I meant to say BMR not MBR. An increase in lean muscle mass of 3.0 to 3.5 pounds can increase resting metabolic rate by 6.8 to 7.7 percent (1). That might not sound like much ... but over time it really adds up. Besides, every little bit helps.
No, that's false.
My BMR is roughly 1800.
7% of 1800 is 126 calories.
That's about 40 calories per pound given a 3.25 lb gain in muscle. I've added that amount of muscle... more actually.... and my caloric allowance did not increase to this extent. Nor has it for my clients.
Real, peer-reviewed research puts it at much less than that.
actual research puts the number at 5.89kcal/lb/day
**source being -- Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001 Mar;4(2):143-7. Links
Dissecting the energy needs of the body.McClave SA, Snider HL.
Department of Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA.
samcclave@louisville.edu
I've seen other papers suggesting other amounts, but all have been similar to this. At most I'd say 15 kcal.
Your going to gain the most mass doing intense heavy lifting of large muscle groups. A lot of people have very underdeveloped legs. One can gain a lot of mass there.
A lot of muscle gain in a dieting female that doesn't have that much fat to lose?
I doubt it.
Increasing BMR in the long term from muscle gain was really just a side note of what I was saying
.
Regardless of what was your major point and what was your secondary point... the facts are what they are. And I'm not trying to be a dick here... so hopefully you don't take it as such. Reevaluation and assessing your beliefs can be a good thing. It's an opportunity to look at the information you were given and either build a stronger case for it or learn something new.
In either event, it's a win win.
What percentage of caloric expenditure from muscle mass comprises BMR?
My main point there was that you are going to burn more calories doing intense heavy lifting. Venuto says, "Only high intensity exercise increases post workout energy expenditure substantially and weight training has the greatest effect of all".
Tom's a good guy. He's a bud of mine; I'm actually interviewing him right now. That said, EPOC is overstated big time by many authors and knowing Tom, I'd be willing to bet he made that statement before the big meta analysis review came out highlighting all the available research on EPOC which showed it not being all that impressive at all.
If you're interested in learning about that, Lyle McDonald has an excellent review of it here:
I'm not sayinig that's all you should do it but it's good to really focus on the intensity while training those areas.
I'm not debating whether exercising with intensity is a good thing or not. I'm speaking more about the impact calorically speaking, is all.
And how much muscle is really going to be gained during hypocaloric feeding in an average sized female? That's my main point.
I'm not completly convinced that you cannot lose fat while gaining muscle
.
Rightfully so.
Because you can. I've been training people for nearly a decade and have witnessed it with my own two eyes more than I can remember. The primary factors are this though:
The more untrained you are and/or the more fat you are, the more likely concurrent body recomposition is going to take place.
The more trained you are and/or the less fat you're carrying, the less likely it is that you'll experience concurrent body recomp.
And a dieting female, especially one that is not carrying a significant amount of fat (due to hormonal disposition) will rarely if ever put on appreciable muscle mass.
Context is important when discussing this stuff.
I will have to read "Burn the Fat Feed the Muscle".
I haven't read it in quite a long while and I believe Tom came out with a newer edition since I last read it. Plus he came out with his hard copy book which I thought was fantastic...
But I'm quite certain he will say concurrent fat loss and muscle gain is very much a real possibility. But that doesn't say anything to the major points I've made above in the given contexts.
About the abdominal thing ... I think you misinterped what I was saying or didn't read it through. I made it pretty obvious that I wasn't saying you could spot reduce and I said that the abs were still covered with fat. So what were you talking about? Do you believe that you can't develop cut abs underneath fat?
No.
Cut abs are a function of fat loss.
Muscles don't get 'cut'.
They either adaptively respond to loading by growing or they don't.
Do you think reverse back exetnsions are a good exercise?
No exercise is inherently good or bad without context.
