Weight Loss
Moderators: coach_k, spoiled_candy, Mollybygolly, devilish_patsy, nycgirl


Does muscle burn more calories than fat?


Quote  |  Reply

Would then gaining more muscle help me lose weight since I'd be burning more calories a day?  I'm only eating 1200 calories  a day though, and I'm not so much interested in building more muscle if it involves getting heavier and eating more, but I wouldn't mind keeping the muscle I do have (not very much anyways)

18 Replies (last)

Yes, muscle tissue is burning more calories than fat tissue does (even if it's just a little)

Gaining muscle would help you losing fat. But it might not make a huge difference on your scale as muscle is a little heavier than fat. 

But may I ask how old you are? If you were born in 93 (guessing from your user name) you are 16 years old. That means you are a teenager and you need to eat AT LEAST 1500 calories per day to make sure your body and brain can function normally. If you eat less than 1500 calories you will automatically lose muscle tissue, your body goes into starvation mode and your body will cling to every gram of your bodyfat. 

If you want to keep your muscles - and I highly suggest that! - do some weight training, do some cardio training and for god's sake: EAT!!!

You will not lose weight if you starve yourself. You will more likely yo-yo your weight up and up and up! 

All the best!

B.

Yes muscle burns more calories than fat.

Muscle also has a smaller volume than fat (ie, a lb of muscle takes up less space than a lb of fat). So if you had a higher proportion of muscle to fat, you might weigh more but look smaller than someone who weighs less (but who has a higher proportion of fat) and be burning more calories. Unless you're scale-obsessed, it's better to weigh more but look smaller than weigh less but look bigger, right?

Also, unless you are 5'0" and totally sedentary the likelihood is your calorie intake is too low to be maintaining your muscle, especially if you are not lifting weights.

so people with more muscle mass should eat more?

yes people with more muscle mass should eat more and can eat more without gaining weight. Their muscles burn more calories. in order to keep muscle tissue you have to eat more calories and at the same time lift weights and do cardio to keep and build muscle tissue. 

Yes it does..muscle burns allot more then fat does.

There's a crazy statement going around that 1lb of muscle burns 40-60 calories a day. Don't fall for that foolishness, muscle is more metabolically active than fat but now some researchers are putting the number at 6-10 cal's. You know how many muscular men I've known that were pretty overweight? If one of then had say 10 lbs of muscle and IF  muscle burned 50 cals for every pound, they could lift weights to retain mass, eat at maintenance, and lose a pound a week. I don't think so, I have done both weight lifting and cardio at two different times in my life. Hand's down, intense cardio is the way to go for fat loss. I'm a little surprised at all of the hype of weight lifting for weight loss? At least for me it didn't work as good as running.

Original Post by rgurleyjr1:

There's a crazy statement going around that 1lb of muscle burns 40-60 calories a day. Don't fall for that foolishness, muscle is more metabolically active than fat but now some researchers are putting the number at 6-10 cal's. You know how many muscular men I've known that were pretty overweight? If one of then had say 10 lbs of muscle and IF  muscle burned 50 cals for every pound, they could lift weights to retain mass, eat at maintenance, and lose a pound a week. I don't think so, I have done both weight lifting and cardio at two different times in my life. Hand's down, intense cardio is the way to go for fat loss. I'm a little surprised at all of the hype of weight lifting for weight loss? At least for me it didn't work as good as running.

 Actually, untrained muscle burns about 5.8kcal/d while trained muscle burns about 7.2kcal/d. The estimates for 50-60kcal/d were based on a misattribution of the effect of going from untrained to trained status on your musclature; if an untrained person with 60lbs of muscle goes from untrained to trained and adds about 2lbs of muscle in the process his or her calorie burn will increase by roughly 105kcal. If you attribute that increase to the 2lbs of muscle gained the math tells you that each lb of muscle burns 55kcal/d, a value that should have made people suspicious on account of how the 60lbs of muscle you started with should then have burned about 3300kcal/d.

 Happens when people don't think about whether their math makes sense in light of the values they started with.

 Well, some estimates are higher, but it's also worth keeping in mind that the "at rest" figures probably have very little predictive value for anyone more active than the average couch potato, since "at rest" isn't how you spend most of you time.

That you think intense cardio is the way to go for weight loss would be because you are overestimating the effects of exercise and underestimating the role diets play in your weight loss, and are thinking too much in terms of scale weight and not enough in terms of body composition. Weight loss is purely a function of calorie balance and it doesn't matter how you achieve the necessary calorie deficit. 

Fat Loss Depends on Energy Deficit Only, Independently of the Method for Weight Loss
Strasser et.al.Ann Nutr Metab 2007;51:428-432 (DOI: 10.1159/000111162)

  More intense cardio can achieve more of a calorie deficit, but the training adaptations to that include loss of muscle mass which is universally bad for a dieter and the best predictor of weight regain following a diet.  The only thing exercise selection influences is what sort of tissue you lose - and the only way to defend against loss of muscle mass in a calorie deficit and subsequent weight regain following the cessation of diet is to strength train.

 Besides, when you examine resistance training versus endurance training (Westcott, W., Fitness Management. Nov., 1991.) objectively under controlled conditions you'll see that even minimal strength training is far superior in terms of fat loss and body composition to endurance training - for beginners. The results will be different for experienced trainees who can spend multiple hours a day performing endurance training, but a beginner doesn't have the  endurance to perform exercises for the necessary duration. And if they did, it would still be a bad idea because a beginner will also have an extreme injury rate once they start running more than 3xweekly for more than 30min. at a time.

 Given the above limitations, beginner populations and all general populations without sports-specific training needs should start with a reasonable strength training program (whole body, 3xweekly) and only add endurance training as time permits.

Original Post by rgurleyjr1:

There's a crazy statement going around that 1lb of muscle burns 40-60 calories a day. Don't fall for that foolishness, muscle is more metabolically active than fat but now some researchers are putting the number at 6-10 cal's. You know how many muscular men I've known that were pretty overweight? If one of then had say 10 lbs of muscle and IF  muscle burned 50 cals for every pound, they could lift weights to retain mass, eat at maintenance, and lose a pound a week. I don't think so, I have done both weight lifting and cardio at two different times in my life. Hand's down, intense cardio is the way to go for fat loss. I'm a little surprised at all of the hype of weight lifting for weight loss? At least for me it didn't work as good as running.

I've always done both running (mostly middle distance) and weight lifting together. They complement each other well and unless you want to be an elite athlete in one or the other I don't see any conflict with integrating both. If you are going to specialize you will likely need to be so unidimensional that even when you do add the other in it will only be for very specific reasons.

As for weight loss from lifting "hype", I don't think anyone has ever said that they lift primarily for weight loss. Diet is always given as the primary driver for that specific goal with weight lifting used as a way to preserve muscle and to strengthen and shape the body. If you just want to lose weight and don't care about preserving muscle by all means: run and never hit the weight room.

I think there is some confusion and poor use of terminology going on here. I am studying for my personal training certificate and what they teach is VERY simple and straight forward - it's not the right words are used here to mean the correct things.

 1) Cross-Training is one of the highest-fat burners. It keeps your heart rate in the cardio training zone (not fat simmering zone) and it utilizes free-weights and/or machines along with bursts of cardio blasts to keep the intensity (burpees, running, jumping jacks, etc). The amount of weights in the machines/free-weights are small and only designed to work you to fatigue on your last rep - not to grow muscles. 

2) Interval training is the BEST burner of calories due to something called EPOC. When you train at an intensity of 8/9 (out of ten) for 2 minutes, then back off to a 5/6 for 2 minutes, and then repeat this 8/10/12 times you are forcing your muscles to go "anabolic" meaning they are working without oxygen. When you do this your body keeps your metabolic rate increased for up to 36 hours burning calories - now it's not a HUGE increase but everything counts.

3) Nutrition is the key to both hypertrophy (muscle growth) and weight loss. As if your not feeding your body correctly then it wont' "work". Training breaks down the muscles and they need fuel to rebuild themselves after a workout (hence the creatin craze) so if you don't consume proteins and carbs after your training (with 2 hrs) then you body will eat away at the muscles and you will get a lot of delayed muscle soreness. Also with Nutrition if you don't feed your body enough proteins no amount of weight training will grow your muscles.

4) Someone mentioned UNDEREATING - they are sooo right. You should never cut your caloric intake below 25% of your BMR (Base Metabolic Rate) as it will interprete this as "hibernation mode/starvation" and derive the calories it needs to digest food, pump your heart, etc from your MUSCLES, not from the FAT Stores.

The other HUGE component to weight loss is to use and have larger muscles. The bigger the muscle group you utilize the larger the calorie burn. Running burns a LOT of calories and it's not JUSt because it's a cardio workout, but you are using the biggest muscles in your frame (hip flexors, quads, hamstrings, core and glutes). 

If you have access to a Body Mass machine at a gym, you can easily watch your body NOT LOSE ANY WEIGHT and convert fat to muscle and your legs will get smaller, your waist smaller and your butt tighter but not lbs lost - this is the way to do it BTW.

Correct nutrition is actually 80% of it - learning what correct nutrition can be very heard with all the diet scammers our there. The ACSM teaches a 50/30/20 rule (50 carbs, 30 protein, 20 fat) as balanced, but I also know the food pyramids in different countries differ. When most people think about it they know fast food/junk-food is no good for them, but it often takes an event for them to change their ways.

Personally, I'm a organic/locavore advocate, but you don't have to embrace these ideals to be healthy. 

Sorry if I sounded like I was preaching.

Cheers

Gregory 

 

I think there is some confusion and poor use of terminology going on here. I am studying for my personal training certificate and what they teach is VERY simple and straight forward - it's not the right words are used here to mean the correct things.

 1) Cross-Training is one of the highest-fat burners. It keeps your heart rate in the cardio training zone (not fat simmering zone) and it utilizes free-weights and/or machines along with bursts of cardio blasts to keep the intensity (burpees, running, jumping jacks, etc). The amount of weights in the machines/free-weights are small and only designed to work you to fatigue on your last rep - not to grow muscles. 

2) Interval training is the BEST burner of calories due to something called EPOC. When you train at an intensity of 8/9 (out of ten) for 2 minutes, then back off to a 5/6 for 2 minutes, and then repeat this 8/10/12 times you are forcing your muscles to go "anabolic" meaning they are working without oxygen. When you do this your body keeps your metabolic rate increased for up to 36 hours burning calories - now it's not a HUGE increase but everything counts.

3) Nutrition is the key to both hypertrophy (muscle growth) and weight loss. As if your not feeding your body correctly then it wont' "work". Training breaks down the muscles and they need fuel to rebuild themselves after a workout (hence the creatin craze) so if you don't consume proteins and carbs after your training (with 2 hrs) then you body will eat away at the muscles and you will get a lot of delayed muscle soreness. Also with Nutrition if you don't feed your body enough proteins no amount of weight training will grow your muscles.

4) Someone mentioned UNDEREATING - they are sooo right. You should never cut your caloric intake below 25% of your BMR (Base Metabolic Rate) as it will interprete this as "hibernation mode/starvation" and derive the calories it needs to digest food, pump your heart, etc from your MUSCLES, not from the FAT Stores.

The other HUGE component to weight loss is to use and have larger muscles. The bigger the muscle group you utilize the larger the calorie burn. Running burns a LOT of calories and it's not JUSt because it's a cardio workout, but you are using the biggest muscles in your frame (hip flexors, quads, hamstrings, core and glutes). 

If you have access to a Body Mass machine at a gym, you can easily watch your body NOT LOSE ANY WEIGHT and convert fat to muscle and your legs will get smaller, your waist smaller and your butt tighter but not lbs lost - this is the way to do it BTW.

Correct nutrition is actually 80% of it - learning what correct nutrition can be very heard with all the diet scammers our there. The ACSM teaches a 50/30/20 rule (50 carbs, 30 protein, 20 fat) as balanced, but I also know the food pyramids in different countries differ. When most people think about it they know fast food/junk-food is no good for them, but it often takes an event for them to change their ways.

Personally, I'm a organic/locavore advocate, but you don't have to embrace these ideals to be healthy. 

Sorry if I sounded like I was preaching.

Cheers

Gregory 

 

Original Post by mermaid3011:

Yes, muscle tissue is burning more calories than fat tissue does (even if it's just a little)

Gaining muscle would help you losing fat. But it might not make a huge difference on your scale as muscle is a little heavier than fat. 

But may I ask how old you are? If you were born in 93 (guessing from your user name) you are 16 years old. That means you are a teenager and you need to eat AT LEAST 1500 calories per day to make sure your body and brain can function normally. If you eat less than 1500 calories you will automatically lose muscle tissue, your body goes into starvation mode and your body will cling to every gram of your bodyfat. 

If you want to keep your muscles - and I highly suggest that! - do some weight training, do some cardio training and for god's sake: EAT!!!

You will not lose weight if you starve yourself. You will more likely yo-yo your weight up and up and up! 

All the best!

B.

 Echoing what mermaid3011 said, your profile indicates that you are 15 (almost 16) years old.  You need to be eating a minimum of 1500 calories a day.  Don't be afraid to eat, you're going to do your body much more damage in the long run if you do not eat enough.

Muscle tissue is metabolically active, while fat is not. Fat cells are storage centers for the overage of calories that we eat (in very basic terms). Muscle is what will burn the fat. The more muscle mass you have, the better your body will be at burning fat. YOU WILL NOT GAIN WEIGHT by building some muscle mass. I am not talking lifting 400 pound weights, I am talking basic weight training. Get with your doctor, a nutritionist and a personal trainer. If your goal is to be super skinny, that is not healthy and a girl of your age should be concerned about making sure you eat enough for your body to grow. The biggest advice I can give is to talk to your doctor. There are many unhealthy ways to "lose weight", and I would hate for you to get involved in that mindset. Also, if you are not overweight, right now you should probably focus on fitness and health, and not the number on the scale. Happy Thanksgiving!

For heavens sake people! It frustrates me so much when people post stuff like "you're not eating enough!" and "You're starving yourself!" Everyone's bodies are different, not everyone teenager needs 1500 calories for their "brain to work properly". I know plenty of them who pick at the most meager of portions and they are just fine because their metabolisms and bodies are different than say mine which if I ate that little, I would be starving my head off!! You have to listen to your body to figure out what is right for you and how you can lose weight. You can't just read something off the Internet and stick a number on things because there is no way a study knows exactly what YOU need to lose weight unless that study was on you. Now I can see if she were eating like 800 calories why you would be concerned but 1200 calories is not crazy in any way. People in poorer countries hardly consume anything and I'm not saying they're healthy but it seems to me like their brains work fine.

Way to dig up a thread that no one has paid any attention to in three years.  Also, what do you know about people in poorer countries and how a lack of food affects their education?  I'm going to go with nothing.  

Original Post by rumpusingchickens:

For heavens sake people! It frustrates me so much when people post stuff like "you're not eating enough!" and "You're starving yourself!" Everyone's bodies are different, not everyone teenager needs 1500 calories for their "brain to work properly". I know plenty of them who pick at the most meager of portions and they are just fine because their metabolisms and bodies are different than say mine which if I ate that little, I would be starving my head off!! You have to listen to your body to figure out what is right for you and how you can lose weight. You can't just read something off the Internet and stick a number on things because there is no way a study knows exactly what YOU need to lose weight unless that study was on you. Now I can see if she were eating like 800 calories why you would be concerned but 1200 calories is not crazy in any way. People in poorer countries hardly consume anything and I'm not saying they're healthy but it seems to me like their brains work fine.

Your brain doesn't seem to be working fine. You should probably eat more.

Original Post by got2bsexy:

Yes it does..muscle burns allot more then fat does.

I know this is a zombie thread, but I just have to point out this is the worst spelling of "a lot" I have seen, to date.

As per my knowledge, a pound of muscle can burn anywhere from 30-100 extra calories a day, but finding an exact number can be a challenge. However, according to recent study a untrained men who lifted weights could burn an extra 30-35 calories for each pound of muscle gained.

Did you completely disregard the science Melkor posted on here?

18 Replies
Advertisement
Advertisement
Allergy Remedies
Is It Possible to Go Natural?
The side effects of allergy medications keep some people from using them. Natural remedies can be a great alternative, but some are more effective than others.