Question in subject line.
surfed the web…35 - 50 calories a day.
Seems like instead of wasting time on dieting, just weight train, add 20 pounds of muscle = 700 to 1000 calories more burned a day, and just keep the same diet I have all along…
I forget the exact numbers, but it much more than fat, and is one of the many many reasons why weight training tends to be a good thing. It is also why football players and such eat such enormous amounts – they need to keep all that muscle working.
If the only problem with your diet is too many calories, then this is a fine strategy.
If it’s the composition of your diet that is the problem, obviously this won’t help. And your appetite will go up when you start weight lifting seriously. And adding 20 pounds of muscle is no small feat, it will take a lot of a lot of work and effort and will and pain.
So it’s a good idea in it’s basic form, but there are complications.
Your question is based on a false premise. Calories (actually kilocalories) is expended on the amount of work performed. 3500 calories (kilocalories) equals one pound.
Muscle is more metabolically active than fat. This means that it is working even when it is apparently doing nothing, unlike fat. I can see my quadriceps quiver, even when I’m doing nothing. They are doing work. It takes calories (work) to do that. More metabolic events are occurring in muscle than fat, leading to the use of more calories.
Barbitu8, great name! You’re a funny guy
OK, word it how you want. Someone told me that one pound of muscle “burns” 50 calories (kilocalories actually) per hour even at rest. I did the math and said no way. So I came here to find out the real figures, in an approximate way. Seems like the upper limit, more likely during workout times, is 50 calories (kilocalories actually) per DAY not per HOUR and the lower limit is 35 calories (kilocalories actrually) per DAY.
I read your paragraph, but still don’t know how to word the question in a way acceptable to a barbitu8
So, how would YOU word the question? (I’m assuming you understand what info I was looking for despite my poor wording)
It seems like you’re asking: “How many calories does a pound of muscle burn at rest?” Your statement that it can burn no more than 50 calories per day per pound of muscle again implies a misunderstanding.
You first must understand that every body has a basal metabolic rate (BMR). The BMR is dependent upon your weight. I happen to use a computer log book for my running and other exercises, which gives a lot of extraneous info, such as my BMR and calories expended at each exercise. Based on my weight, my BMR is 1950 calories. I used almost 900 calories this morning running 8 miles at a 9 min pace. The general rule is that you use 600-800 calories an hour, or about 100 calories per mile. I plan to play tennis in an hour (singles for 90 mins), probably another 600 calories.
The point is that calories are not burned per pound of flesh. Calories are burned by the whole body based on the work you perform. What you heard about 50 calories per hour per pound sounds high. Say you weigh 200 pounds (hopefully you don’t) and are 30% fat. That means that 70% is muscles, bones, skin, etc. Say that of that 30% is muscle. That would mean 50 x (200x.30)= 3,000 calories is your BMR. As you can see, that sounds way too high.
In any event, you can’t measure it per pound of flesh.
My math is off. It comes to 300 calories an hour or 7200 calories a day. I know that’s not right.
Baribitu8,
Good points all.
Riddle me this: A 200 pound man with 30% muscle who spends the day lying in bed will burn more calories than a 200 pound man with 15% muscle spending the day lying in bed, correct? And if that first guy puts on 10 pounds more, and it’s all muscles, he’ll burn more calories yet, right?
My understanding is that even if muscle isn’t used, it takes more energy for the body to maintain that muscle than it does for an equivalent weight of fat… in other words, more work is being done internally to support the chemical composition of the muscle, as well as any energy expended externally by hitting a ball or running or what have you.
I think that is what the OP is really getting at.
I saw this mentioned a few times. What’s OP?
barbit, you are clearly a very smart person. I don’t think I’m dumbb but maybe I am. But I just don’t understand what you’re saying?
What am I really looking for?
Let me try other words.
If I have 100 pounds of muscle, for a sedentary person sitting at the computer all day, i burn x calories a day. An APPROXIMATE figure, I don’t care it doesn’t have to be exact.
Now I’m 101 pounds. How much more will that extra pound get me in extra burned calories? I understand that it varies on whether I weigh 90 pounds muscle, 110 pounds muscle etc… but just some VERY general numbers, ideas…ranges…see what I mean?
Thanku.
What you are looking for is how much does muscle increase your basic metabolic rate (BMR). I don’t know. As a prior post said, muscle is more active metabolically. You expend more calories just being sedentary the more muscles you have. I have never seen any numbers on this.
Thanks for the compliments.
Maybe I will try and find that library book that I read this in. My very very very vague recollection was that it was a factor of 3-5x… that is if fat burned 15 cal/day then muscle burned 50-60 or something.
OP means Original Post or Original Problem or something like that. Since many of these discussions tend to wander way out, we use that to indicate we’re responding to the original post.
(I always thought OQ, original question, would have been better.)