Muscle only burns 6 calories per pound?

[Viking Dan]

That is depressing if that's the case.

What they told you about muscle and your metabolic rate is wrong... (http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/cals.htm)

While we're on the subject of metabolism:

There is evidence to show that spices, especially chilli, can raise the metabolic rate by up to 50% for up to 3 hours after you’ve eaten a spicy meal.

How about those cayenne pills? Less effective?

[Knipfty]

That was a depressing article. And to think I ordered the book Slow Burn. Now I'm not sure if I should keep it. ANyone read it? Anyone following it?

[Gaelen]

Knipfty, yes, several people are using 'Slow Burn' regularly. You can find out more information in the "Born to be Fit" section, in the Slow Burn (http://www.proteinpower.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130) thread.

As for those cayenne pills...Dan, Dan, Dan...the capsacin in chiles is so much more stimulating as a whole food. ;)

[Gabriel Guzman]

There are a few of those articles that I'll make sure to read carefully just to be sure that the report is not what the writer thinks it is but what is actually being published.

Having said that, even if it's only 6 calories per pound, that's still a lot compared to none if we don't do anything about it. I guess it depends on how we want to look at this... the glass half full or half empty. The excuse would be pretty easy, wouldn't it? 'Oh... if it's only 6 cal/pound, then what's the point...'

Now this is an 18-week study, and it doesn't say anything about the trend stopping. So, what would be the benefit of regular resistance exercise, even if it's only 6 cal/pound? I'd say a lot when this is adopted for life!

Westertep has authored quite a few articles since 1997... I wonder if up-to-date information says something different today. Maybe that should be our homework and find out...

[Viking Dan]

6 calories/lb. seems like an absurdly low figure to me.

There are a few of those articles that I'll make sure to read carefully just to be sure that the report is not what the writer thinks it is but what is actually being published.

Hm. Looking at one of the studies they say disproves it:
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/82/1/298#SEC1

actually says they had problems with the men underreporting their calorie intake, so maybe the 3 lbs of muscle the men added accounted for even more than 263 calories a day.

Or maybe the increase in metabolism isn't linear to the pounds of muscle added.

Its odd that the men who added 3 lbs. of muscle added 263 cals/day to their BMR, but the women added only 60. Something is very goofy with this.

I am even more confused now.

That was a depressing article. And to think I ordered the book Slow Burn. Now I'm not sure if I should keep it. ANyone read it? Anyone following it?

I don't want to rehash it, but I think its a good program. See this thread for my rants on it. (http://www.proteinpower.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130) Its good though. Give it a shot.

Even *if* weight training isn't the be-all/end-all for getting lean, the feeling of a strong body (back, in particular) is priceless.

[Mitra]

That was a depressing article. And to think I ordered the book Slow Burn. Now I'm not sure if I should keep it. ANyone read it? Anyone following it?

I have used it, though I'm not following it exactly at the moment. But if I thought the only benefit to exercise was to buy me a few extra calories a day, then I wouldn't bother - even if it was considerably more than 6 kcals/lb. Exercise has a lot of effects - hormonal and structural. If I maintain my strength and flexibility I can cope better with everyday tasks (work and play); I feel healthier; I have more energy; while not perfect, my lower back is more resilient when I exercise. They say it helps maintain bone density. Some people find exercise is a big factor in keeping their LDL down.

Since no amount of exercise (that I've ever done) has increased my LBM at all, it's irrelevant to me how many calories extra pounds of muscle burn - though interesting in a purely academic way.

[Viking Dan]

Since no amount of exercise (that I've ever done) has increased my LBM at all, it's irrelevant to me how many calories extra pounds of muscle burn - though interesting in a purely academic way.

Hm. You must have done strictly aerobics then...or very light weights.

[Mitra]

http://4fxearth.net/phpBB2/smilies_mod/upload/57f4dd2d586b30ffbc1412a5d9214075.gifNo, I haven't been doing aerobics. I've been doing Slow Burn at home. With that and the yoga postures I do, that are a sort of resistance style, and more about strength than flexibility, I've seen big improvements in my strength, and in my muscle tone and definition, but no change in LBM by body measurement calculations or my Tanita scales. My LBM was 90 lb after a few days on PP (with the initial water loss), and has stayed there through losing 30 lb, exercising and not exercising. I'm convinced it's a fundamental constant ;).

[lyn64]

http://4fxearth.net/phpBB2/smilies_mod/upload/57f4dd2d586b30ffbc1412a5d9214075.gifNo, I haven't been doing aerobics. I've been doing Slow Burn at home. With that and the yoga postures I do, that are a sort of resistance style, and more about strength than flexibility, I've seen big improvements in my strength, and in my muscle tone and definition, but no change in LBM by body measurement calculations or my Tanita scales. My LBM was 90 lb after a few days on PP (with the initial water loss), and has stayed there through losing 30 lb, exercising and not exercising. I'm convinced it's a fundamental constant ;).

Just curious what those yoga postures are Mitra. Is that 'Ashtanga' yoga?

Lyn

[Viking Dan]

[img]...I've seen big improvements in my strength, and in my muscle tone and definition, but no change in LBM by body measurement...

If you're getting stronger than the other possibility is that you need a bit more protein to allow for muscle gain. Try guzzling a protein shake after the lifting and see how it goes.

I know some women don't lift with heavy enough weight because they think they'll end up like this. (http://www.cenvall.com/images/chris&tony2.jpg)

[Mitra]

:D No, based on my experience to date, there's no way I'd look like that without significant chemical assistance and spending my entire life in the gym. I tend to use bodyweight, with the right choice of exercise, that's plenty to challenge me. I'm more limited by how hard I'm prepared to work than fear of excess muscle bulk. But I'm more interested in general health and ability to do the things I want to than in numbers or looking like Ms Universe, so I'm happy with slow but steady strength gains.

I typically eat about 30-50% more than my protein requirement just using food. I'm not bothered about gaining more mass, it was just an observation.

[Viking Dan]

Wow. I guess Mr. Hahn decided to tackle this question:

http://slowburn.typepad.com/

[realruth]

Thanks for that link Viking Dan...

I have sent it to a couple of friends too!

It was good reading!

[Viking Dan]

Since I'm in the beating a dead horse kind of mood:

Katch-McArdle formula (BMR based on lean body weight)
If you have had your body composition tested and you know your lean body mass, then you can get the most accurate BMR estimate of all. This formula from Katch & McArdle takes into account lean mass and therefore is more accurate than a formula based on total body weight. The Harris Benedict equation has separate formulas for men and women because men generally have a higher LBM and this is factored into the men's formula. Since the Katch-McArdle formula accounts for LBM, this single formula applies equally to both men and women.

BMR (men and women) = 370 + (21.6 X lean mass in kg)



So they're allowing 9.8 calories/pound of lean mass. That's a little bit better I suppose.