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
147 Responses to “How Many Calories Does Weight Lifting Burn?”
Got something to say?
- Run Like Ellie Goulding
- A Torani Taste Test, Just In Time For The Holidays
- Martina McBride: Raising Awareness For Breast Cancer
- Astaxanthin: A Potent Supplement
- Peggy Fleming: Raising Awareness For Our Heart Health
- A Health Food To Change Your Mood
- 5 Things You Can Do To Lose Weight Faster
- Getting A Whole Body Workout With Sandbags
- Tabata Training Burns Fat Faster
- 5 Easy Core Exercises That Absolutely Work
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.
Digging the spam of “your wrong, im right” going on here. I think that the statistic is right, BUT, misleading. It would seem that 3 pounds of pure muscle is going to give you the said 150cal, but muscle is mainly water so if you have 150 pounds of lean muscle, that might only be 40 actual pounds, the rest would be water which obviously doesnt need energy. So a better calculation would be: (Your muscle weight) x .25 (the actual amount of muscle fiber in a muscle.) x 50kcal. so a super fit 180lb woman might burn 1000kcal from muscle (100lb muscle, so 25 muscle fiber.) That sounds quite reasonable to me. which also means that 12lbs of muscle burns 50kcals more.
Secondly, I think you guys (well girls mainly) are seriously over hyping your own muscle, if someone is 180lbs on here, they do not have 140lbs of muscle, thats BS unless you just so happen to look like Georges St. Pierre.
Julie, I agree with everything you are saying. Remember what Christ said on the cross, forgive them Father for they know not what they do. Forgive them, Julie, for not knowing what they say. I am a 70 year old 200 lb man with 8% body fat. I work each muscle group twice weekly without over training. I will do my small muscle groups in the morning and do my large groups evening. My calorie intake is 4 to 5000 a day. If anything less I will lose weight. I have never in my years of training done any kind of cardio, because of the damage it will do to your body. It will destroy neck and back, and this pain will not go away. Shoulders require surgery, hips surgery. Ask Jane Fonda, you know about knees, ankles, feet, surgery, muscle loss. I have seen at least 20 plus people drop dead from doing cardio. If cardio is good for you explain to me why these people drop dead from a heart attack. Julie, if you use this, please correct my mistakes.
First off - excellent webpage Julie! The fact that there are so many comments posted in your articles is a testament to how interesting and well-read they are!
I actually stumbled across this series of posts doing some endocrine metabolism research, and thought I’d weight in on the calories burned per pound of muscle conversation.
The basal metabolic demand of 1 lb of muscle at rest is 5-8 calories per day. However, remember that muscle growth is in response to physiological stress (i.e. weightlifting). So yes, someone with 20 extra pounds of muscle may only have a BMR 100-160 calories greater than their counterpart at rest, but when they engage in activities (e.g. weightlifting), the difference increases based on work performed (which is correlated to muscle mass). Remember that energy expenditure is proportional to weight lifted - a burly guy benching 200 pounds is burning approximately four times the number of calories as a slender woman benching 50 pounds. Although this is an oversimplification of a complex physiological function, it illustrates a point that I have not seen discussed.
I’m wondering why these things weren’t taken with a grain of salt? So some expert says “You can lose up to 50 (not-activity related) calories a day by building one pound of muscle!” Big deal. They are basically saying “It’s entirely possible that under the correct circumstances that may or may not be ideally situated to mimic your life, actions, and choices that my hypothesis will prove to be true in your life. Or perhaps it won’t be” That’s what “CAN” means! GRAIN OF SALT folks! The figures may be correct for some, but not for everybody. Your body is going to react how it’s going to react, and taking the numbers down of anyone and attempting to apply it to yourself will most likely end up futile. No one does exactly the same things everyday, nor does anyone have the same genetics. DUH! Those facts can be used as a guide, but not law, okay? Deal with it. Folks that were super rude to Julie and others with your calculations and attitudes, whether they were correct or not…Shame on you. Why are you acting like children? Perhaps instead of waiting to see if someone has made a slip up so you can gleefully torture them with your “superior” intellect, you should actually just to go the gym, and maybe release some happiness endorphins.. Sheesh. Get a life already!! Good post Julie, Thanks for at least attempting to help people and also for being so collected and classy despite juvenile and cantankerous commenter attitudes.
[...] push ups are an excellent choice. Aim for three sets of 15 reps. Though some may disagree as you can read here, I still believe weight training increases the amount of calories you [...]
Julie…GREAT Blog…way to stay professional! Glad someone had your back! Brett…not necessary to be a jerk…every one has their beliefs and So-called knowledge but you were rude. YOU OWE profuse apologies to Julie;
Have you ever in your travels seen a calorie counter for lifting weights?
What I mean is that on all the calorie counter websites there is a selection for calories burned during a weightlifting workout and it is lets say 390 calories for 60 minutes. How is that calculated? I would think calories burned would differ from exercise to exercise (bench press vs squats vs curls). Also if I do 5 sets of 5 at a heavy weight vs 5 sets of 10 at a lighter weight I would think the calories would be different as well? Does anyone out there have answers?
After all the weight loss articles, books, & videos I’ve read, this blog (including the arguments in the comments) makes about the most sense. I’m posting quite a bit late, so I’m not sure if anyone will respond, but I have a meager question I would like to ask because all the answers I’ve gotten from sources of questionable reliability make little sense to me. I kinda stopped reading the comments after Rob’s comment on May 21st 2009, so I don’t know if my question has already been answered (or if my question is too off topic). Too many numbers for adolescent brain to handle.
I started working out in the summer [starting with workout videos from my local library, ("The Abs Diet Workout" and Denise Austin) which were not effective] and I guess sort of learned a little from reading even though some books say things that completely different from each other (seeing as I’m in my sophomore year and I’m not taking a Health & Fitness class this year).
My current workout regimen (I change some things every few weeks) is composed of one 40 minute strength training workouts on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday (two different workouts, but I alternate) (no more than 12-15 reps per exercise and 5lb weights), 40 minute cardio workout on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and at least 20-30 minutes of walking each day. Usually around 3 or 4, when I get back from school.
Anyway, I was wondering if (how) age acts as a factor. I’m 15 years old, 5′1″, and about 125lbs. I consume about 1100 calories a day (is that too much or not enough?). Is laziness also a factor? After I’m done working out, I’m usually inactive for the rest of the day. Also, how do I calculate the amount of muscle weight and body fat I have? In Health class my freshman year, we calculated the percentage of body fat using this small machine thingy, but it was optional and I had geometry homework to finish so I didn’t participate. Since I’m younger, does my body burn the minimal amount of calories per minute while exercising?
Its funny how people dont understand the difference of calories burned at rest versus the statistics mentioned in this article as an active muscle… Its not that the figures are misleading, its that you must have a fair understanding of physiology to understand the context, or just know how to read and anaylze. Either way, the details of this article are factual… however general…
Jack Cedar
ACE Cert. Personal Trainer
Most of you guys are forgetting that 1lb of fat is equal to 3500 cals
if an average guy is carrying 20lb of body fat, thats equal to 68,000 cals. Its easy to see how 3lb of muscle can burn 50+ cals a day without losing weight. I think julie is correct.
People here don’t understand that if you are a 70 kg man with heavy bones, less muscle, that stays in bed all day, you wont burn any cals.I have 84 kg, 21 yold, i do powerlifting every day, 6 days a week.As the muscle grows, so does the need to burn cals.I eat 3000 cals per day, 6 meals per day and my body still manage to slowly burn fat.And plus, there are 2 tipe’s of FAT, fat that you can grab(as belly fat) and the fat between muscle..so Julie, Jason are 100% right and committed to Body Health
P.S. For the people saying otherwise, how many cals do you think Ronnie Coleman takes and then burn !?… I thought that to^^
Regards, Alex C.
I agree with Julie on this one. I’ve seen those sites saying otherwise and none of them tells me how much of the body they consider to be muscle, so it seems like they are giving half facts and that makes me think they don’t exactly know what they are talking about or worse just trying to prove this study wrong. All in all just keeping working out we can all agree that doing that will help.
Thanks, Chris. And you have just placed the 100th comment on this post. This is a first for my blog. Whether readers agree or disagree on the topic, I appreciate everyone who chimed in.
I wish it wash as easy as this article says. I mean I would be ripped out of this world. I am 5′9″ 165 lbs I workout 4-5 days a week and 2-3 of those days I workout twice a day. run a mile and a half at 6.5 -7 miles an hour I then run at a 15% incline from a .30 to .50 mile at 4-4.5 mile an hour depending on how worn out I am. I do tgis immediately after my weight lifting routine which consists of 6-8 different weight lifting exercises each workout. Ighost jump rope,shadowbox,or run in place between sets I have around 8 percent body fat but can not lose the ast few pounds very easily and have to almost double my current routine to lose it. if your math is correct then I easily burn 10,000 calories a day but still have trouble losing weihht. seriously get real
I should make a workout blog
pfff, you guys just don’t understand, IF YOUR MUSCLE MASS IS HUGE THEN YOUR BODY BURNS CALS’ AS THIS ARTICLE SAYS !!!!
If you do bodybuilding, do you think your body needs just 2000-3000 cals a day like a normal person?!
Example for dumdum’s : If you give to a Horse 2 kg of food a day, how much food do you give to 20 Horses? 4 kg a day ????
As the muscle mass increases so does the need for cals, you cannot give your body the normal amount of cals per day, when just your Biceps burn 500 cals or more in a day.
And yes, it depends on every person Metabolism, but when you are a 120 kg bodybuilder, trust this article, your body needs energy(cals), when you don’t have what the body needs, then your body starts eating from your muscle tissue…
It’s logic, and if you dont like the article, f’ off and troll somewhere else
Sorry, but any rational thinking person with a little knowledge about the human body and some simple math knows there’s no way each additional pound of muscle burns an extra 40 calories a day.
And Lauren’s argument trying to support such nonsense doesn’t hold water (pun intended). What Lauren, and a few others that think she made such a brilliant argument, fails to realize is that MUSCLE TISSUE is about 75% WATER. So Lauren’s point about the body being composed of about 60% water is correct but doesn’t support what Julie says.
I’m not saying everything Brett says is 100% correct but he certainly has more logic in his argument. So he’s not quite so much the fool as some of you believe. The majority is not always right. Many of you already have in your mind what you want to believe and went looking for whatever would support that belief. That’s why people watch FOX news.
Also, Julie, Men’s Health and other “fitness” magazines are constantly contradicting themselves so that’s not exactly a reliable source.
Unfortunately, the mammalian body is the most efficient machine on the planet. It burns only what it needs and conserves the rest.
Engineers wish they could devise an engine that efficient. The simple math bores out the fact that a pound of muscle would not use 50 calories per day. I am a very active 51 year old male, 6 feet and 172 pounds, %body fat about 12%. If I eat anything more than 2800 calories a day, it starts to go to my waist. I lift weights 4x per week, do intense anaerobic activity (HR 155-172) for 30 minutes in interval form 3X per week and aerobic activity (HR 147) for 30 minutes 2X per week. I also ride my bike to work most days about 3 miles round trip. I ride alot in the warmer months.
First of all, Brett’s math is correct, it’s his methods that are wrong. Skeletal muscle only makes up about 40-ish% of a human body, so 180 pound man would not have 140 lbs of muscle, it’d be closer to 70 lbs.
Second, as your body composition changes, your body’s daily caloric needs will fluxuate also, either compounding, or counteracting any increase in muscle tissue.
And third, Michael Phelps, according to his website, weighs around 165lbs, lets add 10 lbs to be safe and call it 175. At that weight, he would burn roughly 4800 calories a day from 6 hours of intense swimming. Round that up to 5000 calories, and that still (by your numbers) leaves him with a 7000 calorie surplus.
I don’t know how many calories he burns from his weight training, but you don’t exactly need to be Arnold to know that it’s no where near 7000. Even half of that would be generous to the point of absurdity, but hey, I’ll play along. Saying that he burns another 3500 calories from his weight training puts his daily total at 8500 calories burned.
Give him another 2000 off just for going about his daily routine, and that still leaves him taking in an excess 1500 calories per day.
Perhaps now, you would care to take the time to rethink the methods you used to come up with your numbers.
Not all muscles are created equally. It’s true that both a lb of skeletal muscles and a lb of UNtrained muscles only burns approximately 5.7 calories per day. A pound of newly developed trained muscles burns approximately 35 calories per day.
Here is the new research:
Although Bouchard’s mathematical calculations seem to make sense, they definitely do not line up with the classic research studies on this topic. Two well-conceived and well-conducted research studies examined the effects of strength training on muscle development and resting metabolic rate.
One study was conducted by Campbell and his research associates at Tufts University1,and the other study was conducted by Pratley and his research associates at the University of Maryland5.
At Tufts University, the subjects performed progressive resistance exercise three days a week for 12 weeks. Each training session consisted of four standard strength exercises, each of which was performed for three sets of eight to 12 repetitions.
After three months of training, the subjects, on average, added 3.1 pounds of lean (muscle) weight and lost 4.0 pounds of fat weight. As a result, their resting metabolic rate increased by 6.8 %, or approximately 105 calories per day. At face value, this finding would indicate that 1 pound of muscle uses about 35 calories per day at rest (105 calories per day ÷ 3 pounds of muscle = 35 calories per day per pound of muscle).
At the University of Maryland, the subjects performed progressive resistance exercise three days a week for 16 weeks. Each training session consisted of 14 standard strength exercises, most of which were performed for one set of 10 to 15 repetitions.
After four months of training, the subjects, on average, added 3.5 pounds of lean (muscle) weight and lost 4.2 pounds of fat weight. As a result, their resting metabolic rate increased by 7.7%, or approximately 120 calories per day. At face value, this finding would indicate that 1 pound of muscle uses about 34 calories per day at rest (120 calories per day ÷ 3.5 pounds of muscle = 34 calories per day per pound of muscle).
It is interesting to note that, in both of these studies, the same strength-training program that increased lean (muscle) weight by about 3 pounds, likewise increased resting metabolic rate by about 7%.
It is also interesting to note that, in both of these studies, the strength-training programs responsible for these impressive results were relatively basic and brief. The Tufts University subjects performed just 12 sets of exercise per session (three sets of four exercises), and the University of Maryland subjects completed 17 sets of exercise per session (one set of 11 exercises and two sets of three exercises).
These represent essentially 30-minute workouts that are manageable both time-wise and energy-wise for most adults. It is nothing short of remarkable that such modest investments in strength exercise can produce such profound physical outcomes.
Bottom line newly developed muscles gained though weight training burn approximately 35 calories per day, as compared to it’s untrained counterpart which burns 5.7 calories a day.
It is true! Works for me
……… You burn more cals when your muscles are healing.
I know it has been a while sense any one commented but I just want to say that I am a 32yr. old moma of 4(14,12,12,10) girls and now about to try to have one more with my new hubby. I hope to lose about 20 or more pounds in 3mos. with limited time daily to work out. No matter what the cal. burn per muscle is I think the point is too work out and eat right and the weight lose will happen. So no matter who is right or wrong YOU HAVE TO TRY TO LOSE FAT!!!!!! but I THANK YOU for have the post to give someone like me some to help encourage us to work out.
Alright. I gota admit that i was with lauren for awhile there, but when bill reminded us that most weight from muscels would be gone if you took out water, her argument fell apart.
Anybody else wanna take a shot at this?
I think reading this entire blog increased my brain muscle, so another 100 calories burned - yay, or would it be 50 calories taking account water..
What a crazy thread, but it has been fun.
Just found this while googling how many calories do bench pressed burn, this is three years old wow… Anyway great post julie, makes sense to me. I wish Brett would come back, I could sort of half see his argument until he posted that body mass - fat = muscle? Lol that just made me think “what a tool, he clearly knows nothing” I got a good laugh off of him, I do think the calculations are a little confusing though because doesent the muscle include the 80% water? Ie if a pound of physical muscle is gained on the body 80% of that muscle is made up of water but shouldnt that be counted in the pound of muscle when making calculations?
Hi i train hard for about 20 mins 3 to 4 times a week i use the educo gym system i was 27 stones and 80% body fat now i am 20st and only 30% i still have a way to go my goal is 18st and maybe 15 to 20% body fat i lift heavy i can bench nearly 200kg and squat 240kg i was a very sick man hart problems diabetes every thing was wrong i was also on 15 pills a day now i am on 0 just supplement and i feeel great
Ok, first of all its been very fun to be reading all the comments on this blog and so far from what i’ve read sorry julie but it seems like brett is right. There’s only two people that made sense trying to defend julie but Lauren got countered good and the other guy which i forgot who it was didnt fully explain his argument. Now most of the guys on bretts side made good arguments some even provided articles stating he was right and they’ve come with facts and math numbers and websites and all. So bottom line not saying he’s right but so far i think its gone more to bretts side. I don’ see him as a jerk with his arguments i think he just didn’t feel right with those numbers and spoke his mind.
Now with that being said, bottom line is theres too many obese people in this world and we gotta start working out. Whether julie is right or wrong think we can all agree that exercising is important to keep in shape and staying help staying healthy. Theres many health benefits to excersising and you also feel more confident and your more attractive to women and women to men when your in shape. I use to be skinny then i got fat and i was made fun at when i was fat, i was getting called chubby i got what i deserved cause i use to make fun of fat people when i was skinny not in an asshole kinda way but just normal. I’ve always said fatness is a choice if you have no sort of desease to being fat so from there i got motivated and started working out like crazy and lost all those 30 pounds i had gained in 4 months. It was hard work but felt real good when i achieved that. So basically i think we can all agree that exercise is very important, and like i said before fatness is a choice so like Jigsaw says ” Be fat or be in shape, MAKE YOUR CHOICE.”
P.S. Jinzo guy might be on to something
I know everyone is busy arguing on here but I was wondering if I could pick everyone’s brain. I am a 5′3″ 129 lb 19 yr old girl. I started changing the way I eat and exercising 3-6 times a week about 5 months ago. I’ve only lost 14 lbs. 14 lbs in 5 months! I’m so disappointed but I don’t want to give up I have about 10-15 pounds more to lose (115 sounds underweight but keep in mind I am extremely short and small bone structure). I eat a diet of 1200 cals a day consisting of friuts, veggies, whole grains, and protein. I do weights if 15 pounds for legs arms and ab moves followed up with running for 45 mins (burning 430 cals). Please give me further advice if you would like. Thanks
YES PER POUND OF MUSCLE. No one here is 100 percent muscle. there are bones and fat and organs. your body is only a percentage muscle which makes the experts correct!!!
Seriously, I was just curious how many calories an average wieght lifting workout burns. Little did I know this blog would capture for an hour….Julie, you should put this argument on paperback..it is like reading “reality” writing if you will.
I just wanted to say how awesome you are Julie for staying so calm and polite when Brett and Deb were being SO incredibly rude to you and your blog. It was of course fun to read as they got so heated on their point only to be not necessarily right on what they think they know. The thing that bothers me the most is this: You pulled your facts from one expert, they got their facts from another or just their own “common sense”, and because what they FELT was right didn’t match up with what you were saying, they get so upset trying to discredit you. It’s just upsetting to see people not open to others opinions or thoughts. EVERYONE has an opinion on fitness and health, and there may not be one right answer across the board, because every body is different. The best option is to read all you can, and make your own opinion on what will work for you. Keep writing your blog for people to gather information from and hopefully people who may not like what you say will keep their opinions respectful or go elsewhere.
Thanks, Courtney. I appreciate your comments.
Great discussion everyone, and I really admire the polite tone you’ve kept throughout some of the tactless attacks on your blog, Julie.
I think I’m going to have to agree with Jinzo’s studies on the amount of calories burned per lb of skeletal muscle. Aside from the studies that have been referenced already, I only have anecdotal experience to throw into the mix.
I have been almost exclusively weight training for the past 12 months, with little to no cardiovascular exercise. I had taken a hiatus from health and fitness for about 18 months, and gained quite a bit of weight (was around 360lbs at my max, at 6′4″). Since July of last year, I’ve gone down to now around 260 - 270 (I can easily gain 10lbs on the scale in a day from morning to night due to water weight). I also had previously lifted weights quite rigorously for 5 years, and now that I’m back in the gym I have more skeletal muscle than ever. I’m not exactly sure of my body fat%, but tape measure tests have me ranging from 20 to 25%. I’m inclined to believe that 25% is more accurate, as I still have a 43″ waist, 19″ arms, 30″ quads, and something like 58″ around the shoulders. That would put me at about 195lbs of lean mass (which doesn’t seem too ridiculous, as I’m currently benching ~350lbs, military pressing ~200lbs, deadlifting ~450lbs, and can easily leg press 1100lbs). I stopped watching what I was eating closely this past semester, since I just started graduate school, but kept lifting weights with equal intensity (about 3 - 4 days per week, DC then 5/3/1 style weight training). But basically, eating whatever I wanted, I still managed to slowly lose weight this semester. I can easily consume 3k calories per day, when I was 19 I would go to subway and eat two foot long double meat subs for lunch when I was lifting, and still eat two or three more times throughout the day. I don’t recommend anyone eat that way, I certainly don’t any more, but if I was only burning 6 calories per lb of muscle mass, then my caloric maintenance would only be possibly 400 - 600 calories more than someone who didn’t weight train at all.
Also, I tried a PSMF diet a few months back for 3 weeks where I lost 15lbs of fat on a diet of purely 1200calories of protein per day. I weighed myself at the start, and again a few days after the PSMF so that I would gain back the water weight I had lost from the diet due to the lack of carbohydrates. I went from around 295 to 280. So, burning 15lbs of fat, with each lb being 3500 calories over a period of 21 days, I was burning on average 2500 calories per day on top of the 1200 I was consuming (disregarding the thermogenic effect of protein, which some might argue decreases the true caloric intake from them). So, I was burning on average around 3700 calories per day at that time, with roughly the same lean mass I have now, while on a starvation diet which would decrease my metabolic needs due to adaptive thermogenesis, or starvation mode.
As I said before, all I have is anecdotal evidence to sway me, but I have a sneaking suspicion that trained skeletal muscle burns more than 6lbs per day.
Great discussion though, again.
Hello! Great post, very informative. I’m doing a post on my blog about weightlifting, so I’ll make sure to add a reference link to this post
[...] http://healthwellnesspost.com/how-many-calories-does-weight-lifting-burn.htm#comment-961 [...]
Think a few of you are missing the point here guys. Just because a study indicates that a subject who gained 3 pounds of muscle during a 12 week training programme now requires 120 calories a day doesn’t necessarily mean that its this extra 3 pounds of muscle that require the 120 cals. To clarify remember these subjects also lost on average 4.5 pounds of fat, using the logic adopted by most posters the extra calorie requirement could just as easily be attributed to the lost fat. Which is of course impossible. Remember the golden rule. Assumption is the mother of all Fcuk ups. During the 12 training the subjects BMR may also have increased requiring the extra calorie intake that doesnt automatically mean that its those specific 3 extra pounds of muscle causing it. Assumption isnt science. There could have been other metabolic and physialogical changes to the subjects during these 12 weeks that either havent been mentioned or perhaps measured. Guess the simple and most unethical approach to providing the answer might be to measure the subjects new BMR then surgically remove 3 pounds of muscle and remeasure. That or include all comparitive measurements taken during the 12 week study. e.g lung function. V02 max, etc etc.
What most people like Brett and Deb don’t understand is that not all muscle will burn 40-50 calories when resting. Only muscles beeing trained will burn that much while body is healing those muscles.
All other muscles will burn 5-6 calories.
So basically 40 calories per lbs is only valid if you are bodybuilder.
And even then,maximum of 10-15 lbs of muscles will be trained and healed,which means maximum of 15×40=600 extra calores per day burned.
Well I’m about 5′5 I’m 25 and weigh 220 pounds I’m a competitive powerlifter like worlds strongest man type thing I’m in the gym powerlifting about 4 hours a day and at 5′5 220 I manage to keep my bodyfat at around 9/10% as you can assume I have a lot of muscle on my frame and I consume 10000 or more cals a day even on nontraning days and my body fat dose not go up iv din at it about 8 years thereforeits safe to assume my body is using the cals for something
10000 calories is a lot but if you are powerlifting you will most definitely need that amount. Maybe even less. Betwenn 8000 and 10000 will be ideal. On non lifting days if you want to lean out a bit more try cutting your calories and fat grams significantly as well as eating enough fiber and be stingy on your carb intake. At 5′5″ 220 and 10% fat you must look great. Keep up the good work man. I am 5′9″ 195 Ibs and follow a low carb, fat, and calorie diet on off days. On days that I train I eat Protein and Carbs accordingly.
So I only scanned the comments, and the arguments for both sides of the calories per Ib of muscle arguments, I understand why it may be misleading but what Brett wasn’t calculating is that an 160 pound man does not have an 190 pounds of muscle, a lot of that weight is bone, organs, ligaments, blood, and skin
WOW! What a blog!! Like a couple of others here, I was trying to find out how many calories I burn during my daily workout sessions. Like a great mystery novel, I got hooked in and could not break away! AWESOME, AWESOME blog Julie! I also agree with the gentleman who suggested you should put this in paperback, seriously. I think I’ve spent about a hour and a half reading and calculating some figures along the way. Verrrrry nice. I was even sad to see that nobody posted in September this year. I posted partly to keep it going for October lol! It’s kind of like a great movie that you don’t want to ever end…oh brother, I think I need sleep. Well anyways, if anyone wants to check out my videos on youtube, i am bobzilla737 God bless everyone and thank you Julie!!!
And I enjoyed reading your comments, Robert. Thanks for stopping by!
This blog is completely amazing. Julie thank you for posting this and keeping up with it for so long. I am currently in the Air Force and have been weight/cardio training (regularly) for over three years now. I can honestly say that I do not follow all these calculations that you really smart people are doing, but I can say that for all the experts to be right in what they are saying then every individual person would have to be tested on as we are all different in our DNA/make-up. Julie try and understand where “Brett” might be coming from. I’m not saying either of you are right or wrong (although I would side w/Julie) but “Brett” might just feel really strongly about what he is talking about and that’s fine. This blog has been turely remarkable in the literal stand point and both inspirational in the fitness stand point. Julie I would like to get some pointers though from you on area’s I could possibly improve. Thanks again for a great read!!
I have a funny feeling that everyone who agrees with Brett is actually Brett, just using a different name.
Brett you’re an idiot & are proving it to everyone on here. Just because someone weight 180Lbs. (As you stated on your feb 2009 post) does not mean 140 Lbs of that 180 lbs is all muscle. That would mean that person’s body would be 78% pure muscle! Hellloooo that’s freak’n stupid. You also have a skeletal system, a cardiovascular system, an integumentary. Etc.. Not to mention u have to take into account that cells in our body have H2O (water).. I’m an RN & a Marine.. You need to take an Anatomy & Physiology class bro. You’re ass is probably a lard-ass. & no you won’t be in a so called “caloric crisis” like you stated earlier. Idiot. Get the fact Before u post such idiotic thing. I’m off to the gym. Laters.
Wow… almost on its second year next month! I bet a lot of calories burned with this topic! LOL
Is all this really necessary given that everyone will still go to the gym and work out until energy levels are depleted. From the arguments i see that there is major inconsistencies between studies of how much calories are burned. So regardless, the studies are inconclusive. This articles and these arguments are suspect…
You all bring certain valid arguments to the. Table except that burning calories is NOT by any means an exacted science. Or it not only depends on the activity level, but on physiology as well. Based in a person’s somatotype and metabolic combustion of calories an how their body process said energy etc, changes everything. Bottom line, tr best metabolic workout is a mix of weight lifting (which does burn an incredible amount of calories as it is harder on the body than basic cardio) and cardio training. Throw in anabolic methods versus catabolic methods of fat burning and muscle building to complicate the issue and it makes things even more complicated.
How many times a week should I lift weights and for how long if I want to lose 10 total inches from all around my body? I want to reach that goal in 6 months or so.
Am I the first poster this year? I think Brett and others miss the point. I agree with Julie, but even if she were wrong, her purpose is clearly superior to his. This blog seeks to help folks do better, get better, look better etc. I would accept her contribution even if they were inaccurate over some smug guy who just wants to be right and ugly about it at that without even understanding the analysis even. Well done Julie.
Happy New Year,
I’d be interested to know the specifics of the study, though I am inclined to believe those more educated than myself. Unfortunately, school-room logic doesn’t play into the way our bodies work. For instance, some people, no matter how they eat or exercise (safely, there are always unhealthy ways to break the rules) will continue to be overweight, while others will struggle to gain weight. It’s not the kind of problem we can apply “if A=B and B=C then A=C” logic to.
That being said, I’m willing to bet those numbers only describe potential. If I had a genetic twin in all things but the difference of one pound of muscle mass, and we both exercised together doing the exact same routine, and our caloric expenditure was then measured, I think the one with more muscle would burn at least 40 calories more.
Or perhaps it’s more like this. Maybe an additional pound of muscle takes an average of 40-75 calories of more work per day to maintain. After all, if you don’t move those muscles, they shrivel away, right? It takes work to get them and to keep them.
In the end it’s not the how that matters, if I needed to know that I would have gone to school for it. What matters is whether or not at the end of the day, when I’ve put on and additional pound of muscle and adjust my diet accordingly, do I continue to see results, or not? Questioning the science of things we don’t know anything about is stupid, we should simply try it for ourselves and see if it works for us.
i believe the issue with the burning of caloires for every pound of muscle is in reference to having above average muscles mass. the average joe would burn closer to 2k a day. but a body builder… that is easily 100 pounds heavier burns FAR more calories just sitting there watching tv. your talking about a guy that need 4k of calories just to MAINTAIN his weight…
i believe the research is in regards to the individuals who work to ADD a pound of muscle. and thus can add 35-50 MORE calories to their diet to MAINTAIN their new weight.
a 300 pound man with 10 percent body fat will lose all his muscles if he ate 2k calories a day…..
so the logic that you burn MORE when you have MORE muscle is in fact easy to understand.
so if you are average muscularity than just forget all the science to this. lol. its not rocket science. get a new hobby brett.Julie, thanks for your commitment to informing the world
All, I apologise if this has been addressed in previous threads, after a while I only skimmed through the second half of the replies. Brett has posed presented an interesting challenge to the blog’s statistics. The issue that hasn’t been addressed is that we are talking purely skeletal muscle, that is, muscle under your control attached to bone, such as biceps, quads etc. (as opposed to vascular restriction, sphincters etc.) - of the calories a person uses per day takes into account maintaining body temp, regeneration of tissue, the huge volume of calories used to maintain the brain and so forth.
In short, the numbers need to consider ONLY skeletal muscular mass and how many calories it burns at rest. A fairly general consensus is around 13KCal per Kilogram of Muscle per day at rest.
I’m sure we all understand this is subject to many variables, such as temperate, gender, and a myriad of other things, HOWEVER, it is would be almost certain to say it could not vary enough to be anywhere close to 120kCal quoted if this is At Rest.
A notable study was in the American Journal of Physiology - Endocrinology and Metabolism “Body-size dependence of resting energy expenditure can be attributed to nonenergetic homogeneity of fat-free mass.Also see references in the itself for other info.
Wow people really are getting caught up on this. I havemt read all posts as that would take forever but totally get what julie is saying. I know a huge amount of bodybuilders and every one of them has to eat a ridiculous amount of calories in order to sustain energy levels and the way they look. Julie is simply saying in order to burn as many calories as possible you must work out so the muscle can be built and then work out to keep it. She isnt saying not to work out eother just that because of the amount of muscle you could do nothing and still burn calories. If you built muscle and then stopped training your muscle would then detereorate and you would stop burning calories so training must be kept up regularly. I know this post was ages ago but brett seriously get a grip!!!!
In line with what Andrew said, as a biomedical engineer and with some experience in physiology:
Muscle will burn about 6 Calories (the Calories you eat) a day, fat tissue will burn about 1/3 of this, and bone will burn about 1/6 of this.
Changing fat into muscle is a great way to increase your resting rate of calorie burning, but 1 or 2lb difference is hardly enough to notice any significant weight loss from it (10lb of muscle is 60 Calories a day, over the course of a month burns about 1800 calories, less than a pound of fat)
More importantly: As body fat decreases, it will rely more on muscle tissue during starvation periods, which includes sleeping. This makes muscle tissues harder to maintain at low body fat levels.
Having muscle instead of fat is healthier, makes you look better and slimmer, and allows you to do more work and therefore burn more calories. All of these benefits should be the focus of someone lifting weights, not how many calories a day their muscles burn by themselves as moderate changes to muscle mass are insignificant compared to real exercises.
Example: The 10lb of muscle I mentioned could take up to 4 days to burn as many calories as 1 hour of chores (more so for yard work or heavy loads).
Jack … “changing fat into muscle”? Is that what you meant to say? Fat and muscle are two separate things. You can burn fat and build muscle, but fat will never become muscle.
Thanks for your input.
Meaning burning fat and gaining muscle simultaneously. I’ve heard the idiom often in terms of weigh lifting because you burn calories, which in turn helps burn fat, and weigh lifting helps build muscle mass. Effectively: turning fat into muscle.
Has anyone considered the calculations in regard to the combination of aerobic, anaerobic activity and diet in unison?
I couldn’t read all of the replies to the blog.