How Many Calories Does a Pound of Muscle Burn At Rest, At Work? Any Proof?

[ucimigrate]

Hi Everyone,

We can be pretty sure that muscle burns more calories than fat, pound for pound.

But, how many calories does an extra added pound of skeletal muscle actually burn?

I know the popular lore is something like 50 or 60 calories per pound of muscle, per day. But, there has been little research done.

Some others like Craig Ballantyne, seem to suggest it's closer to 6 calories per day per pound of pure muscle (not waterweight or glycogen).

My guess is that the further question can be divided into "at rest" or "at work".

In our thought experiment, we can take two identical twins reared the same way: Arnold and Blake. Arnold lifted weights over ten years, and put on 50 lbs of added skeletal muscle. Blake did not and worked at computers. All other things are equal.

1. On an extended vacation with no exercise, Arnold would burn 300 calories per day more than Blake (50 lbs of muscle * 6 calories per pound)

2. At the gym, however, Arnold would burn much more than that doing two hour exercise sesssions (probably closer to 15 calories or so) per pound of skeletal muscle, because the mitochondria is activated and doing physical work.

3. Can anyone give me an answer? Is there actual research to show?

 

[Harishusain]

From what I remember it's around 50 calories extra burnt daily per pound of muscle (resting)

 

[ucimigrate]

From what I remember it's around 50 calories extra burnt daily per pound of muscle (resting)

I know that; but, is there any actual evidence?

 

[Dutch guy in asia]

I stopped thinking about those things long ago as we are all so different. Just look at how much difference there is in metabolic rate between people. I now don't even look at those formula's for how much calories someone should burn. I just count what i eat over a certain time and watch if i lose weight or not. This way i know what i burn in general.

Then I can use that too add and foods or eat less to see where I am going.

Before I was crazy about the things the OP mentions but it just did not reflect reality.

 

[Resolve10]

You kind of already answered your own question so I am unsure what you are looking for?

Yes it is NOT 50 calories per pound, just think of how ridiculous that would be (James Krieger for more on the debunk here). He links the research there for the 6 calories per pound science.

It is also one of those things that I don't think matters, like knowing how much it is isn't going to change anything, you either need to consume X to gain/maintain/lose or not. The calculations for these things are never precise anyways.

The second notion about how much does that effect the amount burned during training is going to be even more complicated and probably less based on how much the muscle directly burns than on how the muscle allows you to do more work which then burns more.

 

[Harishusain]

I know that; but, is there any actual evidence?

I'm sure there is but I don't know about it. Though the poster above makes a good point, metabolic adaptation and dozens of other factors render these considerations null. One guy may hold 20 lb of muscle at 2000 calories a day while the other might maintain the same at 2500.

 

[HIT4ME]

You kind of already answered your own question so I am unsure what you are looking for?

Yes it is NOT 50 calories per pound, just think of how ridiculous that would be (James Krieger for more on the debunk here). He links the research there for the 6 calories per pound science.

It is also one of those things that I don't think matters, like knowing how much it is isn't going to change anything, you either need to consume X to gain/maintain/lose or not. The calculations for these things are never precise anyways.

The second notion about how much does that effect the amount burned during training is going to be even more complicated and probably less based on how much the muscle directly burns than on how the muscle allows you to do more work which then burns more.

This is pretty close to my thoughts.

A couple of twists , fat is not completely inactive. As our understanding of fat has evolved, it plays a role in immunity and hormonal functions, etc. It is metabolically active and not a 0-calorie requirement.

Second, weight matters. A 200 pound person will burn more calories than a 160 pound person at the same activity levels, regardless of how much of it is muscle. Just like a 160 pound person carrying 40 pounds will burn more calories doing something than if they are not carrying the weight.

And, the big twist, in this way I would hypothesize the person with MORE muscle would actually burn fewer calories than a person with less muscle at the same weight. What? Huh?

Yes - the person with more muscle will require less of a maximal effort to complete a task and likely will also have better and more efficient metabolic adaptations, making their caloric expenditure more efficient.

How much of a real life difference does this all make? Hardly any...and we are right back to that 6-9 cals/day figure.

So, if you put on 20 pounds of muscle (years of work naturally) - you probably burn an extra 120-180 calories a day.

And the evidence...almost non-existent. What does exist will not be definitively stated I think either.