Is it true that if you have more muscle, youre less likely to put on weight? Watch

Barny
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#21
Report 12 years ago
#21
(Original post by Shadower__)
its been said that each lb of muscle you put on, it burns an extra 30-50 calories.
Its nearer 5-10kcals per day, actually.
0
quote
reply
lazydays
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#22
Report 12 years ago
#22
But doesn't having more muscle put weight on too? I'm not sure of fat or muscle weight more....
0
quote
reply
Shadower__
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 12 years ago
#23
(Original post by imasillynarb)
Its nearer 5-10kcals per day, actually.
average male weight is around 175lbs and consumes 2500 calories a day right.......Say for example Ronnie Coleman, he weighs 300lbs he consumes 7000 calories a day so that I would say is roughly right, about 30-50 calories per lb of muscle.

He has maybe around 125lbs more muscle X 40= 5000, So he needs 5000 more calories than that 175lb man. Therefore it is roughly right.

If it was only 5-10 calories then you will say that he only needs 125lbs X 7.5= 937.5 calories more than the average consumer. I really doubt that.
0
quote
reply
Shadower__
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 12 years ago
#24
(Original post by lazydays)
But doesn't having more muscle put weight on too? I'm not sure of fat or muscle weight more....
lol yeh thats what I thought when I read that......Yeh its true muscle weighs more than fat, so if he gains muscle and still looses fat he might still end up weighing more.......I think muscle weighs 3 times more than fat.
0
quote
reply
rock_eleven
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report 12 years ago
#25
(Original post by Shadower__)
average male weight is around 175lbs and consumes 2500 calories a day right.......Say for example Ronnie Coleman, he weighs 300lbs he consumes 7000 calories a day so that I would say is roughly right, about 30-50 calories per lb of muscle.

He has maybe around 125lbs more muscle X 40= 5000, So he needs 5000 more calories than that 175lb man. Therefore it is roughly right.

If it was only 5-10 calories then you will say that he only needs 125lbs X 7.5= 937.5 calories more than the average consumer. I really doubt that.
that example shows nothing.
Firstly, how are you sure that is Ronnie's maintainance level of cals.
Why do you think the average 175lb male consumes 2500cals. 2500 is the government-recommended amount for an average man, not neccesarily the rmr of that man.
Ronnie also exercises FAR more than the "average male".
Ronnie's metabolism may be (is) completely different to the average man.

Like I said before, ive seen estimates of about 5cals/lb/day and of about 50 too. I cant find the origin of either of those.
0
quote
reply
Shadower__
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 12 years ago
#26
(Original post by rock_eleven)
that example shows nothing.
Firstly, how are you sure that is Ronnie's maintainance level of cals.
Why do you think the average 175lb male consumes 2500cals. 2500 is the government-recommended amount for an average man, not neccesarily the rmr of that man.
Ronnie also exercises FAR more than the "average male".
Ronnie's metabolism may be (is) completely different to the average man.

Like I said before, ive seen estimates of about 5cals/lb/day and of about 50 too. I cant find the origin of either of those.
Im just using an example because it is true that a 175lb male who weight trains usually consumes around 2500 cals.

Also its just based on other factors, such as mesomorphic body type, endomorphic, ectomorph.

But yeh there is not set amount of calories for each lb of muscle.
0
quote
reply
rock_eleven
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report 12 years ago
#27
(Original post by Shadower__)
Im just using an example because it is true that a 175lb male who weight trains usually consumes around 2500 cals.
where have you got that information from.

"just using an example" doesnt make it any less worthless dude. The example you gave with Coleman aimed to calculate the rough but actual calorie expenditure of each lb of muscle, but it was based on ********, so does not provide any useful answer.
0
quote
reply
Shadower__
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 12 years ago
#28
(Original post by rock_eleven)
where have you got that information from.

"just using an example" doesnt make it any less worthless dude. The example you gave with Coleman aimed to calculate the rough but actual calorie expenditure of each lb of muscle, but it was based on ********, so does not provide any useful answer.
numerous websites....... and whats ur problem? Im putting in my view, and I do think that example has some sort of useful answer.
0
quote
reply
rock_eleven
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report 12 years ago
#29
(Original post by Shadower__)
numerous websites.......
link me to one then, that says what you claim, that "a 175lb male who weight trains usually consumes around 2500 cals."

(Original post by Shadower__)
and whats ur problem? Im putting in my view, and I do think that example has some sort of useful answer.
My problem is that your example imo is of no use at all. It is based on made-up numbers, and other assumptions. Im not just saying your answer of 40cals/lb/day is maybe +/- a few calories wrong (indeed I cant say its wrong at all, I dont know), im saying the reasoning behind it is TOTALLY ********, so the result has no value at all.
0
quote
reply
Bis
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report 12 years ago
#30
(Original post by Shadower__)
lol yeh thats what I thought when I read that......Yeh its true muscle weighs more than fat, so if he gains muscle and still looses fat he might still end up weighing more.......I think muscle weighs 3 times more than fat.
muscle doesn't weigh more than fat. its a common misconception.
0
quote
reply
rock_eleven
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 12 years ago
#31
(Original post by Bis)
muscle doesn't weigh more than fat. its a common misconception.
I wouldnt call it a misconception, just a horrible inaccuracy in the wording. People that say it surely mean to say that muscle is denser than fat. Saying it simply weighs more, without giving a volume of each, is meaningless.
0
quote
reply
Bis
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#32
Report 12 years ago
#32
(Original post by rock_eleven)
I wouldnt call it a misconception, just a horrible inaccuracy in the wording. People that say it surely mean to say that muscle is denser than fat. Saying it simply weighs more, without giving a volume of each, is meaningless.
if they meant that it was denser then they would just say it. its because they don't understand it and believe what they hear about it "weighing more". its like saying "bricks weigh more than feathers".
0
quote
reply
Shadower__
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 12 years ago
#33
(Original post by rock_eleven)
I wouldnt call it a misconception, just a horrible inaccuracy in the wording. People that say it surely mean to say that muscle is denser than fat. Saying it simply weighs more, without giving a volume of each, is meaningless.
yes it was just a inaccuracy of wording. If i put it clear, muscle would weigh 3 times more than fat if the same size of muscle is compared to the same size of fat.
0
quote
reply
rock_eleven
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 12 years ago
#34
(Original post by Bis)
if they meant that it was denser then they would just say it. its because they don't understand it and believe what they hear about it "weighing more". its like saying "bricks weigh more than feathers".
Its hard to believe that people are so ghey as to not recognise that density is involved, not just an absolute weight. Im sure if pressed after saying "muscle am weigh more than fat!" they would notice and rephrase to compare the densities.

Maybe youre right though and they have never actually realised it doesnt make sense, and just like to parrot what they read on the last thread.
0
quote
reply
rock_eleven
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#35
Report 12 years ago
#35
(Original post by Shadower__)
If i put it clear, muscle would weigh 3 times more than fat if the same size of muscle is compared to the same size of fat.
Its nowhere near 3 times as much dude:

http://www.outsidemag.com/bodywork/m.../19991006.html

"..The density of fat is about 0.9g/cm3, whereas the density of lean tissue is
1.1g/cm3. In other, more unscientific words, lean tissue is about 22% more
dense than fat tissue.."
0
quote
reply
Shadower__
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 12 years ago
#36
muscle cells that compose muscle are
denser than fat cells. Why is this? Because fat cell cytoplasm contains
mostly oils (lipids), whereas muscle cell cytoplasm contains mostly
contractile proteins (myosin and actin) suspended in an aqueous (watery)
environment. Lipids in general are less dense than water.
0
quote
reply
Shadower__
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 12 years ago
#37
(Original post by rock_eleven)
Its nowhere near 3 times as much dude:

http://www.outsidemag.com/bodywork/m.../19991006.html

"..The density of fat is about 0.9g/cm3, whereas the density of lean tissue is
1.1g/cm3. In other, more unscientific words, lean tissue is about 22% more
dense than fat tissue.."
wow wat do you know, you learn something new everyday
0
quote
reply
Da Mouse
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#38
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#38
(Original post by Bis)
muscle doesn't weigh more than fat. its a common misconception.
:eek: really?!?! - A new thing learnt everyday lol
Wow guys that was very informatice. Are you guys doing a Bsci in this or is it research and general knowledge? Clarifys everything for me Thanx!
0
quote
reply
Da Mouse
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#39
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#39
(Original post by Shadower__)
wow wat do you know, you learn something new everyday
:eek: - great minds think alike lol
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (133)
18.4%
No (439)
60.72%
Not really bothered about them (151)
20.89%

Watched Threads

View All