How many calories do you burn after lifting heavy weights?
Options
serapel
Posts: 502 Member
So I keep reading that your body uses up cals to build muscle - after a workout over a 24 hour period. How many cals get used up for women and men?
so confusing...
so confusing...
0
Replies
-
http://greatist.com/fitness/afterburn-effect-keep-burning-calories-after-workout
Kind of a read but it framed it up pretty well for me. No solid number but long into short, Calories continue to be burned higher than they would be if you didn't workout at all. I'm not sure if i just made it more confusing or not.1 -
ridin599 is on the right page. basically lifting weights builds lean muscle mass, Yes you burn some calories doing the lifts but not as many "immediately" as a cardio workout. however as your body develops lean muscle it requires more calories a day to sustain that muscle. in turn causing a boost to your Basal Metabolic rate (the amount of calories you burn doing no activity, just breathing). in turn you could start burning more calories throughout the day and even while your sleeping. however do not neglect cardio, Though some of us hate it (myself included) it is extremely necessary for overall health. no way to really put a number on it as it would depend on what muscle groups worked that set/rep range, m/f, age, weight lifted... either way good luck2
-
ridin599 is on the right page. basically lifting weights builds lean muscle mass, Yes you burn some calories doing the lifts but not as many "immediately" as a cardio workout. however as your body develops lean muscle it requires more calories a day to sustain that muscle. in turn causing a boost to your Basal Metabolic rate (the amount of calories you burn doing no activity, just breathing). in turn you could start burning more calories throughout the day and even while your sleeping. however do not neglect cardio, Though some of us hate it (myself included) it is extremely necessary for overall health. no way to really put a number on it as it would depend on what muscle groups worked that set/rep range, m/f, age, weight lifted... either way good luck
One pound of fat burns about 2 calories per day. One pound of muscle burns about 6 calories per day. So for every pound of muscle you add, it's a net extra burn of 4 calories per day. So to add 100 calories to your BMR, it would require putting on 25 pounds of muscle, which is maybe what most people could possibly add in 5-10 years of consistent, focused weight training (and some will never be able to put on that amount of muscle without resorting to anabolic steroids). So while it's true that muscle burns more calories than fat, it's not a significant amount for the vast majority of people.4 -
One pound of fat burns about 2 calories per day. One pound of muscle burns about 6 calories per day. So for every pound of muscle you add, it's a net extra burn of 4 calories per day. So to add 100 calories to your BMR, it would require putting on 25 pounds of muscle, which is maybe what most people could possibly add in 5-10 years of consistent, focused weight training (and some will never be able to put on that amount of muscle without resorting to anabolic steroids). So while it's true that muscle burns more calories than fat, it's not a significant amount for the vast majority of people.
Actually, what I'm asking is how many cals it takes to build new muscle after you have lifted heavy weights; hence the need to eat more when building mass. It's just so confusing to me
0 -
One pound of fat burns about 2 calories per day. One pound of muscle burns about 6 calories per day. So for every pound of muscle you add, it's a net extra burn of 4 calories per day. So to add 100 calories to your BMR, it would require putting on 25 pounds of muscle, which is maybe what most people could possibly add in 5-10 years of consistent, focused weight training (and some will never be able to put on that amount of muscle without resorting to anabolic steroids). So while it's true that muscle burns more calories than fat, it's not a significant amount for the vast majority of people.
Actually, what I'm asking is how many cals it takes to build new muscle after you have lifted heavy weights; hence the need to eat more when building mass. It's just so confusing to me
It's hard to say.. that is why I use the trial and error approach. I keep my exercise routine roughly the same each week and start off with an estimated cal intake above maintenance.. if I'm not gaining I increase slowly until I am.2 -
I think you would be hard pressed to put a quantifiable value on EPOC. You don't get EPOC from just lifting either...1
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »I think you would be hard pressed to put a quantifiable value on EPOC. You don't get EPOC from just lifting either...
EPOC??
0 -
One pound of fat burns about 2 calories per day. One pound of muscle burns about 6 calories per day. So for every pound of muscle you add, it's a net extra burn of 4 calories per day. So to add 100 calories to your BMR, it would require putting on 25 pounds of muscle, which is maybe what most people could possibly add in 5-10 years of consistent, focused weight training (and some will never be able to put on that amount of muscle without resorting to anabolic steroids). So while it's true that muscle burns more calories than fat, it's not a significant amount for the vast majority of people.
Actually, what I'm asking is how many cals it takes to build new muscle after you have lifted heavy weights; hence the need to eat more when building mass. It's just so confusing to me
I'm not 100% sure about these numbers, but if I recall correctly it takes about the same amount of Calories to build a kilo of muscle as it does to gain a kilo of fat. So ~7000 Calories give or take.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I think you would be hard pressed to put a quantifiable value on EPOC. You don't get EPOC from just lifting either...
EPOC??
It stands for excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, it's basically the amount of time your metabolism stays elevated post exercise until your body returns to normal.0 -
It really comes down to whether you care if your bulk is clean or dirty. Clean is going to take accurate logging and small surplus increases until you are gaining slowly, dirty just involves eating everything in sight.0
-
One pound of fat burns about 2 calories per day. One pound of muscle burns about 6 calories per day. So for every pound of muscle you add, it's a net extra burn of 4 calories per day. So to add 100 calories to your BMR, it would require putting on 25 pounds of muscle, which is maybe what most people could possibly add in 5-10 years of consistent, focused weight training (and some will never be able to put on that amount of muscle without resorting to anabolic steroids). So while it's true that muscle burns more calories than fat, it's not a significant amount for the vast majority of people.
Actually, what I'm asking is how many cals it takes to build new muscle after you have lifted heavy weights; hence the need to eat more when building mass. It's just so confusing to me
@serapel @sardelsa
From Eric Helms (Bolded):
If you use the 3500 kcal/lb rule to predict the energy surplus or deficit associated with the weight change found in these subjects, it actually tends to give numbers that correlate quite well with the numbers calculated from the metabolizable energy densities (within 200 kcal, for the most part).From a practical standpoint, this means that for a lot of trainees who are weight stable, aren’t coming back to training from a layoff, aren’t undertaking a crazy new training regimen, or are enhanced lifters about to start a drug regimen (a.k.a all the scenarios in which rapid muscle growth is expected), the 3500 kcal/lb rule predicts weight loss quite well.It also predicts muscle gain quite well in those who are in similar scenarios to those listed above. Based on the metabolizable energy density, a pound of muscle contains approximately 800 kcal. Literature shows that it takes approximately 4-6 times as much energy to build muscle, which puts the total caloric “cost” of a pound of muscle at roughly 3500 kcal. In a practical realm, this means that setting up calorie intake for slow weight gain (gains of <1.5% of bodyweight per month) based on the 3500 kcal/lb rule should predict weight gain relatively well.0 -
About 9-11% over about the next 12 or so hours.0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »I think you would be hard pressed to put a quantifiable value on EPOC. You don't get EPOC from just lifting either...
The EPOC studies I have seen, and largely are based on HIIT, would suggest 6-15% additional expenditure.1 -
ok...I'm more confused now haha0
-
ok...I'm more confused now haha
About what?
EPOC is a small and variable percentage of an already pretty small calorie burn that's impossible to measure anyway. Insignificant really.
The energy required to build muscle (which is a slow process anyway) isn't very large.
So two things not really worth bothering about from a practical point of view but mildly interesting if you are just interested in the science.
Chuck in all the calorie variables of food and exercise logging, variations in activity levels and it's just a tiny bit of background noise.1 -
ok...I'm more confused now haha
About what?
EPOC is a small and variable percentage of an already pretty small calorie burn that's impossible to measure anyway. Insignificant really.
The energy required to build muscle (which is a slow process anyway) isn't very large.
So two things not really worth bothering about from a practical point of view but mildly interesting if you are just interested in the science.
Chuck in all the calorie variables of food and exercise logging, variations in activity levels and it's just a tiny bit of background noise.
Then why do you need an extra 300-500 cals to build muscle?0 -
ok...I'm more confused now haha
About what?
EPOC is a small and variable percentage of an already pretty small calorie burn that's impossible to measure anyway. Insignificant really.
The energy required to build muscle (which is a slow process anyway) isn't very large.
So two things not really worth bothering about from a practical point of view but mildly interesting if you are just interested in the science.
Chuck in all the calorie variables of food and exercise logging, variations in activity levels and it's just a tiny bit of background noise.
Then why do you need an extra 300-500 cals to build muscle?
It gives you an optimal amount of energy for your body to build muscle.0 -
ok...I'm more confused now haha
About what?
EPOC is a small and variable percentage of an already pretty small calorie burn that's impossible to measure anyway. Insignificant really.
The energy required to build muscle (which is a slow process anyway) isn't very large.
So two things not really worth bothering about from a practical point of view but mildly interesting if you are just interested in the science.
Chuck in all the calorie variables of food and exercise logging, variations in activity levels and it's just a tiny bit of background noise.
Then why do you need an extra 300-500 cals to build muscle?
A day you mean?
Because for optimal muscle growth (i.e. the fastest your personal circumstances will allow) a calorie surplus is helpful to keep you in an anabolic state longer.
You don't need 300-500 cals a day surplus but it may help an individual grow quicker - the downside is the surplus calories will be stored as fat.
Remember you don't need a calorie surplus to gain muscle, maximising your rate of growth isn't the same as requiring a surplus or a certain size of surplus to grow.
1
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
- 390 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
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions