Dr. Joseph Donnelly and other leading exercise physiologists conducted a comprehensive review of all the research on exercise and weight loss for the American College of Sports Medicine. While resistance training was recommended for its beneficial role in potentially improving muscle strength and power, the physiologists found no evidence that increasing muscle mass enhanced weight loss, especially when combined with dieting.
As I see it, the important point here is they refer to WEIGHT loss. If I am increasing muscle mass while simultaneously reducing fat mass, it's entirely possible that I would see no net change in weight (especially as an untrained individual, which I believe most studies tend to use).
I find it hard to believe that in this situation someone would not see some decrease in %bodyfat, even if they didn't also see a reduction in bodyweight.
Screw it anyway...
more muscle with the same fat = fat minimization?
Bullshit.... More musclemass requires more energy to maintain it. As simple as that. All conclusion follow.
Other words Ronnie Coleman to sustain his mass have to eat much much more than average Joe who in his turn can't eat as much as Ronnie coz he'll choke and die of obesity.
I too would like a clarification of weight loss vs. fat loss.
Saw this article in another forum.
Muscle mass does not assist weight loss. Muscle is denser than fat, so even if you lose fat and gain muscle you might gain weight or stay the same on the scale.
Muscle mass assists fat loss. 1 lb fat burns roughly 3-5 calories a day. 1 lb of muscle burns between 35-50 calories a day.
goose, where'd you grab those numbers?!
So, someone's trying to re-invent the hamster wheel? What else is new?
ummmmm headhunter did you read what she said??
She said the average person probably won't build enough muscle to see a noticable difference in calorie burning. Thats different then increased muscle doesn't burn fat. How many people here want to be the average person?
I don't know the exact numbers but whenver they say more muscle burns more calories they always say something like you burn 60 extra calories a day which amounts to a pound every 2 months, thats hardly noticable. One fruit and that theory is out the window.
You can google "lb muscle calories per day" and get couple thousand results
I have seen it listed within the ACSM (American College of Sports Medicine), the NASM (National Academy of Sports Medicine), and a handful of different books lying around the house.
That study was combining DIETING with "Resistance training."
OF-FUCKING-COURSE YOU AREN'T GOING TO BUILD ANY SIGNIFICANT MUSCLE MASS WHILE ON A FUCKING DIET.
Compounded by the fact that researchers aren't going to seriously push their sample group. Most guys on this site train hard. Chances are the sample group wasn't. If you can bench 6 plates then chances are you have enough muscle to make a serious difference. IE: I maintain at about ~3600 calories. An untrained person would be obese consuming that much food. Anybody that isn't a complete tool knows that muscle mass increases rested metabolic rate..
Not to mention the resistance training itself can burn considerable calories. I'd love to retry this study but make the "Resistance" group do this: http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/screw_cardio_four_complexes_for_a_shredded_physique
That part really made me laugh."While resistance training was recommended for its beneficial role in potentially improving muscle strength and power" That is the way you say something when you are not sure about it. But it is fact. She could just go ahead and leave out the word potentially next time. lol. What a douche.