It is accepted that more muscle = ability to burn fat faster, does anyone know what sort of a difference it actually makes. Eg what would be the diff. between A who is 200lb at 20%bf and B 200lb at 10%bf assuming everything else is exactly the same (diet,training, recovery, height etc), diets seem to refer to weight as the benchmark but there seems to be little reference to bf% as a factor to be allowed for.I am not referring to the goals of the diet (gaining, cutting) just the impact of bf on the diet.
Well the science says between 10-20 calories per pound of additional lean body mass so in this case you’re talking a minimum of 200-400 calories per day. You also have to factor in how much additional mass one has on his body vs what he would naturally carry without any weight training. I’ve observed it takes more and more calories per lb of new lean body mass just in order to maintain that muscle mass. So if we’re talking a guy who is relatively close to his natural 200 lbs at 10% bf vs a guy who is naturally 160 lbs and builds up to 200 lbs at 10% bf lbs then in most cases you’ll see a caloric consumption by the naturally smaller guy above and beyond what you would expect.
I’ve read that an extra pound of muscle burns up to 100 extra calories. Is this possible? I can’t quote the source, but I believe it was in a rag. Thanks in advance.
Yeah Rob I think in some situations that is true. Maybe not 100 calories per lb but pretty high nonetheless. The more muscle you put on your body the more your body will try to rebel against that additional muscle. One way of the body getting rid of additional muscle mass is by speeding up the metabolism…thus, if you put on a lot of muscle you sure better be feeding it in a big way otherwise it’ll magically disappear.
I would have titled the post att’n you if I’d known you were available, thanks for the response. How is the ren. tr. going?