Myth of Ripped Muscles and Calorie Burns

[quote]Meni69 wrote:

There is not study I am sighting.[/quote]

You’re right…and you still don’t see the problem there. It doesn’t matter what this guy says if his knowledge based is coming from studies NOT done on bodybuilders who gain more muscle than average…therefore, the studies he is talking about become VERY relevant.

I am asking why you aren’t asking the same questions posed above.

A real scientific mind doesn’t just accept what someone says without question especially when they are formally trained in research as well.

WHO was studied for him to come to this conclusion?

Bodybuilders do more than just sit around with more muscle. Along with that muscle comes the task of simply carrying it around. Therefor, questions like whether people with EXTREME levels of muscle mass saw more caloric use is extremely relevant to making a solid conclusion.

Also, body mass plays a role in the caloric needs of morbidly obese people…which is why someone that fat could still use 5,000cals a day just sitting around…because the bigger the body, the greater the caloric need.

This can not be ignored when discussing a topic like this and that is why “20lbs of muscle” guy may not see the same physical or metabolic effects as someone pushing over 250lbs. This is not an activity for the genetically weak. If those were the types studied, then the studies are not conclusive in any way when speaking of a special population like bodybuilders.

I’ve read 30-40 calories per pound of muscle and I would have to guess it’s closer to 30.

Regardless, most people would look better and feel better with more muscle, man, woman, young or old. It’s just a question of how much more.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Meni69 wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Yes, the amounts have been blown out of proportion.

Yes, having more muscle is all around better for metabolism and health. What’s the shocking story here?[/quote]

you said it
Yes, the amounts have been blown out of proportion.[/quote]

Yeah…but to even think that because you gained just 20lbs of muscle over several years that this means a drastically increased food intake is equally ridiculous.

I think this is no more than a simple case of “I’m a gym rat too!”. Most guys really into bodybuilding would laugh at the idea of ONLY gaining 20lbs over the course of training for years. That is, unless built like Mad titan on this site and happen to be shorter than 5’10".

I need way more calories at this weight than I did at 150lbs. I couldn’t care less exactly how many.[/quote]

I’ve gained at least 25lbs of muscle in my time on this site, from about 155 to about 185 at close to similar body fat levels at around 5’7". I don’t train or eat with the intention of gaining weight either, but I have done some mass building phases. It just seems to happen if you work out and don’t like restricting your calories.

The thing that surprises me though, and I remember a couple high level guys on here saying that they can maintain their bodyweight at around 2000-2500 calories a day. I think the guy’s name was “caveman” or something like that. I think he has a gym in south america somewhere and theres a big thread in the progress pics thread of him.

I’m currently of the opinion that small to moderate amounts of muscle is relatively difficult to lose, but I have no idea about bigger guys, especially guys whose bodyweight is kept to unnaturally high levels through AAS.

I hear people say if get weaker when dieting and then you are losing muscle, but I think it is far more complicated than that and more due to underrecovery and hormone status than muscle loss.

Of course bigger muscles require more calories; the question is how many more. I agree that 50 per pound is likely much too high an estimate, but 10-20 is believable.

More muscles → bigger internal organs required (or, at least, more work required from the internal organs)
→ more blood that needs to be pumped
=> calorie requirement increase higher than just what the muscles would use?

[quote]byukid wrote:
Sounds like the dude just wants some ice cream. [/quote]

The author in the OP worked out for how long to gain 20lbs of muscle?

[quote]Otep wrote:
The author in the OP worked out for how long to gain 20lbs of muscle?[/quote]

answer:

If it takes you “several years” to gain 20lbs starting as a newbie, you may not be cut out for this.

The population studied is always important.

Someone weighing 130lbs who is sedentary shouldn’t be used as a baseline for how much protein all humans can absorb “in one sitting”.

[quote]kakno wrote:
This is only interesting if you stop exercising completely. Who here does that?
[/quote]

I done this twice since starting when I’m at home and without a gym membership.

What I have noticed? It seems that hormones have played a bigger part than food intake in ensuring I maintain a similar level of muscle mass.

Last year after about 3 months of no exercise and about 2500calories a day I lost 21 lbs, and the muscle loss was noticeable. Of course I was at the young age of 18 and a late bloomer at that.

Now however after 3 months I’ve managed to stay around the same weight maybe losing 5lbs, but this seems to be glycogen and fat not so much muscle. This is with about 2500-3000 calories a day. The only real difference between 18 year old me and 19 year old me is hormone levels, in which I do seem to have much more testosterone. So I genuinely think hormones play a greater role in muscle maintenance than calories.

But then again this is performed under anecdotal science and has holds little weight in a scientific debate.