how many calories does a pound of muscle burn off compared to fat?

R

realworksuks

2
I know muscle is active tissue and requires more calories than fat.

I am wondering how many more calories will your body will need if you add one pound of muscle...

and how about one pound of fat too?
 
Approximated calories in a pound of fat=3500c

Muscle I am not sure, but I did read somewhere (and with a conversation with Stoutman (steve) ), it is believed to be about 600to 800c. Muscle is made of alot of water, and its going to be less.

In addition the mass to make 1 pound of fat is much larger than the mass it takes to make 1 pound of muscle; in other words 1 pound of fat looks larger than 1 pound of Muscle---though they are the same weight.
 
I think he was asking how much one lbs of muscle burns per 24 hour period. I can't remember, but it's not all that much. The number 40 used to be thrown around, but if you think about it, BBers would then have to eat way more than they do now :p
 
Karky said:
I think he was asking how much one lbs of muscle burns per 24 hour period. I can't remember, but it's not all that much. The number 40 used to be thrown around, but if you think about it, BBers would then have to eat way more than they do now :p
Click to expand...

Oops......I need to read better, LOL ;)

Yes, its around 50c--Gr8 is correct
 
If memory serves, a pound of muscle burns ~35-50 kcals, compared to a pound of fat burning ~9.

Either which way, muscle takes more to maintain itself than fat does - so that's good - just not so much more that we have free license to eat like crap when we gain some muscle. ----at least, that's how I look at it.
 
g8r80 said:
An extra 10# of muscle will burn an extra 50 calories / day and an extra 10# of fat will burn an extra 10 calories / day.

8 Ways to Burn Calories and Fight Fat
Click to expand...

That sounds about right.........about 6 - 10 calories burned for every pound of muscle is what I've seen cited most often ( at least recently ).

I've seem some references to the fact that 50 calories burned for every pound of muscle is either wrong and or a ' myth '. The 50 calories burned for every pound of muscle also doesn't seem to make total sense ( at least to me ) from a BMR calc perspective.

For example, using the Harris Benedict equation for BMR - 30 year old male , 6' , 180 lbs. - you get a calculated BMR of 1,898 calories. If you add 20 lbs of muscle to go from 180 lbs to 200 lbs, the revised calculated BMR is now 2,022 - a difference of 124 calories. An extra 20 lbs. X 6 calories burned for every pound of muscle = 120 calories .....or ........close to the 124 calories predicted by Harris Benedict.

If it was 50 calories burned for every pound of muscle, an extra 20 lbs of muscle would mean it would require 20 x 50 = 1,000 calories or a BMR of 2,898. So, an 11% bump in weight ( 180 to 200 ) requires an additional 50%+ bump (1,898 to 2,898 ) in calories - which seems counter- intuitive IMO.

Mind you, I'm just ' speculating ' as to how this 6 - 10 calories burned for every pound of muscle reconciles to Harris Benedict .:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top