How Many Calories Does Weight Lifting Burn?
January 27, 2009
You can burn 8-10 calories per minute just by pumping iron.
Compare that to running or bicycling, where you burn 10-12 calories a minute, and that’s not too bad. But wait, it gets better. Lifting weights gives you a metabolic spike which lasts for approximately an hour after your workout. This is due to the fact that your body is trying to help your muscles recover from the workout. During this spike, your body will continue to burn calories even though you have finished your strength training session … and even while you are relaxing. And, because muscles use a lot of energy to sustain themselves, for every 3 pounds of muscle you build, your body will burn an additional 120 calories per day.
Knowing this makes it easy to understand why weight lifting should be included in a weight loss plan. And no matter what your weight lifting goals are, it is a good idea to keep a journal of your progress as you increase your weight load, otherwise you just may be working sporadically. To help you keep track of your progress and reach your weight lifting goals, I have created for you a printable Strength Training Journal. This journal includes a chart for 3 strength training sessions per week. More than that is not recommended as it could result in over training. Keep a log of how many reps you do and how much weight you are lifting for each move. Then, every 4 weeks, review your charts to see how well you have increased your workout.
Download Strength Training Journal.
Popularity: 100% [?]
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Comments
89 Responses to “How Many Calories Does Weight Lifting Burn?”
Got something to say?
Let's Connect! 
- Getting A Whole Body Workout With Sandbags
- Tabata Training Burns Fat Faster
- 5 Easy Core Exercises That Absolutely Work
- Roller Derby … For Women Who Want To Feel Powerful
- Venus de Miles Bike Ride For Women Only
- Kelly Clarkson Works Out With Crossfit
- Learn How To Lose Weight From Twin Winners Of “The Biggest Loser”
- Finding Strength To Conquer Stress
- 10 Important “Don’ts” To Ensure A Successful Workout
- Bench Press: The Best Of All Chest Exercises
Recently Written
Shakeology
My Other Sites
nice information about taking care of our health
http://www.ncclexpinoy.com
Thanks for sharing all the stuff. It is incredible.
Honestly, I don’t know where you get your facts about burning 120 cals every 3 pounds of muscle. Do you understand that means you burn 40 cals per pound of muscle a day? That means a person weighing 180 pounds with 140 pounds of muslce burns 5600 cals a day! You would not survive as you would be in a caloric crisis! The proper amount of cals burned per pound of muscle is at most 6 cals! Get your facts straight and think of the obvious!
Actually, Brett, I get my facts from a few obvious experts, but I’ll quote only one here. David Zinczenko of Men’sHealth states in his popular book, The Abs Diet For Women, “Remember that adding just 1 pound of muscle will force your body to burn up to an additional 50 calories a day, every day.” According to him, my number is low, not high. This is why so many experts stress the importance of a high protein, high calorie, diet when strength training to lose weight, which is a main focus of my website. And they encourage six small meals per day.
Yes, I know that recent studies are saying 1 pound of muscle burns only 6 calories per day, while past studies indicated 35-50 calories. My experience has shown the higher number to be true. I believe some people do only burn 6 calories per pound of muscle per day … those being people who do lightweight strength training and those who do not understand the concept of feeding the muscle to burn the fat. Once a person has an understanding of this concept, they can understand why extreme athletes such as Michael Phelps consume 12,000 calories a day but still maintain a low amount of body fat.
As an added example, think of Mikey on the current Biggest Loser series. While gaining lots of muscle, he wasn’t losing fat, or losing weight. His trainer, Bob, told him to increase his calorie intake. After he started eating more, he started showing a big increase in weight loss. No doubt in my mind he went from burning 6 calories per pound to burning nearly 50 calories per pound simply by increasing his calorie intake with the proper foods.
I still find it incredibly hard to believe. Michael Phelps eats around 12,000 cals a day because he swims at least 6hrs, and weight trains. Swimming alone can burn many many cals. He probably burns close to that much alone just from swimming since it is one of the best, if not THE best exercise to burn cals. Then you have to incorporate the weight training that he does which will burn cals. I mean if you burn 40 cals per pound of muscle, you are losing for 140 pounds of muscle the total of 5600 cals which is almost 2 pounds of fat a day doing nothing! And we’re not talking water weight here. Just doesn’t add up to me.
As for Mikey, when you eat more, your metabolic rate goes up. You can’t starve yourself or your body will latch on to whatever you put into it. Mikey probably lost more weight because he was gaining more muscle. But that still doesn’t claim 40 cals per pound of muscle.
According to my textbook for my weight training class titled “Weight Training for Life” by James L. Hesson.
“You might use as many as 75 calories per day to support the energy needs of 1 pound of muscle tissue. You might use as few as 3 calories per day to support the energy needs of 1 pound of fat tissue.”
I find it highly improbable that Brett’s facts are correct.
Do you people understand that if you’re seriously burning 45+ cals per pound of muscle a day that would total for person with JUST 130 pounds of muscle 5,850 CALORIES!!!! That’s if you layed in bed all day for 24 hours!! That’s not even including the amount of calories you’re burning doing everyday things. You’re basically saying you don’t have to exercise and can sit in bed all day eat food and still lose weight. The average person doesn’t even eat 2,000 calories a day!! For every 3,500 calories lost = 1 pound…. That means if you ate 2,000 calories a day and didn’t exercise at all, you would lose a pound a day!!! You need to grab onto reality and face the facts….. 5-10 cals per pound of muscle is the norm!!! Stop making reasons to not exercise!!
Oh my gosh, Brett! Did you really mean to tell me to, “Stop making reasons to not exercise!!”? You obviously are not reading my posts. I exercise to the extreme for 2 or more hours six days a week, I have a very low BMI, and I consume a LOT of calories. I bench press, I box, I do high-impact cardio, etc., etc. I in no way imply that a person does not need to exercise to burn fat. Exercising is needed to build the muscle. While it is not necessary to work out as hard as I do, a person sitting in bed all day doing nothing but eating food will not have muscle to burn the calories … probably not even 5-10 calories as you suggest. Surely, you don’t really think that is what I said. This blog is to encourage exercising, not discourage it.
Please feel free to share with us your exercise routine, your BMI, and the amount of calories you consume on a daily basis. I love to hear what is working for others.
I have to agree with Brett just on the simple logic of this as far as the calculation go.
Take a 10 stone woman 5foot 9 inches tall (me). Info says the human body is 50-60% muscle. Let’s say 40% just cover every variable. 10 stone = 140 pounds - 40% f 140 pounds to arrive at how much muscle I have = 56 pounds of muscle.
Jason’s ascertion that you need 75 calories per pound means that, at rest, I would burn 56 (pound of muscle) x 75 (calories per pound of muscle to support it)
56×75=4200 calories at rest per day– ridiculous.
I can’t even eat 2000 a day without a gradual weight gain.
Julie’s ascertion that you burn 40 calories per pound of muscle is still ludicrous
56 x 40= 2240
As stated I have a gradual weight gain at 2000 calories per day let alone more. And this does not take into account ANY activity as the Basal Metabolic Rate is calculated on no activity.
Please do not post another meaningless explanation. Do the calculations yourself with a calculator, it does not add up no matter what expert you quote, or what book they wrote. It does not add up in real life.
Muscle burns more calories depending on how active it is and how much it has been worked. Of course all of our muscles aren’t going to be burning the same amount of calories.
The quote I used mentions nothing of muscle “at rest”. The cited textbook study has more credibility than your anecdote, so I’ll stick with the expert opinion for now.
Hey, Deb! Thanks for sharing your calculations. But I’m afraid it’s not yet enough to convince me that you are right and the experts are wrong. There certainly is room for debate on this issue. However, if you think my explanations are meaningless, then please move on to another blog. Asking me not to post on my own fitness blog is a little ludicrous itself, don’t ya think?
Well Jason,
All calculations are done at BMR- at rest. This is where your metabolism is measured, otherwise how could you compare an office worker to an athlete. You can’t, that is why it is calculated at BMR. If you knew what you were talking about you would know this simple truth.
Julie,
Yes indeed but then the info should be accurate. I will just let your readers decide if they can eat well above 2000 calories a day doing nothing and not have a weight gain, whether gradual or immediate.
Don’t get me wrong, lifting weights is excellent for weight loss and general overall health, I have done it and can attest to it, however, if you take the info in this blog to be true, and you add additional activites into your day like housework, cooking, activity at employment, social sport, walking to the store for milk, washing the car etc, then you should be able to consume 4000 plus calories per day without fear of gaining weight. We all know this is ridiculous, and really Julie, I don’t think you are familiar with what we are talking about here or you would see it as Brett and I have. I really don’t think you have ever calculated calories or embarked on a regimented physical exercise routine otherwise your statements would also seem ludicrous to you. Most people reading this blog would have been there done that as far as diets etc go, and they themselves will see your info for what it is.
I asked you not to post a meaningless comment, not not to comment on your own blog. There is a difference.
Thanks
Thanks for you input, Jason!
Perhaps the line in my post, “… even while you are relaxing”, is causing some readers to think that a large amount of calories can be burned simply by resting.
It’s true that muscle will still be burning calories during rest, but that doesn’t mean all you have to do is rest. You still have to be active and building muscle. During rest is when the muscles are healing. It is believed by many that the muscle healing process is what burns so many calories.
Again, Deb, I never implied that a person can eat 2000 calories a day, do nothing, and not have a weight gain. And while daily chores can be a great exercise, it’s not quite the same as lifting weights.
At least we agree on one important fact … “lifting weights is excellent for weight loss and general overall health.” And we can both attest to that.
Sorry Julie
You are implying just that. You are stating that for every pound of muscle you possess you will burn 40 calories- Jason says 75 calories for each pound of muscle. Extreme body builders and athletes may burn excessive calories due to their extreme proportion of muscle, but this blog is not intended for those people, so the info is misleading
Deb,
I don’t know how the assertion can be made that BMR is the baseline for all studies when calculating calories burned by muscle. After all, muscle does have to repair itself after an intensive workout and ignoring those calorie expenditures seems counterproductive.
I am burning calories reading this argument! Awesome stuff. Keep it up.
Addie
Engage your brain, it is completely obvious that Brett and Deb are correct, they even provide numerical examples. There is absolutely no way that carrying 1 extra pound of muscle burns 120 extra calories per day, just think what you are saying for one second instead of parrotting snippets from health magazines. I carry about 40 lbs of extra muscle gained from weight training, but I guarantee you that I don’t consume or require anywhere near 4800 extra calories as a result. 4800 calories!! Are you serious?!?
At best you have misunderstood whatever pseudo-science you’ve read, presumably Men’s Health mean calories burned during exercise to build and maintain the additional muscle, in which case you are double counting. Plus, muscle becomes less efficient the heavier it is loaded so (for example) a powerlifter will have MUCH higher requirements to build additional muscle than a typical woman. It’s completely meaningless to talk about ‘x calories per 1lb of muscle’ and apply that to everyone.
LOL…man how much calories do someone burn from laughing because all of yall are so hilarious…but Im not no expert in weight loss or anything in that nature but I can somewhat see how 3lbs of muscle burns 120 calories can be misleading…..lol it just doesn’t sound right ….but hey you all are the experts…but the argument is funny…lol
@ ED209,
My post indicates 40 calories per pound of muscle. Still arguable, yes. But not quite so much as 120. Please re-read.
Dnice, you are right. This has gotten to be quite funny.
Julie, instead of parroting info you have read, like ED209 has already stated, why don’t you get out a calculator, calculate your % of muscle and then calculate how many calories YOU can consume, by your assumptions above, then post those calculations here for all of us to see. This exercise alone should put it all in perspective.
I lift weights, and count every single calorie that goes into my mouth, and I can tell you your figures are wrong. The other info you quote such as frequent small meals, up the calorie intake, add more protein are all true and commonsense, but giving people false hope and false info about what to expect when embarking on a weight training program will only turn them away because they will not get the results you are promising.
This is what is bad for the fitness industry.
That is a good idea, Deb. This post left too many loose ends and I need to explain it a little further. I will write about calculations using my own measurements as an example. It would be best to do so in a separate post rather than to try to squeeze it into the comments section here. I will do so very soon. Please consider subscribing to my blog so you can be notified when it is written, or check back later.
8 to 10 burnt calories are not bad especially if you are doing it correctly. Want that printable journal badly. Thanks for the link.
I’m extremely confused on why my last post is not on here? Hmm, could it be that Julie finally realizes she was wrong?
Brett, your last comment was deleted because it started out with “this ludicrous blog”. Friendly arguments are welcome, but crude comments are unnecessary and will be deleted.
julie can you remove the crude comments from bett’s post and put it back up? I’m interested to see what he said. He seems to speak the language of common sense which happens to my language of choice.
I wanted to make a comment. I’ve been a body builder for about a year and 1/2 now… I’m 5′8″ and about 192 lbls now and 18% body fat… when I started I was 145 lbls and 14% body fat. I very rarely if ever do any cardio because my goal was to gain weight and I didn’t want to lose any weight while bulking up. I lift weights about 5 times a week and I lift heavy. Now for a year and a half I have been consuming around 3500 - 4000 calories per day consisting of mostly meat and vegetables, and weight gainer powder/whey protein and while my muscle mass has increase considerably so has my body fat%. Now do you think adding additional calories would cause me to lose weight??? I don’t think so. I’m gaining weight with far less calories… eating more would not cause me to lose weight it would just increase my body fat% because the body will either use the energy(carbs) or convert it to fat and if you’re eating overy 5000 or 6000 calories per day you will be storing a bunch of that as fat guranteed. (not to mention the time it would take to consume that much per day… you’d be eating pretty much non stop). I’m already storing plenty of fat with a far less daily caloric intake.
Hi, Rob,
In Brett’s deleted post, he had just stopped by to put down me and my blog and tell me I must be admitting I was wrong because I hadn’t written anything more. He didn’t provide any information whatsoever. However, I have left all his previous shared thoughts on this topic above. I do appreciate you stating your thoughts so politely. I can certainly understand people’s disagreement on this subject, but I don’t quite understand the hatred over this post.
Anyway, Rob, you didn’t state your weight in muscle. But since you are weight training five days a week, I am sure it is high. I am a big believer that cardio and strength training go hand-in-hand for burning fat. You say you skip the cardio because you want to gain weight, yet some of your weight gain is due to body fat gain. That’s certainly not the way a bodybuilder wants to gain weight. I think adding cardio to your weight training will help and, yes, I think consuming lots of calories helps too. But more importantly, I think you are weight training too much. Now, I’m a woman, but I think this applies to men as well. You need a day of rest between each weight lifting workout. Have you considered cutting back to 4 or 3 days a week and doing cardio on the other days? This would give your muscles time to heal, and it is during the healing process that many experts claim the muscles will burn the fat.
Rob, I lift weights too. I bench press (heavy) three times a week (plus other weights), I do cardio 5 days a week, and I eat lots. The way I do my cardio, I am still strength training, but I am working different muscles. I get up at 5:30 a.m., drink a Verve energy shot, and attend a bootcamp cardio kickboxing class. I come home and have a high caloric whey protein drink. Then, 3 days a week, I lift weights. Around 9:30 a.m., I eat a fairly large breakfast of eggs, ham, toast, juice, and coffee. I love breakfast! Around noon, I eat a good sized lunch. Around 2:00 I’m snacking on anything from almonds and whey to cookies (not a good idea!) to ice cream. Around 6:00, I’m having dinner with my family, and then around 9:00 I’m having another whey protein drink with almonds or cookies (yikes, again!). If you are counting, that’s 7 meals (some small, some large) a day while some strength training experts say we should eat at least 6 meals. I consume lots of calories. And while I try to make them healthy calories, I admit to having an addiction to sugar and going overboard on sweets. I have been strength training for 3 years now, and I’ve gone from 26% body fat to 13%, which I feel is a good stopping place for me.
I think you really should consider giving your muscles a day to heal between workouts and doing cardio on those days instead. Perhaps try it for a while and see if it helps.
Julie,
You have yet to post any statistics. You keep shying away from putting any numbers up. I spilled the facts, and it seems your avoiding them because the numbers don’t lie. 5-10 cals burned per pound of body is the norm. Unless you can post statisics otherwise where it makes sense, I’m completely right and you’re not.
I apologize, Brett, for not posting on this topic yet, or any topic recently for that matter. But I promise, I will get back on track with this blog.
In the meantime, just to show that I am not alone in my thinking, here is a link which Google alerted me to yesterday:
http://www.extreme-fitness-now.com/weight-training-for-women.html
Brett may be right but i have to say he seems like a tosser.
I just came across this discussion in my links referencer, Thanks Julie for suggesting my site.
Can I just make a note that your whole body is not made of muscle, but rather water, viscceral components, skeleton, ligaments, muscle, etc. 60-70% of your body weight is water.
So for a 120lb person, about 80lbs of their body weight is water. That leaves 40lbs left. If all of that were 100% muscle, which it isn’t, then someone would be burning 1200-2000 calories a day in muscle given 30-50 calories burned per pound of muscle.
Doesn’t seem too outrangeous to me.
Oh boy…I did all these wonderful calculations and I think my web froze, so I appologize if this is a duplicate. Julie I am sure you will take care of that.
So I am trying to find some official scientific papers on this subject, but it’s really hard to find these types of references on the web. May have to try at work.
Anywho, so I decided to do some calculations:
For my 145lb frame, I would have a sedentary metabolic rate of 1800 calories/day to maintain my weight. So let’s get rid of the water weight:
145*0.70 = 101.5leaving 43.5lbs left over. Ok ,so how many of you think a truly sedentary person has 43.5lbs of muscle on them? Just food for thought….
1800/43.5 = 41.37 calories per lb
Looks good, but science has shown that about 60% of the calories we eat go towards digestion and regular cell functions in the body. So…
1800*0.60 = 1080 leaving 720 calories to be burned by our muscles:
720/43.5= 16.55 calories per lb
Back to my original arguement. This extra weight is not 100% muscle, it encompasses some fat as well as intestinal waste, and other protein components (hair, nails) etc. So let’s say that our COMPLETELY sedentary person has about half that weight in muscle. I saw someone used 2 calories per pound for fat so let’s use that.
720 = (2*21.75) + 21.75n
n = 31.10 calories per lb
Of course these calculations are completely hypothetical, but they argue a better case. I think between around 30 calories might be closer to the truth. But if you have a very high metabolic rate, it could be more, if you have a very slow metabolism it could be less.
But if anyone find some great scientific articles, please send them my way.
Lauren
Thanks, Lauren!
To figure out your body mass, you take your body fat % and subract it from your body weight.
I weigh 180 pounds, my body fat percentage is 10%, meaning I have 18 pounds of fat on my body.
Take that 18 pounds of fat from my 180 pound frame = 162 pounds of mass.
I have 162 pounds of muscle meaning from your calculations I would be burning 162×30cals = A ridiculous 4,860 cals a day from muscle!
Your calculations don’t add up. I mean seriously I don’t know how to make this any clearer to you guys. And the whole water weight thing doesn’t even add up.
But as I said before, sure 18 pounds is fat but 162lbs is not fat.
The human skeleton weights about 20lbs, that’s not muscle. Your liver takes up about 2/3 of you body cavity below the diaphragm. Your liver is not muscle, neither are you lungs, brain, nervous tissues, etc. And I said 60-70% of your body weight is water.
So yes 162lbs IS NOT FAT, but that does not mean 162 IS ALL MUSCLE.
So 18lbs fat.
162×0.60= about 97lbs water = 97+18, leaves about 47 lbs to be other things. Not all of that 47lbs will be muscle. That still does not count for tissue mass, and bone mass (water weight already excluded).
Still 47*30 = 1410 calories. Still looking pretty good to me.
Sorry Brett I missed the water weight arguement at the end there.
Imagine you suck out all the water in your body. Your brain is 80% water, your cells are about 60-70% water, your muscle is 70-80%, etc. This of course depends on your body’s hydration levels.
Now, all you are left with is shrivelled, dried up organs, nervous tissue, bone and other protein and cell matter. I don’t know if you have ever eaten freeze dried astronaut food, but that’s what your are left over with after water is accounted for. Freeze dried ice cream weighs a hell of a lot less than hydrated ice cream.
I work with tissues that have been dehydrated, snap frozen in liquid nitrogen, air dried, heck I’ve even dug up 1000 year old bones completely devoid of water (I was an archaeologist before a research scientist).
If you have not had any experience with tissue devoid of water, it is a hard concept to understand. Just go to the grocery store and look at a bag of beef jerkey. Then, find a nice 1lb steak and compare it to the bag of jerkey. I think you’ll see the water arguement fairly quickly.
I am going to just put it out there, but Lauren just smashed you with your calculations and facts there Brett. I laughed for a while when you tried to convince us that simply doing the calculation of body weight minus bodyfat = muscle on body. Are you one of those guys that jumps on the scales and if you weigh 2kg more, you instantly assume that it is 2kg of lean muscle put on? Julie has been correct in her calculations and information from the very start.
I would almost go as far as saying that you should apologise to Julie, but I am sure you are too stubborn to do that.
Good blog Julie.
Thanks, Ben!
To BRETT:
I played Division 1 college football for 5 years (1 year redshirted) and was a three-year starter at cornerback. I spent thousands of hours in the weight room lifting and on the field and the track doing extremely strenuous running and plyometric speed training. There is not a chance that a 5′9″ , 180 lb person (me, for example) has 140 lbs. of muscle on his frame. I graduated last year, and still maintain about 5% body fat (I was measured 3 months ago). There is no way, not even a chance, that you know what you are talking about. Even someone like me only burns about 2000-2500 calories at rest. You should probably leave it to the experts on this one, and people who actually have made a career off of this stuff.
Keep educating people Julie!
Thanks, Matt! It’s always great to hear from a pro.
Yes Brett, you have made an error in subtracting your body fat from your weight and assumed the rest in muscle. However, I did not make this mistake in one of my previous posts, and the calculations still do not bear out.
Don’t believe everything you read eg. some places tell you that your body is composed of 80% water. If you figure in bone weight- ligaments, fibre, skin, etc, etc- it doesn’t leave much for muscle.
Find some reliable information regarding the percentage of muscle in the human body, THEN do your calculations.
And then you should post your calculations here Julie- to re-enforce your assertions.
WOW!
I just stumbled in here and read the original blog and all comments. I must say, this was an awesome debate and one that started in January and still seems to be spinning … lmao!
Brett, you got owned!
I was looking for how many calories per upper body workout, didn’t find that, but I did enjoy your comments!
Oh me oh my, how I enjoyed reading this whilst I should be doing work! My particular favorite was Deb, I love how she jumped on Brett’s shaky bandwagon then when Lauren explained that some of us had brains etc she turned on him, making out he was wrogn all along and in fact everyone was wrong apart from her! Oh how I laughed!
I think i lie on the side of science with this debate. However, I think i would like to add an obvious point that a pound of weight gained whilst weight training, (by the same argument) is not all muscle and therefore one pound of weight added whilst training (even if it is lean muscle) may not equal 40 calories a day.
Just my 2 pence worth!
I might add it does clearly say 120 calories per 3 pounds of MUSCLE but this could be missleading as a pound of weight gained will not be intirely muscle!
Great post and nice discussion on this topic. Thanks for the information.
To know more about how to lose fat with weight lifting, you may also want to read the article in this site.
http://worldfitnessnetwork.com/2009/04/fat-burning-weight-training/
I stumbled across this blog and got a nice laugh out of Brett, I see that he has not posted since Lauren set him straight. Good job. Anyways I found a calculation that some folks might be interested in. This does not take into concideration BMI. Anyways it is a good guideline for how many calories your body will burn at rest, therefore it is a guideline as to how many calories you must consume in a day. If you underconsume, your body will go into “starvation mode” and will hold onto everything it can get. Weight is in pounds and height is in inches.
655+(4.3xweight)+(4.7xheight)-(4.7x age) = calories
so a 140 lbs 5.8 foot 25 yr old would need to consume 1469 calories per day to fully fuel the body at rest.
Thanks, Jodi!
Hahahahahahahaha Brett got
DESTROYED. I love how he doesn’t even come back to apologize for his ignorance
Great debate guys.. like how Brett tried to fight the words of experts, and in the end getting set straight by Lauren.. gj guys… very helpful
Brett is right, you people that believe these “experts” without doing your own research are probably the same people that believe everything you hear on the 10:00 news. While I’m not going to debate with anyone here, I have always thought that the people that were so hardcore believers in muscle burns some crazy amount of calories per pound are weight lifters that don’t like to run or do aerobic exercise that you have to actually push yourself. I can go into a gym and lay on the bench, do my 6 sets of chest while taking 30sec to a min. in between, move on to biceps, etc. How some people believe that doing that burns the same amount of calories that running 5-8 mph is beyond me. I bet you people are the same ones that believe walking burns more body fat that running because “experts” say so. Let’s see what these “experts” say next!
Hey Randy,
I just wanted to chime in on what your saying. I completely agree with checking your sources. You cannot believe everything you hear on the 10 o’clock news.
In light of you cardiovascular comment, if you want to be fit you have to do cardio as well. I try to run every other day. I actually had to do quite a lot of cradio to complete my sprint Triathlon in July.
Do not assume that because someone has a lot of muscle and lifts weights means they ignore the treadmill. Cardiovascular exercises is definitely your best bet at burning calories and losing weight when combined with a balanced diet.
Actually, most professional body builders are known to perform 2 sessions of cardio a day to burn off extra fat from their bodies.
This was a very interesting read. At first glance it did seem that Brett and Deb were on to something without taking into consideration that Body Mass does not equal only Muscle Mass. Lauren came to the rescue on that one. It was nice to get some information to accurately discern the ballpark of what your actual muscle mass may be.
I did want to comment on the statement about over training if doing more than 3 strength training days per week and about muscle needing a day of rest between workouts:
Julie, you mention than you bench press 3 times a week. In this case, yes doing any more would be over training and you do need to rest the same muscle group for a day between workouts. However, most people will perform strength training for each body part only once per week so strength training for 5 days a week would not constitute over training since different body parts are getting worked every day. If I tried to fit in a second workout for every body part I would be in serious over training mode! I just wanted to make that distinction for people reading the posts.
Thanks for your comment, Logan. You are correct that a person could work different muscle groups five days a week as opposed to all muscle groups three days a week without going into over training mode. Thanks for pointing that out. However, if I’m reading the last sentence of your comment correctly, you are saying that a second workout of each muscle group in the same week would be over training. I disagree with that statement as you would only be working each muscle group once a week thereby allowing an entire week of rest. While working each muscle group once a week is fine, I find that it is far from going over board.
In general I agree with you regarding a workout for a body part twice in a week not leading to over training. It would lead to over training for me as the first workout is extremely intense and the accumulation of 1 hour lifting weights combined with 1 hour of doing cardio 5 days a week would just be too taxing… Eventually I would psychologically dread going to the gym instead of loving it. I am constantly sore and recuperating
Wow this was great reading lol. First off in response to the post by Rob on May 21st there is no way you went from 145lbs 14 % body fat to 192lbs 18 % body fat and assume that is all muscle gain. That would be roughly 32.5 lbs of muscle in a year and a half which is not possible (most adult men can only gain upwards of 10-15 lbs of muscle MAXIMUM based on body frame….Shaq may be more). This goes into why Julie has been right all along. As Lauren pointed out high % of human composition are things other than fat and muscle (Lauren owned Brett and Deb). In effect every lb of true muscle takes on average 4 lbs of water to support it. So if Julie say sgaining 3 lbs of muscle (and means true muscle) that would be 12 lbs of water dedicated to the support of the muscle in the body. Adding essentially 15 lbs (3 of muscle, 12 of water) could easily add 120 extra calories being burned a day. This makes both your calculations somewhat correct (Julie actually correct Deb and Brett ignoring water weight associated with muscle mass), 3 lbs of muscle burning 120 calories is 40 calories per pound of muscle. If you are counting the gain of water weight and muscle together than 15 lbs (3 of muscle and 12 of water) burns 120 calories that equals 12.5 calories each (although the water doesn’t burn anything). This is also ignoring the fact that fat will either be outright burned or converted into muscle during this muscle/water gain (each lb of fat requires much less water in the body). I also appreciated Caroline’s post…I too should be doing work and was fascinated how Deb went from being in the fox hole with Brett to throwing him under the bus. Its been fun lol.
BTW that 10-15lbs of gained muscle maximum is based on a year to year and a half of lifting not maximum based on infinite time. Also the 12.5 calories each is for lbs inculding the lbs of mucle and water weight.
This is all conjecture.
The best way to figure out how many calories you are burning is to have resting metabolic rate tested clinically. It varies from person to person.
As I understand it, cardio, muscle mass, endocrine functioning, (and probably more variables) contribute to an overall picture that can’t really be reduced to X lbs of muscles = X calories or X minutes of endurance training = X calories.
Given that, an empirical approach seems wisest: measure what works and ride with the body’s patterns rather than trying to find a totally external predictive formula.
Chris, I enjoyed your post. The only clarification I wanted to make is that fat cannot be converted into muscle. Only fat can be lost and muscle can be grown to obtain this result as a fat cell does not ever become a muscle cell. This may not have been what you meant, and I may be taking it too literally
Barbara, I agree with your post as well. Calculating BMR is only good as a general starting point, and then the rest is in your hands for seeing what works and tweaking it to make improvements to keep your progress moving forward.
Hi to all the ppl reading these post I my self believe that the amount of calories burned per pound fluxuate between 6-50 depending on what you are doing at the time
Oh….seems Brett has disappeared, could he be feeling, well, foolish now.
Well I hope weight lifting does work. I am lifting everyday but different muscle groups giving my other muscles time to recover. 3lbs of muscle makes ur body burn an extra 120 calories that is awesome as long as I dont eat more lol.
You said for every 3 pounds of muscle you ADD your body burns an additonal 120 calories to maintain it. Homeboy (Brett) doesn’t know how to listen. He’s smart but he’s speaking about other research.
Thank you to all contributors to this…as i read i try to sift through the nonsense and pick out the facts, i think i have to side with julie and lauren, as obviously stated, stated, and restated, we need to see that there is a lot less muscle then what is usually concieved to be, and again thank you.
This is too the Brett guy who obviously doesnt know anything about fitness and strength training. You actually do burn 40 to 50 calories per pound of muscle. I am a trainer and have trained at L.A. Fitness, Anytime Fitness, Neo Limits, the YMCA, and Cardinal Fitness. I also train in ufc. You should probably get your facts straight before you make yourself look like an idiot in front of the whole world!!!!! Caloric isnt even associated with fitness. Its associated with history!!!!!!!
The credentials that would matter here are not being a trainer or “history.” The credentials that need to weigh in (and probably are too busy with real work to do so) would be that of an exercise physiologist or other scientist.
I’ll admit that I didn’t calculate bone structure/organ weight/skin etc., etc.,. But your calculations are still just foolishness and ILLOGICAL. You’re saying that someone with a modest 40 pounds of muscle on their body burns 1600 cals a day? So, you’re saying that person burns 10,200 cals a week?
Lets do the math. Daily diet at 2,000 cals a day. 500 cals less a day would equal to 3500 a week. Which in turn, would be a 1 pound loss for the week. Your saying with your idiotic post that someone is burning close 2 POUNDS every 2.5 days without exercising!! Your math is still completely illogical!!!!!
Put aside all the scientific research for a moment. Here’s the hard cold facts America. We’re fat! Cardio, weights, a long walk in the country - for crying out loud, turn the TV off and do SOMETHING.(and yes, I’m parked behind the computer, but I just finished my hour and half jog through the countryside) While I read these blogs closely and have to side with Julie, the thrust of this article was this… weight training is a good idea and effective in a weight loss plan. PLAN folks!!! That means a little of each type of exercise, spread out over a specific period of time, to achieve measurable goals. To those who thought they knew so much better than poor Julie, write your own blogs and stop trying to make fools of those who have already been there and got the T-Shirt. Although, their arguments did ultimately work in your favor Julie. Enjoyed this little blog.
Thanks, Firefighter Dave!
I was wondering when people were going to realize that Brett was a fool and that subtracting fat from body weight doesn’t equal muscle.
I get the feeling that Brett is one of those guys that goes around the gym doing bench presses and bicep curls for hours, drops all his weights on the floor so others can pick them up for him and spends the majority of his time looking at himself in the mirror to see his super beautiful sexy arm muscles all the time. lol.
This was really, really funny.
Thank you all for brightening my day with absurdity, good science, and the eventual descent into carpe diem.
Um….. Sorry to bust your little bubble Barbara, but im pretty sure my college professors knew what they were talking about. I have a Bachelors in Sports Med. Im now taking classes for my masters so im pretty sure i qualify to speak of what I know. How do you think we learn? Scientists figure these things out then wonderful people such as teachers and professors teach them to their students. I really feel like people who don’t have an idea what they are talking about should not speak. Wow.
Sherman - you just invoked a logical fallacy “appeal to authority.”
Not only do not all college professors (in any subject) know what they’re talking about, but many, many accurate teachings degrade as they make their way into the field, just like the old telephone game.
That’s not an assault on anybody’s intelligence or integrity. That’s just what happens.
Brett is right, don’t take my word for it, here are some links which speak to this end.
http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/cals.htm
http://exercise.about.com/od/exerciseworkouts/f/muscle.htm
http://bodybuilding.about.com/b/2006/05/23/how-many-calories-does-a-pound-of-muscle-burn.htm
Unfortunately, in the search for better health, the demand has made it a business. It is not uncommon for scientists to overstate their findings, or even to stack the deck towards a certain end. This helps products sell, when people think they are going to get a much better gain from them, than they really will.
Not here to argue, could care less about it, but the information is out there for those who want to see it.
I am glad to see people so excited about getting shape, but arguing about who is right and wrong isn’t very effectual. Let us all agree that we will burn more calories by excercising and weight lifting then by sitting on the couch.
Good blog Julie…you must have been upset there for awhile while you were under attack but any debate is a good thing and look how many people read the enitre string of comments! Well I have to admit I skipped a handful of them looking for the next brett post to see if he would back down.
So I think it’s clear to everyone that brett made a very very large mistake in his calculations. I kept thinking what person have I ever seen has 140lbs of muscle! Anyway brett being very wrong does not mean everyone that fought with brett is right.
Lauren clearly was the voice of reason and the person to shed light on the subject but I think she was just as wrong as brett. I mean I understand the body is largely made up of water but those calculations were not correct. Subtracting water is correct but it appears she may have forgot to add it back to the weight of the muscle. I don’t think Julie meant for every 1lbs of muscle after its been dried out in the sun for 10 days would burn 50 calories. It’s good to subtract water so we know what is NOT muscle and thus calculate what % of the body is muscle but then the muscle has to get its water back.
I thnk the facts will show that although every body is different… 1lbs of muscle does not burn as much as this article states. In fact, I only read the comments to see if someone raised the issue. T
here’s a very good chance that I’ve missed something and I don’t “get it” but if I’m wrong I’m wrong…what’s so bad about that…everyone on this blog should take a deep breath and realize that an attack on your calulations and accuracy isn’t an attack on you as a person.
Happy lifting!
honestly toward brett, please just get off of here because you just making yourself look like more of a fool. Apparently you do not understand how to do simple math and just because its not logical does not mean it is not true. I side with Julie because she has the evidence and proof, you just have words that have nothing backing it up.
Late post here, but Brett- as for your last post, you’re 100% correct in that you would lose 2 lbs/week with those numbers. Is this unreasonable? No of course not. And in fact it’s healthy to lose 2lbs per week. Now you would do this by increasing your calorie needs (building muscle??) and dieting. I don’t think you realize how many calories you actually consume. A burrito from Chipotle? 960 calories. Medium Fry from mcdonald’s? 420 Calories. That can of coke you just drank? It’s either 140 or 220, I don’t remember off the top of my head. I just added up my calories today and I was at 1700 by lunch (breakfast, protein shake, and burrito… muscle foodish
When I was in the military I was at ~6,000 cal/day when I was in the field training, as well as the duration of my stay in Iraq. They talk about the Sled Riders of the Iditarod races eating 14,000 calories daily! Talk about time consuming. Lather that 36 oz steak up with butter, please.
And also, you would realize all of these things to be true if you actually worked out to lose weight and build muscle. I have had months where I consistently woke up every night because I was so darn hungry since I was at ~3500 calories (14% body fat at 180 lbs).
In conclusion, I have heard numbers from other sources ranging from 25-50 calories/pound of muscle. Great post. So very entertaining.
I’m super late on this convo but i hope people still read it.
I have been working out for nearly two years now, and here lately ive become curious about my workouts and the amount of calories i burn since ive started my new work out last week. I am now weight lifting, swimming, and running altogther 5 days a week trying my hardest to burn my belly fat so that my abs can show with out me having to stretch the fat down. lol. Any advice please post.
Anyways i wanted to add my two cents on the issue from many months ago.
Let’s start with the 6cal/ lb of lean muscle. I believe a person who doesn’t want to get all scientifical can use this number as a rule of thumb and i’ll prove it with my #’s and with the scientific perspective as well.
Ok, for the unscientifical people, i weigh average 143 lbs and about 8% body fat. That means abt 131.5 lbs is “muscle” weight (notice the quotes”. So at 6calories burned per pound of muscle my body burns abt 790 cals a day on its own not counting my workouts.
Now, scientifically speaking, i weigh abt 143 lbs and 60-70% is water. Lets use the middle percentage for the best end result, so 65%. Therefore, the matter that is not water would be about 50 lbs. Someone stated the average skeletol structure is about 20 lbs, so of the 50 lbs theres 30lbs left. Now after bones and water weight are subtracted we are left with the pure “dried up” organs, fat and other matter. Lets say fat is also 65% water (this can be debated as i have no idea how much it really is). This means that the 8% body fat i had stated before would not really be 11.44 lbs but instead 4 lbs. This plus 10 lbs of all the other matter that has remained (not including the muscle) will leave an approximation of 30 minus 14 equalling 16 lbs of pure muscle tissue. Using the scientific number of 50 calories burned per pound of muscle would mean( 16 times 50) i burn 800 calories a day on a normal basis.
I hope i havnt lost everybody yet. Lets sum all of this up. The rule of thumb i stated before gave a result of 789 cal/day. Scientific process gave 800 cals/day. These numbers are pretty dang close.
I just wanted to get that off my chest. I wouldnt mind carrying on the convo more. Thanks for the time.
Gabe
Sorry to tell ya,
But Brett was right… Each pound of muscle only burns about 5 or 6 calories each day… I work out to the extreme for about 5 hours a day… I run for about 4 hours and lift weight for about an hours… I’ve researched so many things on burning calories it’s unbelievable… And Brett’s right.
Thanks for your input, Kevin. You don’t provide much information to support your research. But how can I argue with someone who does a hardcore workout 10 hours each day.
Don’t forget though, among your research, to study about the importance of allowing 48 hours between strength training workouts to allow your muscles time to heal. The healing time is the time, most experts claim, when the calories are actually burned.
Hey Kevin,
Listen bro, i wasn’t trying to prove anyone wrong. I was trying to show the credibility of both sides. Muscle burning 50 calories per pound is right when you use the scientific process i demonstrated before. However most people use what i call the rule of thumb, which i admit i use as well, and thats the 6 cal/lb. This number is used when you take your body fat % and subtract it from your total weight and you consider that remaining weight to be all muscle, which any common sense will tell you isn’t true. However, that’s why i consider that calculation a “rule of thumb.” If you still don’t understand what i’m getting at then feel free to continue the convo.
This has been an interesting read and has gone on for over a year!
Changing the subject a little - I am looking for information on burning calories via actual weight lifting (not the metabolism spike later). So, the article says we roughly burn 8-10 calories a minute for weight lifting….can I use my heart rate monitor during weight lifting as an indicator? I have a Polar F6 heart rate monitor.
I have read in some places that heart rate monitors aren’t accurate for weight lifting. Any thoughts on that?
Also, is this 8-10 calories estimate based on circuit weight lifting where it is faster - or slow? Or does it matter?
Thanks for your insights…
In reference to nimbette’s question. No unfortunately you cannot use your heart rate monitor for weight lifting unless you are doing strength circuit training. For strength circuit training you are usually working various muscles at one time and the heart rate monitor will likely get you an accurate calories burned. If you are doing regular strenth training then no it will calculate much higher than you are actually burning. Your heart rate monitor on your heart rate is accurate however it does not know exactly why your heart rate is going up when calculating the calories burned. You are only going to burn a lot of calories when you are working at intensity and using lots of different muscle groups at one time. I hope this makes sense.
Hi Corrine:
That sucks, lol. But, it makes sense. I lift weights and spend 40-60 minutes on it 3-4x a week and would like to know that some calories are being burned..lol. I prefer weight lifting to cardio and am more drawn to it.
Thanks for the info.
A year and a half long debate, epic. :’)
I enjoyed reading it…
And thanks, nice helpful blog.
I think another part of the equation that people are missing is what muscle are they (scientist) targeting. Depending on caloric temperature some muscles generally burn more at rest than others as defined by thermometric scans . I believe it possible that throwing 3 lbs of your higher temperature muscles could produce such results as I am sure some of the scientist have only looked at that part. As all humans are not created neither are all muscles.
So to expand on this look at a macro instead of a micro scale. You are not necessarily going to put all that muscle on in one place.. We are all different genetically and gain/lose differently. However over the years and talking with my trainer I have learned they measure muscle as DRY MUSCLE meaning dehydrated. Its possible to put on what you think 10 lbs of muscle is in a month but in reality you have only probably put on 1. Thats also being lenient with the numbers
Muscles are sponges and it is a ton of water. Its the same reason you see drastic drops and gains with fighters and wrestlers they use that knowledge to make weight. Without that water your muscles would not be half as big as you thought you really had. Perfect example and I call them Supplement man boobs (no offense ladies). Have you ever watched a newbie at the gym whos has all the GNC products he could buy or think of Stacking?? Watch how in a few weeks he gains man boobs (moobs) from the use of creatine, if you dont know it basically helps muscles retain water you get no gains from it outside of lower DOMS. Wait until the guy has not worked out for a few days or used this supplement and basically his chest deflates and hes left with Moobs. What he thought was muscle and an amazing pump was all water.
Both sides of the argument have some sense to them *Brett aside* but Julie is still closer to the facts. However I have wrote way to much and could turn this in itself into a Blog >< So I bid the all good day
I’m a nutritionist, a certified personal trainer and a 3hr marathoner.
I was just doing a little surfing looking for info to share with my clients and I found this very interesting debate. I hope my 2 cents over a year later helps…
If you add 3lbs of muscle you will increase your caloric requirement per day by about 150kcal total. (Julie says 120kcal) That is not to say that you burn 50kcal per pound of muscle. Adding 3 pounds means adding 150kcal to your body’s demand for fuel. Spread that 150kcal over a body with 150lbs of lean muscle, for example, that’s only 1kcal per pound and a 1.5% increase in total caloric demand assuming a 2000kcal diet. These are not astounding or ridiculous claims.
I get the misunderstanding, maybe it could have been presented a little differently but Julie isn’t wrong.
Good blog Julie. I’ll suggest it to my clients. Keep up the good work.