[Clolmemaexata]

I agree, Brian. It seems that for every theory, there's an anti-theory, and I'm not going to change my beliefs over one study. I'm sure the truth is somewhere in between. It does seem to make sense, tho.

I have heard that it is very hard to gain muscle. People talk about adding pounds of muscles in a short time, and I find that hard to believe (unless they are seriously into body-building). Exercises like walking and running do not build a lot of muscle.

I agree with Blueskyes that when I was at my fittest, I was able to eat more to maintain the weight, but not drastically more.

[iOqedeyH]

Yeah, Patty. I don't know for a fact that it is true. But, it does make an awful lot of sense. I know that when I have been more muscular in the past I didn't lose "gobs" more weight like I thought I should. However, and there was a study I read on this recently, I could eat more and not gain the weight back.

[Keeriewof]

hmmm ... I wonder if it's true. Something to research more.

[temansertewek]

Darn, that made alot of sense.

Thanks Blueskies.

[marketheal]

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/liv...4747575.htm?1c

Art Carey | The myth of muscle as calorie burner

By Art Carey

Inquirer Columnist


Two weeks ago, I introduced you to Greg Ellis, whose new book, Dr. Ellis's Ultimate Diet Secrets (Targeted Body Systems Publishing, $59.95), is to eating and exercising what Moby-Dick is to whaling.

During a power walk, Ellis and I discussed some of the surprising things he's learned over the last 40 years about how the body turns food into energy, muscle and fat.

One of Ellis' favorite sayings is "putting it to the numbers" - his phrase for testing conventional wisdom against scientific fact. By putting it to the numbers, Ellis, 55, who has a doctorate in exercise physiology, has discovered that many accepted truths are myths.

"People don't do their homework," he gripes. "That's how these myths get started and propagated."

A prime example: If you build more muscle, you'll burn lots of calories.

"This one really irks me," Ellis says. "It's the big one, the great myth."

I confess: It's a myth that I, too, have helped propagate. As faithful readers know, I'm a big booster of resistance training - weight lifting for boys and girls, men and women, people of all ages. In this space and in public presentations, I have sung the benefits of pumping iron, including how it helps control weight.

The conventional wisdom: Muscle is metabolically active. It burns calories even when your body is at rest - 50 to 60 calories a day per pound of muscle. Ergo, if you add a pound of muscle, you can burn an additional 350 calories a week, 1,500 calories a month, 18,000 calories a year - the equivalent of 5 pounds of flesh.

In other words, if you gain a pound of muscle, everything else being equal, you can, in a year, shed 5 pounds of flab.

Trouble is, it ain't so.

"Putting it to the numbers" reveals that resting muscle burns a mere tenth of that - about 5 to 6 calories per pound per day, Ellis says. Since every pound of fat burns 2 calories a day, muscle hardly confers a hefty metabolic advantage - a mere 3 to 4 additional calories per pound.

How does this play out in the real world?

Suppose a woman who weighs 150 pounds begins working out, walking two miles a day, lifting weights three times a week. After six months, she manages to shed 18 pounds of flab and gain 6 pounds of muscle.

To feed that new muscle, her body needs 30 calories of food energy a day (6 pounds x 5 calories = 30). But because she has dropped 18 pounds of fat, her energy needs have also dropped - by 36 calories (18 pounds x 2 calories = 36). Result: Despite all that new muscle, she needs to eat 6 calories a day less to maintain her new weight.

Moreover, adding 6 pounds of muscle is no easy feat. When Ellis was working on his doctorate, doing body-composition studies in the lab, he found that the muscle mass of female bodybuilders, compared with that of untrained women, was greater by only 6 pounds.

"Steroid girls had only 8 to 10 pounds more lean body mass," Ellis says. "I'm talking about hard-core bodybuilding chicks - not someone lifting 5-pound dumbbells, but a gal benching 150, and going at it hard."

Ditto for guys. After several years of training hard, a man may be able to gain 10 pounds of muscle, max. Even with steroids and other anabolic aids, the most a competitive bodybuilder can add is 30 to 40 pounds of muscle, Ellis says. At 5 calories per pound of muscle, all that extravagant anabolic gingerbread revs the metabolism by a mere 150 calories - an amount that could be wiped out by a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup.

"So when Diane Sawyer works out with rubber bands and 5-pound dumbbells and manages to add a quarter-pound of muscle, she may be burning more calories through the exercise itself," Ellis says, "but she's doing zip to increase her resting metabolism."

Can Ellis be believed? For proof, he showed me citations and tables from his trusty texts, including a real page-turner titled Energy Metabolism: Tissue Determinants and Cellular Corollaries. But more persuasive than academic data was this argument: "If new muscle burns 50 calories a pound, why doesn't already existing muscle burn 50 calories a pound?" Ellis asks. "How does the body determine that new muscle burns 50 calories, while old muscle burns only 5?"

Answer: It doesn't, because all muscle burns only 5 calories. Putting it to the numbers: If every pound of muscle burned 50 calories, a typical 200-pound man would have a resting metabolic rate (RMR) from muscle alone of 4,000 calories (80 pounds of muscle x 50 = 4,000). Since muscle accounts for about 40 percent of the RMR (organs such as the liver, kidneys, brain and heart account for about 60 percent), the RMR of our hypothetical musclehead would be 10,000 calories - an impossibility. Even Ellis, a mesomorphic pillar of vintage beefcake, has an RMR of only 1,900 calories. So if muscle isn't a calorie-gobbler, why bother to lift weights?

Because, besides making you stronger, fortifying your bones and joints, improving your balance, reducing the risk of heart disease, and giving you a sense of power, control, accomplishment and well-being, pumping iron will make you look better.

"If you add 5 pounds of muscle and lose 5 pounds of fat, the impact on your shape and appearance will be dramatic," Ellis says. "If you add 5 pounds of muscle and lose 10 to 20 pounds of fat, you're definitely going to be eye candy."

[DoroKickcrofe]

The only disagreement that I might find with this article..

is that when you are creating muscle, it's a process of breaking down tissue, and re-healing.. each time, you lift weights, we break down fibers,, and thus they regenerate to form stronger muscles...

doesn't it make sense, that when ever there is a "break down" in the body, it uses more calories... while I agree,,, that muscle is muscle,, and your body can't distinguish between new and old muscle.. that still leaves out the "process" of muscle formation.. Which is just like when you get sick and things like that,,, your body needs "extra" to heal..

Maybe I'm wrong,, but this is the way that I had always understood it.. that it wasn't the muscle that burned the extra calories,, but the process of developing muscle and healing to rebuild muscle that burned the extra...

[shihoodiacarf]

Sounds right the muscle sure looks better than the fat.

[scewLacysmazy]

Aerobic exercise does not increase muscle mass. It does cause increases in vascularity (blood vessels) to allow the muscle to replenish its energy stores more efficiently. It can add a little mass when a beginner starts an exercise program. Aerobics increase "aerobic capacity", so the more you do the exercise, the longer and harder you can do the exercise, and hence the more energy you can burn during a single session.

Lifting does build mass, but I agree that the amount a person can gain is limited by genetics and the ability to continue to fatigue the muscle in less than 12 reps. Once you reach a certain level, and the weight gets quite heavy, it gets harder to increase. For example, I am pushing 200 lbs on bench. Even though my chest can handle it, my hands and wrists have also got to deal with the weight. I also realize that I need a spotter nearby because if I go to failure I won't be able to muscle it back up so easily. My goal is to get to 225 - that's enough for me. If you look at body builders from 40 years ago and compare them to today's elite, you see the impact that steroids and other chemicals have made to strength training. I don't like the look of the huge muscles. I much prefer the physique of the prior generation.

I also agree that my belief that my muscle would equate to a 1 hour bike ride each day do not seem to have materialized. Since I don't measure and record everything I eat, however, it is hard to tell. I know that it helps.

[tilmprarnerit]

Say it ain't so!

I have read about the benefits of muscle (burning 50 calories per lb) from many sources. This is the first time I've ever heard that it is only 5. Not sure I beleive this single source.

Regardless, I have read studies that the single greatest predictor of long term (2 years +) of weight loss success is the level of exercise. Those who work out w/ weights tend to be more successful than those that don't. If you doubt this, walk into any gym and look in the free-weight room. These people tend to be muscular, fit, and not overweight.