Only 4 more calories burned for each pound of muscle gained?

Is this true? I read it somewhere in an article in these forums.

*My main concern is that I have gained a few pounds since starting weight training (new rules prog)about 3 months ago. I was eating maintenance. Now for the last few weeks I have had a deficit and am trying to lose these last incredibly pesky 5-8 lbs. Nothing at ALL is happening. So I am not convinced I have turned my body into a "more efficient machine."

I have increased the cardio, continued with the weight training and have a modest deficit each day (excluding one weekend day where I eat maint.) of about 300-500 cals.

What gives?

The average person who strength trains typically gains approximately 3 to 5 pounds of muscle mass over a period of three to four months, the net caloric effect of such a training regimen is very modest—only 15 to 30 calories per day [the equivalent of a few potato chips]. Hmm...that doesn't sound too motivating. But then again, every little bit helps, right? If you were to decide to either burn 15-30 more calories per day or NOT, wouldn't you still choose to burn it? I would. Over time, it adds up. That's 450-900 more calories burned per month, or 5,400-10,800 more calories burned in a year—that's about a 3-pound weight loss, simply by building and preserving your muscle mass. That sounds pretty good to me! Make sure your deficit is based on your desirable weight, not the weight you are at now. And, be patient, the last 5 lbs are the hardest to melt away.

Original Post by fitnessgirll:

 Make sure your deficit is based on your desirable weight, not the weight you are at now. And, be patient, the last 5 lbs are the hardest to melt away.

 Thanks fg-do you mean that if I my goal is to be 135 and my burn at 135 would be between 1700-1900 cals that I should subtract my deficit from those #s rather than what I am burning at 143lbs?

Yes. Use your goal weight. And, good luck!

 It's a bit tricky to predict actually - untrained muscle burns 5.7kcal/lbs/day, trained muscle burns 7.2kcal/lbs/day, fat burns about 2-3kcal/day.

 Replacing 1lbs of fat with 1lbs of muscle would only net you an extra 3-4kcal/d, in theory.

The most interesting effect is actually the upregulation of calorie burn muscle undergoes moving from untrained to trained status - from 5.7kcal/lbs/d to 7.2kcal/lbs/d means adding 1.5kcal/lbs/d per pound of muscle mass. Even someone with a very modest 50lbs of muscle would add 75kcal/d to their burn just by moving from untrained to trained status.

 Somewhere between 70-100lbs of muscle isn't unusual for skeletally mature but sedentary overweight adults; if you're at the high end of that just going from untrained to trained status will add 150kcal/d to your daily burn.

 Incidentally, this is the source of the insanely optimistic ideas about how much muscle actually burns at rest - if a previously sedentary individual gets their metabolism measured, goes out to strength train and loses 5lbs of fat and puts on 3lbs of muscle his burn will go up with about 150kcal/d due to the training effect. People who failed to think it through attributed all of that increased calorie burn to the new muscle and got 50kcal/d per lb muscle when they did the math.

 It's not dramatic, but it's useful and a real-world significant result; just not quite on the order of magnitude that some people would like you to believe.

So what would be the most efficient way for my "healthy" weight body to lose these extra pounds?

My plan is to continue with the full body weight training, add in cardio (spin,stairmaster etc) on off days and maintain a 3-500 cal deficit from my goal weight approximate burn. ( I currently list myself as "lightly active" and add in  my workouts (underestimating a bit)?)

Incidentally, I would be fine weighing what I weigh, but I need weight gone from my thighs and I can't afford lipo and I know you can't spot reduce. 

 

Continue to do what you are doing...and remember it's bf you want to lose..not numbers on a scale!

Original Post by future214:

Original Post by fitnessgirll:

 Make sure your deficit is based on your desirable weight, not the weight you are at now. And, be patient, the last 5 lbs are the hardest to melt away.

 Thanks fg-do you mean that if I my goal is to be 135 and my burn at 135 would be between 1700-1900 cals that I should subtract my deficit from those #s rather than what I am burning at 143lbs?

 What fitnessgirll is saying is eat the maintenance level of your goal weight and that is where you should end up.  So eat that 1700-1900 cal per day.  Do not subtract from that.  It will get you too low.

You may have to add to it slightly if you exercise at a high level.

Pete-I have asked about ^ before and like the idea of it because I can eat more and hopefully would be used to it by the time I get there.

But according to http://www.phord.com/cc/ the difference between maintaining now and what I should eat then is so miniscule (50=100 cals) that it would take eons for me to get to goal.

phord actually tells me to eat around 1300 to lose which I know is too low for me.

Hey Future, how goes it?

I agree that 1300 is too low...not necessarily for any health reasons but because it's just so darn hard!!  Keep in mind that if you shoot for a 500 calorie deficit to lose one pound, you'll have to be spot on perfect every single day(even on the weekends).  I would try to shoot for a 200 calorie deficit from food and add in a 300-450 calorie deficit from exercise.  Figure that's approximately 30-45 minutes of cardio or 45-60 minutes of strength training at a good intensity.  Try to do a little extra on Saturdays and then you can eat a little bit more.  Don't try to plan for perfection, you're human, plan for a little bit of wiggle room.  Can you squeeze in any walking either before work or during lunch?  I've been going for a quick 25 min walk before work and I've been able to burn an additional 200 calories by doing that.

 

Thanks acretin. I won't spend the money right now for a heart rate monitor and I think my problem is I (and this site) overestimate my burn. My food is pretty good and I am pretty careful measuring.

Its hard to know what you are burning from a new rules workout and I recently did try adding in extra cardio-I am going to the gym with a friend 3x a week and we do stairmaster and the tread mill for an hour. But we talk so its super easy for me -she is panting (just trying to get into shape)-even though I have it cranked up pretty high. ( I am estimating this as only 300 cals-when the site says 550 for the hour)

That was something I was not doing so I expected to see a bit more change on the scale. Plus I am spinning a bit-it will be consistent 3x a week when school starts.

Anyhoo. Think I am just tired of trying for so long. Ughhhh

I hear ya...it can be incredibly frustrating at times, especially when you really can't get an idea of how much you're actually burning.  If you're heart rate isn't going up enough while doing cardio, you're calories burned will be much less than what the machine says.  Pay close attention to your food for a week and to your calorie burn from the machines and if you don't lose anything, then you know you have to either tweak your food lower or increase your frequency/intensity of your workouts.  It's really just getting the math on your side.  When I'm trying to lose fat, I do cardio 5-6x a week at 600-700 calories per session.  It's the only thing that seems to work for me since I seem to be unable to get through a weekend without screwing up my food intake in some way.