Muscle metabolism, muscle gain

CathydsRNA

Cathlete
Like most of you I work out for both health and cosmetic reasons. The cosmetic reasons for which I started to weight train were 1) that muscle increases metabolism and 2) to increase muscle definition. When I started to add weights to my workouts several years ago the buzz was that per every lb of muscle one burned 35-50 calories more per day at rest. Last year the estimate of calories burned at rest was dropped to 15-35 calories (more likely nearer the 15 calorie number). I just read in the most recent issue of Shape that these values have been greatly exxagerated and the number is closer to 10 extra calories per day. Big whoop. A researchers work was cited, don't remember the name. I also have read that it is difficult for women to add muscle mass and that the average women who works hard at weight training ( acouple times a week and increasing weights often) ... not a serious weight lifter, can expect to add one lb of muscle a month to every 6 weeks early on and then the rate of muscle addition drops off significantly after several months to a year. My questions are A)if a lb of mucle burns 10 extra calories/day at rest how much more does it burn when not at rest, ie during cardio or weight training and B)how much of muscle definition in women is actually due to lean muscle mass gains vs this plus fat loss. In any event, I have no plans to stop weight training because I have gained strength and hopefully bone density and feel great. These are purely cosmetic questions. I have greatly improved my muscle definition but in truth this could also be due the increased cardio and interval training that I heve been doing.
 
Hi Cathy,

Just wanted to let you know that people are reading your post lol! I'm curious too and am going to try to do a little research before I attempt to answer.

Gina
 
Yes, I would have posted if I had anything to say. Sorry. Very interesting question, thanks for contributing it.
 
Definition is caused by fat loss (mainly) and that can be brought about through diet and muscle gain. Remember, cardio does very little to add muscle mass to our bodies. Regardless of how much muscle burns, it looks nice, looks firm and feels sexy. Tight. I would think that the definition is caused by the muscle you have gained (in order to see it in the first place) but also because of the interval work (burning the fat off).

Wayne.
 
Hi Cathy,

I've been searching databases, journals, and Yahoo! but haven't come up with much. Most articles I find say that muscle burns about 50 cals per day. However, one article by Art Carey debunked the myth. The article claims that at rest, one pound of muscle burns only 5 calories or so each day. Also, the consensus seems to be that fat burns 2 calories daily. Since Art did work out with Cathe once, I am more inclined to believe him. Does that mean that everyone else is wrong, though? I don't know.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/living/health/4747575.htm?1c

Also, we know typical women can't build as muscle as men because of our biological & hormonal makeup. IMHO, women certainly can gain muscle mass and strength, but the definition we see is largely due to a lack of fat covering the muscles.

Maybe you should ask Cathe??? Oh- I visited ACE & IDEA's sites- nothing about this :(

Gina

Hmm...the link isn't working fo rme. If it doesn't work for you, type in "Carey" and "myth of muscle" on Yahoo, and it should come up.

Okay...just in case...

[font color=purple]Posted on Mon, Dec. 16, 2002

Art Carey | The myth of muscle as calorie burner

By Art Carey

Inquirer Columnist


Two weeks ago, I introduced you to Greg Ellis, whose new book, Dr. Ellis's Ultimate Diet Secrets (Targeted Body Systems Publishing, $59.95), is to eating and exercising what Moby-Dick is to whaling.

During a power walk, Ellis and I discussed some of the surprising things he's learned over the last 40 years about how the body turns food into energy, muscle and fat.

One of Ellis' favorite sayings is "putting it to the numbers" - his phrase for testing conventional wisdom against scientific fact. By putting it to the numbers, Ellis, 55, who has a doctorate in exercise physiology, has discovered that many accepted truths are myths.

"People don't do their homework," he gripes. "That's how these myths get started and propagated."

A prime example: If you build more muscle, you'll burn lots of calories.

"This one really irks me," Ellis says. "It's the big one, the great myth."

I confess: It's a myth that I, too, have helped propagate. As faithful readers know, I'm a big booster of resistance training - weight lifting for boys and girls, men and women, people of all ages. In this space and in public presentations, I have sung the benefits of pumping iron, including how it helps control weight.

The conventional wisdom: Muscle is metabolically active. It burns calories even when your body is at rest - 50 to 60 calories a day per pound of muscle. Ergo, if you add a pound of muscle, you can burn an additional 350 calories a week, 1,500 calories a month, 18,000 calories a year - the equivalent of 5 pounds of flesh.

In other words, if you gain a pound of muscle, everything else being equal, you can, in a year, shed 5 pounds of flab.

Trouble is, it ain't so.

"Putting it to the numbers" reveals that resting muscle burns a mere tenth of that - about 5 to 6 calories per pound per day, Ellis says. Since every pound of fat burns 2 calories a day, muscle hardly confers a hefty metabolic advantage - a mere 3 to 4 additional calories per pound.

How does this play out in the real world?

Suppose a woman who weighs 150 pounds begins working out, walking two miles a day, lifting weights three times a week. After six months, she manages to shed 18 pounds of flab and gain 6 pounds of muscle.

To feed that new muscle, her body needs 30 calories of food energy a day (6 pounds x 5 calories = 30). But because she has dropped 18 pounds of fat, her energy needs have also dropped - by 36 calories (18 pounds x 2 calories = 36). Result: Despite all that new muscle, she needs to eat 6 calories a day less to maintain her new weight.

Moreover, adding 6 pounds of muscle is no easy feat. When Ellis was working on his doctorate, doing body-composition studies in the lab, he found that the muscle mass of female bodybuilders, compared with that of untrained women, was greater by only 6 pounds.

"Steroid girls had only 8 to 10 pounds more lean body mass," Ellis says. "I'm talking about hard-core bodybuilding chicks - not someone lifting 5-pound dumbbells, but a gal benching 150, and going at it hard."

Ditto for guys. After several years of training hard, a man may be able to gain 10 pounds of muscle, max. Even with steroids and other anabolic aids, the most a competitive bodybuilder can add is 30 to 40 pounds of muscle, Ellis says. At 5 calories per pound of muscle, all that extravagant anabolic gingerbread revs the metabolism by a mere 150 calories - an amount that could be wiped out by a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup.

"So when Diane Sawyer works out with rubber bands and 5-pound dumbbells and manages to add a quarter-pound of muscle, she may be burning more calories through the exercise itself," Ellis says, "but she's doing zip to increase her resting metabolism."

Can Ellis be believed? For proof, he showed me citations and tables from his trusty texts, including a real page-turner titled Energy Metabolism: Tissue Determinants and Cellular Corollaries. But more persuasive than academic data was this argument: "If new muscle burns 50 calories a pound, why doesn't already existing muscle burn 50 calories a pound?" Ellis asks. "How does the body determine that new muscle burns 50 calories, while old muscle burns only 5?"

Answer: It doesn't, because all muscle burns only 5 calories. Putting it to the numbers: If every pound of muscle burned 50 calories, a typical 200-pound man would have a resting metabolic rate (RMR) from muscle alone of 4,000 calories (80 pounds of muscle x 50 = 4,000). Since muscle accounts for about 40 percent of the RMR (organs such as the liver, kidneys, brain and heart account for about 60 percent), the RMR of our hypothetical musclehead would be 10,000 calories - an impossibility. Even Ellis, a mesomorphic pillar of vintage beefcake, has an RMR of only 1,900 calories. So if muscle isn't a calorie-gobbler, why bother to lift weights?

Because, besides making you stronger, fortifying your bones and joints, improving your balance, reducing the risk of heart disease, and giving you a sense of power, control, accomplishment and well-being, pumping iron will make you look better.

"If you add 5 pounds of muscle and lose 5 pounds of fat, the impact on your shape and appearance will be dramatic," Ellis says. "If you add 5 pounds of muscle and lose 10 to 20 pounds of fat, you're definitely going to be eye candy."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To order Greg Ellis' book, visit www.ultimatedietsecrets.com or call 610-459-1865. "Body Language" appears Mondays in The Inquirer. Contact Art Carey at 215-854-4588 or [email protected]. [/font color=purple]
 
Interesting article...kinda discouraging though..basically it comes down to you have to diet like a bird so that your muscles will show. That would be my case at least, x( it stinks!! I continue to lift despite my frustration becuase I have neurological problems that cause a great deal of pain and affect my mobilty, if I weight train on a consistant basis..it reduces the pain and increases my mobility..I will not walk with a cane at 31..this is my mantra. Plus low blood pressure, stronger bones, burns off stress and you do look better physically and can carry a couple xtra pounds cuz off the muscle and its not all fat.
 
Groundhog,

I had no idea about your neurological challenges. I'm really impressed by your determination to keep working out.

Gina
 
Thanks for all of the replies and all of the research that went into answering this one. I will still continue to strength train for the health benefits and how it makes me feel.Groundhog, continued success in managing your health issues through training. We are all rallying for you.Thanks again everyone.:)
 
Yes, this is sad sad sad. But I always want to hear the truth even if I don't like it. Kinda like finding out there is no Santa Claus, eh? But there isn't, and the sooner you learn that the better.

Liane
 
Liane...

I don't know about everyone else here, but Santa came to MY house last year! :7
Your-Friend-In-Fitness, DebbieH http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/wavey.gif[/img] If You Get The Choice To Sit It Out Or Dance...I Hope You DANCE!!!
 
RE: Liane...

thanks for your support, I am determined to control my life and not let a disease control it. The no santa clause comment was tooo funny, but true, I read the above article and felt like the no santa claus concept..gotta have something to believe in to keep chuggin along...so we will all believe in ourselves, right..yeah!!:D :7
 

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top