How long does it take to add 1# of muscle mass?

How long does it take to add 1# of muscle mass for the average man?

I’m curious because I recently read that for every pound of muscle added, it results in burning 5 lbs of fat a year. I figured if I can add on 6-8 lbs of muscle that would be enough to burn off enough fat to get me down to where I’m suppost to be. (Especially since my appetite doesn’t much allow for a low-caloric intake)

I was planning of working out 3-4x/wk, emphasing low reps/high weights to maximize muscular development. Any ideal how long its going to take to add the extra muscle weight? (My body frame is average)

Thanks

I don’t think there is a set factual answer for this.

For the beginer 1 lb of muscle should not take long at all. A week?

Bodybuilders that have been doing it awhile go through bulking phases, in which they go through like 12 weeks trying to gain 1-2 lbs a week. Most of this is fat, and long time bodybuilders are generally happy with a 5-6 lb increase in muscle mass a year.
My first month bodybuilding my weight increased by 5 lbs. I am sure that I had lost at least a few pounds of fat and water weight, so I would estimate that 8 pounds of muscle was gained. It has reached a plateau in which my muscle gains are less than my fat loss, which puts me right back at the same weight I was when I started. This time it is muscle though.

I don’t think the premise in the OP is accurate. In the first place, one can get stronger without gaining any muscle mass. What happens is that the person is able to recruit more nerves enervating the muscles, thereby recruiting more muscle fibers. I work out on a Nautilus machine, but not into bodybuilding. I try to do all the muscle groups every other day. Slowly but surely I’m able to increase the weight without any additional muscle gain or any weight gain at all.

The OP wasn’t asking about strength, he is asking about muscle weight.

Even powerlifters eventually attain hypertrophy in their endevors. Give it time.

Low rep/high weight routine is more designed to increase strength than muscle size.

I take it your primary aim is weight reduction. High rep/low weight would be more suitable.

I once lost about 20% of my total weight in about 2 months, going from doing nothing to several hours a day playing tennis. And no beer, which was the only change in diet. Actually I think I ate more during this time.

Whoa, one week??! I agree with Epimetheus on the rest but one week seems awfully quick. I have no idea about your age or fitness level, but that’s going to have a big effect on how quickly you experience the gains you’re after. Fear not, the gains will come but they may take time. I suggest if you have no interest in bodybuilding aside from overall fitness/weight loss, concentrate on working larger muscle groups as often as possible. For most folks these will respond more quickly. What I mean is in general it should be easier to add mass to your chest or legs than say your arms. But everyone is different, perhaps ** Epimetheus ** did grow that much in one week! And btw when you stop exercising your muscles will atrophy and you’ll have to start over again. As you noted muscles take up a lot of resources so your body isn’t going to keep feeding them if you don’t need (use) them.
I’d estimate that after a month of consistant and proper training you should begining noticing gains.
I am not familiar with the technique barbitu8 noted, but the proposed workout plan of higher weight lower reps and 3-4x/wk should increase mucle mass.
Good luck!

No, high weight, (60-70% of max) low rep (6-8) is designed for maximum hypertrophy. Low weight, high rep does nothing for size. If high reps low weight increased muscle mass then bending over repeatedly would make people have monster backs.

my post is in response to aahala not to your informative post amfet.
True, age and fitness level is a consideration. It sounds like the OP has a larger than average frame, which seems more probable for him to attain quicker gains. The key is to make sure you eat plenty if you want muscle mass. I know this seems contrary to the whole weight loss thing, but if gaining muscle mass is important to you, it will be easier to lose weight once you have that muscle mass. Trying to gain a lot of muscle mass and losing weight is something that is pretty rare, and usually only occurs in the beginer. It is best to focus on one thing at a time for maximum gains. Either weight loss or muscle gain.

I thought that high reps/low weight resulted in leaner muscle mass while low reps/high weight resulted in bulker muscle mass.

I’m not overly-concerned about strength, more about mass. Because it was my understanding that an increase in muscle mass is coorelated with a higher basal metabolism, thus resulting in a need for higher caloric intake to maintain the same weight. But if I can maintain my caloric intake to where it is now (about 2400 cal/day) and couple that with a high basal metabolic rate (because of the extra muscle mass), it was my hope that it would result in loss of fatty tissue, especially since it also my understanding that the human body burns proportional more fat when the HR is 60% or less than the age-adjusted maximum HR (which is most of the time - as opposed to increased carbohydrate use during more aerobic activity).

So if I have the same experience as Epimetheus described, I should put on about 6 pounds in a years time. I’m currently adding about 5 pounds a year to my weight (almost all fat I’m sure), so that should mean that if I will loss 5 lb of fatty weight for every 1 pound of muscle (because of higher metabolism) then I should about 30 lbs (from metabolism) - 5 lb (that I’m currently adding on per year) - 6 lbs (from added fat) = Loss of 19 lbs of fat and gait on 6 lbs of muscle.

Thanks for the input on how long it would take to gain the muscle mass, I had no idea if would only take a few weeks to gain a pound or if it would take several months (given the way that was planning on trying to add muscle mass).

If there is a faster way to add muscle mass (non-supplemental way/non-unhealthy way) I would also appreciate this kind of information. (I submit as a given that I could be wrong in my understanding all of this, especially the method to build bulky muscle mass).

      • I have read it that without any drugs, an average adult can gain about seven pounds of muscle mass per year. The apparent gain is much greater, but is really just water necessary for health under strenuous training. Using “steroids” (which exact type not stated) about doubles that figure; you appear to gain much more mass, but a higher percentage of the gained mass is water.
        ~

One of the best sources for suggestions on bodybuilding can be found here, they also have some good resources for powerlifting:

http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/index.php

I don’t know where the myth that high reps, low weight adds muscle mass. It is a myth though, no bodybuilder uses high reps, except in special cases. (I.e they are cutting and doing maint. work) When I powerlifted much of the accessory work was done with 10-15 reps (4 sets), but the main lifts was done with 3-5 reps. For strength. Powerlifting is not Ideal for hypertrophy though it does occur in many cases.

Just eat big, lift big, and get plenty of rest. Remember that muscles are made outside of the gym, they are broken down in the gym and built up outside of it.
The best method would be to exercise one body part a day per week. My split is Shoulders/back on monday, Chest/calfs/triceps on wednesday, and Legs/biceps/forearms on Friday. 45 mins in the gym is ideal, though It may take you awhile to build up the endurance to lift that long. Don’t overtrain. Check out the site I listed, the forums are very informative and helpful.

Also, check out www.exrx.net.

Hey, thanks for the links. I’ll check them out.

I don’t think I’m in much disagreement with prior posts. I considered 6-10 reps to be moderate rather than low.

I considered the OP was not so much how to increase muscle mass, as to how to train to reduce weight. Obviously, increasing muscle mass beyond the fat lost may not reduce weight.

The OP is asking how long it takes to build up muscle mass to lose fat. Not necessarily weight.

When people hear high reps, things tend to get rediculous. There is no reason to go above 12, and I thought 15 was excessive. There are people that do 100 rep bicep curls that think that it is going to give them big muscles. 20 is excessive IMO.

If you are weightlifting to burn calories (which is all you are going to be doing by doing low weight high reps), you are doing the wrong exercises. Weightlifting by itself is not a good calorie burner, and things like bikeriding, jump-rope and swimming are much more efficient. High reps can lead to overtraining, which leads to muscle loss, which goes against the OP is looking for.

I’ve read from numerous sources that the larger muscles (legs, back, and abdominal) need 15-20 reps, and the others 8-12. So, I work up so that I can do 20 reps of the larger before I increase the weight and 12 of the smaller (consistently).

I’ve heard that too, but I’ve made decent gains using 12 reps for everything, and I expect many others have as well. The ideal program probably would base the number of reps on the muscle size, but a program that doesn’t isn’t necessarily horrible.

I have seen some guys do lighter weights with 20 reps, I have spotted one or two of em at my gym. When I ask why, they just say they are working on “endurance”. Neither of the guys I have spotted were huge and musclular, and none of the ones on elitefiness that are big into bodybuilding use the 20 method. I have heard that on larger muscles more sets are necessary though.
From what I understand the reason it is best to keep reps down is to prevent lactic acid buildup. 60 seconds or so of rest in between low rep sets allows the lactic acid to drain from the muscles.

The body is amazingly adaptive, and each body is a bit different, if 20 reps works good for you and you do not experience the symptoms of over-training, then I cannot say that it does not work for everybody. I just don’t know anybody, yet, that has had results from high rep/low weight.

When I powerlifted, briefly, the group I lifted with used Westside Barbell methods. This included 5 rep sets on speed day, and 3 rep sets on max effort day. I do not know if high rep is effective for powerlifting, but seems against what I know. High weight is best for powerlifting, low weight with higher reps does not seem like it would offer any real benifits IMO. For bodybuilders either. Of course, YMMV.

Of course 12 reps for everything will work, but it’s not optimal. If you want just endurance, low weights with many reps is the key. Then you will be doing at least 20 reps on everything. My formula was for ordinary weight training: no body building, no working on endurance alone. You should allow 30-60 seconds between sets (that’s what I read).