Muscle Does Not Burn Calories?

**Fire_Woman** · 03-10-2005, 02:41 PM

_________________________________________________

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."

__________________________________________________ __________

Thoughts on this?

**ihateschoolmt** · 03-10-2005, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by KJR55

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
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.

Bull shit. After years of training a man can only gain 10 pounds? I gained 23 pounds in seven months, and only 2-3 pounds was fat.

**Fire_Woman** · 03-10-2005, 02:51 PM

a competitive bodybuilder can add is 30 to 40 pounds of muscle

That'd be you?

**reg56** · 03-10-2005, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by ihateschoolmt

Bull shit.

^

**Fire_Woman** · 03-10-2005, 03:48 PM

Ok ok I get the "bullshit" comments guys. LOL But does anyone actually have an argument that can be backed up with math as this one? Just thought it'd make for a good discussion.

**reg56** · 03-10-2005, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by ihateschoolmt

After years of training a man can only gain 10 pounds? I gained 23 pounds in seven months, and only 2-3 pounds was fat.

That's a good enough argument for me.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, and when it comes to bodybuilding, there are millions of them so you don't necessarily have to believe everything you hear or read.

**Fire_Woman** · 03-10-2005, 04:06 PM

I totally agree that everyone's entitled to their own opinions. What I'm really wanting is someone to prove the above article wrong. Prove that a pound of muscle DOES burn 50 extra calories. Ya know?

**vegman** · 03-10-2005, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by KJR55

Even with steroids and other anabolic aids, the most a competitive bodybuilder can add is 30 to 40 pounds of muscle, Ellis says.

this guy is loco

that statement above is so asinine, that anything else he says I discredit.

**LAM** · 03-10-2005, 04:22 PM

the main factor here is body composition. people who have more body fat and less muscle mass per pound will burn considerably fewer calories than those who have more muscle and less fat

**maniclion** · 03-10-2005, 04:39 PM

Still proves muscle burns more calories than fat.

**ihateschoolmt** · 03-10-2005, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by KJR55

That'd be you?

Oh, man I wish. I'm 15. I only weigh 150 pounds.

**ponyboy** · 03-10-2005, 05:51 PM

Actually I just read another article about this in a running magazine - of course they are biased towards not being muscular but the study they quoted said the exact same thing about muscle not being much more metabolically active than fat. Therefore people who think they are going to lose weight simply because they gain lean mass without doing anything else are misled.

Funny how they said "resting muscle". Is a muscle not active post workout for an extended period of time to recover and repair itself? I wonder if they took that into account.

**topolo** · 03-10-2005, 06:30 PM

I agree with the point that muscle doesnt necessarily burn more fat

**CowPimp** · 03-10-2005, 10:11 PM

I think the author has a point. I never thought of it this way, but it does seem as though 50 calories per pound is lofty if you do the math. However, I can safely say that increased muscle mass certainly means increased RMR. For god's sake, at 182 pounds and probably 8% body fat, my maintenance calories were 3800. It appears as though I'm now approaching a maintenance level of 4300 at 190 pounds. This is nuts.

**Fire_Woman** · 03-11-2005, 07:03 AM

I think the author has a point. I never thought of it this way, but it does seem as though 50 calories per pound is lofty if you do the math.

That's how I'm looking at it. I'll bet muscle burns more of course, but I doubt its anywhere near 50 cals per pound. But a 2:1 ratio seems more reasonable - like muscle burns 5 cals per pound while fat only burns 2.5 cals per pound.

Plus a pound of muscle just LOOKS nicer.

**Yanick** · 03-11-2005, 08:22 AM

i just want to know how he came to the conclusion that natural guys build only 10lbs of muscle after years of training.

**CowPimp** · 03-11-2005, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Yanick

i just want to know how he came to the conclusion that natural guys build only 10lbs of muscle after years of training.

Yeah. That's definitely bull shit. I put on about 10 pounds of muscle in the first 3 months I trained.

**Dale Mabry** · 03-11-2005, 08:45 AM

I would agree that a resting muscle burns about the same as fat, but tell me how many hours a day are people completely resting every muscle and at what point does fat become active? My guess for both would be never.

**Duncans Donuts** · 03-11-2005, 09:21 AM

Exactly...active muscles are not sedentary, so they must raise RMR or BMR or whatever term is popular to describe metabolism right now..fat, on the other hand, does not influence this.

**Yanick** · 03-11-2005, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I would agree that a resting muscle burns about the same as fat, but tell me how many hours a day are people completely resting every muscle and at what point does fat become active? My guess for both would be never.

excellent point. in my mind this post just cleared up the whole bullshit article. the guy's whole argument goes out the window as soon as you get out of bed in the morning.

**Mudge** · 03-11-2005, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by KJR55

"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."

150 pounds? I know a gal benching 185 naturally and she is not any kind of huge, no creatine use or anything.

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.

Thats why they only gained 10 pounds, dumbass. I guess then Coleman was ripped and nearly 260 before he even started lifting.

**Mudge** · 03-11-2005, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by KJR55

Even Ellis, a mesomorphic pillar of vintage beefcake, has an RMR of only 1,900 calories.

I guess Vintage Beefcake in this case means "that guy that got his ass kicked at the beach."

**ihateschoolmt** · 03-11-2005, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Mudge

150 pounds? I know a gal benching 185 naturally and she is not any kind of huge, no creatine use or anything.

No kidding, my dad's girlfriend can squat 405 (5'6 160-170 pounds off season). She is natural too, only takes whey. I'm sure that six pounds of muscle makes your squat go up but 250-300 pounds.

**Mudge** · 03-11-2005, 11:09 AM

This is a little white girl. I wonder about the 5'11" 195 pounder Samoan girl I used to work with years ago, because she did lift and she was thicker than most guys everywhere. She looked awesome.

Thread: Muscle Does Not Burn Calories?

Thread Tools

Display

Muscle Does Not Burn Calories?

Similar Threads

Burn Calories AND Look Like A Douche!

Fat oxidization (burn) vs. Muscle glycogen & triglyceride burn

how many calories does an average guy burn in a day?

Calories To Burn Fat

How do i know how many calories i need to burn?

Posting Permissions