself an A for a job well done.
As it is said, the best exercise is the one that you WILL do. For me, what got me out the door was hiking, cycling, spinning, elliptical. I always put high resistance on the elliptical, and when spinning I do standing hills. My hiking trail has lots of hills and so does my bike trail. I enjoy every one of them and it's worked perfectly. I just wasn't drawn to barbells and knew I wouldn't keep it up and didn't want to get discouraged thinking I was doing it all wrong. Apparently I was/am doing just fine.0 -
Because picking up heavy things is sexy!! And I have no desire to be a frail, helpless women when I get older. I picture myself more as Napoleon Dynamite's grandma
[img][/img] 0 -
Muscles do stuff. They're not just around to be pretty and to deliver the calorie burn.
Heart is a muscle. I can walk, jump, run, carry the groceries, and stoop to pick something up.0 -
Strength, Endurance, Stamina, etc. The ability to lift heavier things, run faster, swim longer. More to life than just weight loss - this should be a transitory state for everyone. Need to start thinking about what comes next.0
-
Performance and appearance. Weight those how you like in terms of importance to you.
Question, though. Don't you think that if you build muscle, that it would not only burn a piddly amount more at rest, but would help you burn a good bit more when you exercise because you can do more work with the same perceived effort?0 -
I was thinking this the other day as I was carrying up my groceries; apparently I lift so that I can be a pack mule...Ironmaiden4life wrote: »Why? cos strong is the new sexy!!!!! and you can carry all your grocery bags from the car to the house in 1 trip0 -
See here is the thing: even if you ignore the health benefits, the empowerment and the looks... if your only goal is to eat more, more muscle mass helps you do that in several ways. Muscles being more metabolically active is just one side of it. Another side would be that due to muscles being denser than fat, you can afford to be at a higher weight without looking it. Being at a higher weight causes you to burn more calories.
Edit: with that said, you don't have to grow your muscles if you don't have a preference for that. I personally really dislike weight lifting and it bores me to tears, so I don't put any effort into something I know I won't be doing long term. I do, however, practice body weight exercises and yoga to strengthen my muscles and acquire the flexibility to move around with control, balance, and strength. "lifting heavy things" is not the only kind of strength there is. It would depend on your own goals and preferences.0 -
What is the point of muscle? I have never thought of muscle as a way to burn calories. It's necessary to stay active, healthy and independent.0
-
Trust me you dont want to end up skinny fat.
Its depressing when you get near your goal weight, and look like a pile of flab whos unable to do proper push ups.0 -
For me, it's all about healthy bones. I don't want to be muscular. I take no pride in picking up something that is heavy. I don't enjoy the weight stuff and would rather be doing almost anything else.
But it's good for me, so I do it.0 -
NoIdea101NoIdea wrote: »Because you can still be skinny and walk around with your fat jiggling around like a waterbed every time you move. Doesn't matter how skinny you are to me, that's still not a look I would want. Firm and powerful all the way for me.
This ^
Muscle is firm & taut.....I don't want to lose weight & still be all fluffy looking.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions