Do you strength train? No?! Well, you know, muscle burns more calories at rest than fat does, so you should build more muscle to boost your metabolism and help you lose weight. How many times have you heard (or said) something similar yourself? I've heard it (and even said it) hundreds of times myself, mainly because that little fact can motivate people to start (and stick with) strength training—especially women who fear "bulking up" or cardio bunnies who only exercise to burn as many calories as possible. Raise your hand if YOU want to burn more calories while at rest. (I'm right there with you.) Well, exactly how many calories does that newly sculpted muscle really burn? Not as much as you'd think, according to an article written by fitness expert, Dr. Cedric X. Bryant, the Chief Science Officer for the American Council on Exercise (ACE). The common stat experts and laypeople alike tend to cite is that a single pound of muscle can burn 30-50 calories per day—so the more muscle you build, the more calories your body will burn all day long. But Dr. Bryant writes that research indicates otherwise. According to an article he wrote for the ACE FitnessMatters newsletter: "[M]uscle tissue has been observed to burn roughly seven to 10 calories per pound per day, compared to two to three calories per pound per day for fat. Therefore, if you replace a pound of fat with a pound of muscle, you can expect to burn only approximately four to six more calories a day. Given the fact that 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! But remember, strength training offers your body many more benefits than just increased calorie burn! If you're cutting calories to lose weight, it will help reduce the amount of muscle you lose in the process, which could be significant. Plus it helps you improve your appearance, remain strong and independent, decrease joint pain, strengthen your bones and improve your athletic performance. Those all sound like valuable reasons to keep lifting weights to me. To read Dr. Cedric X. Bryant's full article, click here. Are you surprised by the modest calorie-burn of muscles? Will you keep (or start) strength training anyway?  You will earn 5 SparkPoints
Like what you read? Get your free account today!
Got a story idea? Give us a shout!
|
More From SparkPeople |
Comments
This video explains what I mean. Report
That's really disappointing. Yes, this article talks about the "modest" 3 pounds per year of weight loss, but completely ignores the 500-600 calories burned per hour of the actual weight training (statistic is taken from SparkPeople article called "You Asked: How Many Calories Does Strength Training Burn?", and taken from a study done at ASU).
So, in the end, the latent caloric loss is minimal, but the muscle that is built can only be done so by spending a minimum of three hours training per week, which would burn around 1500 calories. That's a tad bit less than 2 pounds a month doing the bare minimum, or 22 pounds per year.
This article should be amended to include this information, because it seems a shadow is cast upon weight training as not leading to much weight loss, when in actuality weight training can be just as effective as cardio (though the heart still needs to get pumping for overall health).
Weight training is awesome! Report
As someone else mentioned, I've noticed my weight is going down on more calories, too! You can't beat that! Report
QUOTE: 'the same strength-training program that increased lean (muscle) weight by about 3 pounds, likewise increased resting metabolic rate by about 7%. '
Put simply. If doing 'X' results in effects 'Y' and 'Z', this doesnt mean'Y' is caused by 'Z' just that both may be caused by 'X'.
Have fun, enjoy your training and be very wary of selective analysis from people who may be pursuing their own agendas.
Report
There is new research that now proves that a pound of "new" muscle will burn on average 35 calories. We are not talking about skeleton muscles, we are talking about new muscle that you've developed by working out. Skeleton muscles on the other hand only burns on average 5.7 calories per lb of muscle.
Here is the research
Although Bouchard's mathematical calculations seem to make sense, they definitely do not line up with the classic research studies on this topic. Two well-conceived and well-conducted research studies examined the effects of strength training on muscle development and resting metabolic rate.
One study was conducted by Campbell and his research associates at Tufts University1,and the other study was conducted by Pratley and his research associates at the University of Maryland5.
At Tufts University, the subjects performed progressive resistance exercise three days a week for 12 weeks. Each training session consisted of four standard strength exercises, each of which was performed for three sets of eight to 12 repetitions.
After three months of training, the subjects, on average, added 3.1 pounds of lean (muscle) weight and lost 4.0 pounds of fat weight. As a result, their resting metabolic rate increased by 6.8 %, or approximately 105 calories per day. At face value, this finding would indicate that 1 pound of muscle uses about 35 calories per day at rest (105 calories per day ÷ 3 pounds of muscle = 35 calories per day per pound of muscle).
At the University of Maryland, the subjects performed progressive resistance exercise three days a week for 16 weeks. Each training session consisted of 14 standard strength exercises, most of which were performed for one set of 10 to 15 repetitions.
After four months of training, the subjects, on average, added 3.5 pounds of lean (muscle) weight and lost 4.2 pounds of fat weight. As a result, their resting metabolic rate increased by 7.7%, or approximately 120 calories per day. At face value, this finding would indicate that 1 pound of muscle uses about 34 calories per day at rest (120 calories per day ÷ 3.5 pounds of muscle = 34 calories per day per pound of muscle).
It is interesting to note that, in both of these studies, the same strength-training program that increased lean (muscle) weight by about 3 pounds, likewise increased resting metabolic rate by about 7%.
It is also interesting to note that, in both of these studies, the strength-training programs responsible for these impressive results were relatively basic and brief. The Tufts University subjects performed just 12 sets of exercise per session (three sets of four exercises), and the University of Maryland subjects completed 17 sets of exercise per session (one set of 11 exercises and two sets of three exercises).
These represent essentially 30-minute workouts that are manageable both time-wise and energy-wise for most adults. It is nothing short of remarkable that such modest investments in strength exercise can produce such profound physical outcomes.
The bottom line: Actively trained muscles burns almost 6 times more calories than untrained muscles. Report
Jenn Report
http://photos-ak.sparkpeople.com/nw
/6/4/l648956394.jpg
A pound of muscle vs a pound of fat,
If I had 210 pounds of muscle, I would look pretty skinny. Report
http://photos-ak.sparkpeople.com/nw
/6/4/l648956394.jpg
A pound of muscle vs a pound of fat,
If I had 210 pounds of muscle, I would look pretty skinny. Report
Sounds like a good reason to me to continue to build up some muscle. Report
EXERCISE helps you improve your appearance, remain strong and independent, decrease joint pain, strengthen your bones and improve your athletic performance...as ST or aerobic or cardio does too. But so many list it out as if aerobic or high impact cardio doesnt...well it DOES as well.
I was considered a "cardio bunny" who only exercised to burn as many calories as possible and very resistant to ST because its a BORING burn and seeing improvement depends on tracking and recording what was done before, on each machine or form. Its so much easier and more immediate to track distance in time with something that gets the whole body at once and add on to it gradually. Cardio is less resistance to me than lifting weights so Im way more apt to enjoy it and do it again and again.
I GAINED weight doing 90 minutes of above 80% max 4 or more times a week. I KNOW I didnt gain FAT...and I didnt lift weights.
So whats the difference? Some of the ST exercises Personal Trainers have had me do, the rate of speed and my HR doing it...Its the same but with extra weights and a limit to repitition rather than duration of time.
I was told I was over training and thats why I gained and halted my weight loss. I had to go back to doing HR under 130 to loose again. I am now doing ST to rebuild the burt off muscle cells cause Im not building them up anymore with my more intensive routines.
So my question is what is the difference. For those who HATE Strength Training...cant they do a higher or more intensive cardio beyond the cardio range and accomplish the same? Report
For the last year or so I've switched my emphasis to pretty hardcore weight training. The fat is coming off quicker, I am tremendously stronger and my pulse rate is 52. I also look a lot better with my shirt off than I did as a runner.
Do I care what a pound of muscle burns while I'm asleep? Not really. Movement, both aerobic and anaerobic, is what my body was designed for. Rest time is just the time for recuperation from the last time I moved.
If I thought it mattered most that both more fat and more muscle burned more calories, I'd focus on just getting bigger so I guess I could brag that I burn more calories doing nothing than that skinnier guy over there. But my goal is to get more fit, stronger, healthier, with more energy, fewer injuries... It has nothing to do with resting metabolism or any other abstract concept like that. Report
And muscle looks a lot better than fat under the skin. =) Report