# How many calories in a pound of muscle?



## Banana Brain (Jul 28, 2006)

I know it takes 3500 excess calories to gain 1 lb of fat, but how many calories (probably mostly protein calories I'd imagine) plus weightlifting does it take to gain 1 lb of muscle? I don't know how to figure it out, but I would imagine it would be less calories than in a pound of fat, since protein is 3 calories per gram and fat is 9 per gram.


----------



## Banana Brain (Jul 28, 2006)

Wait, I couldn't find it anywhere but I think I may have just figured it out. There must be about 1350 calories in 1 lb of muscle. Fat calories are figured by simple multiplication (I learned this from someplace else). A pound is 450 grams, but 10% of a pound of fat is actually water, so its more like 405 grams really. You multiply 9 (calories per gram) by 405 grams and get about 3645 calories in one pound of fat. So for muscle I did 3 calories per gram times 450 grams and got 1350 calories in a pound of fat. And obviously that would be 450 grams of protein.


----------



## Banana Brain (Jul 28, 2006)

Wait, crap, that doesn't make sense either. Because... of a lot of things. Like there couldn't be 1350 calories in 450 grams of protein, could there? I'm so confused. Please tell me someone who knows!


----------



## mudbug (Jul 28, 2006)

math is not my thing, BB.  but muscle BURNS more calories than flab.


----------



## Caine (Jul 28, 2006)

Muscle consumes 300 calories, per pound, per day, just being muscle. There is no way to calculate how many calories you need to consume to gain 1 pound of muscle, though. There are too many mitigating factors to consider.


----------



## Banana Brain (Jul 29, 2006)

Caine said:
			
		

> Muscle consumes 300 calories, per pound, per day, just being muscle. There is no way to calculate how many calories you need to consume to gain 1 pound of muscle, though. There are too many mitigating factors to consider.


 Ok, but how much harvastable energy (which can be translated in calories) is in one pound of muscle? Thats what I'm trying to figure out.


----------



## Andy M. (Jul 30, 2006)

You cannot create muscle by eating more calories.  Muscles grow based on the demands made on them.  They increase in size to accommodae the work they are asked to perform.


----------



## Banana Brain (Jul 31, 2006)

Andy M. said:
			
		

> You cannot create muscle by eating more calories. Muscles grow based on the demands made on them. They increase in size to accommodae the work they are asked to perform.


But you do need to eat more to build more muscle by working out. It would be impossible to become larger if you were only taking in what you needed for energy, would it not? In order to increase muscles with minimum increase of fat, body builders need to take in a lot of calories from protien I know. They also have to have a lot more calories than most people who aren't trying to become larger. And if you ate a pound of human fat (if you were a cannibal) you would have consumed about 3500 calories. But what if you atea a pound of human muscle? Thats all I want to know.

And just so you know I'm not a cannibal. That was a hypothetical example.


----------



## Michael in FtW (Jul 31, 2006)

Banana Brain said:
			
		

> Wait, crap, that doesn't make sense either. Because...


 
You're right ... you can't figure it that way. 

A pound of muscle is not something you can just base everything on ... a pound of bacon is about 2,300 calories, a pound of lean beef is about 1,257 calories, and a pound of chicken is about 640 calories (depending on the calorie scale you look at). 

The problem is that muscle is not something gained from how many calories, or pounds, of what food you eat ... like Andy said ... it is something your body builds from hard work ... like lifting weights. For example, if you basal metabolic rate is 800 cals per day and you don't exercise on top of that ... and you eat a 1,200 calorie a day diet and an additional 3,500 calories per day of muscle meat ... the calories in excess of what your body needs will be stored as _*FAT*_, not lean muscle.

Calories, derived from different sources, are metabolized at different rates. Some provide quick energy to allow you to do the workout ... others are used later during the "recovery phase" after the workout to replenish and supply materials for building muscle to meet the workload demand imposed by the workout - ie, build new muscle mass.

Any bodybuilder, nutritionist, coach, exercise physiologist, etc.  will tell you that it takes a balanced diet that includes things like "fats" - not just lean raw muscle meat in addition to exercise to "bulk up" - and it takes exercise of the muscles that you want to develop. 

Do you think Joe Weider, Jack LeLane, Lou Ferrigno, or Arnold Schwarzenegger bulked up eating steaks and sitting on their butts in front of the tv or computer?

If you are in college - take a conditioning class. If you have a Jr. College in your area - check with them about taking a class. If not - join a gym or fitness center ... if that isn't an option ... then you can start doing some bodybuilding nutrition research online. I'm partial to the Weider System ... which is what I used when I wanted to add 20-pounds of muscle when I was very active in martial arts. Weider has supplements (found in just about any health food store) and books that are nutritional sound and I know work .. in addition to a lot of sweat and hard work.


----------



## Banana Brain (Aug 1, 2006)

Michael in FtW said:
			
		

> You're right ... you can't figure it that way.
> 
> A pound of muscle is not something you can just base everything on ... a pound of bacon is about 2,300 calories, a pound of lean beef is about 1,257 calories, and a pound of chicken is about 640 calories (depending on the calorie scale you look at).
> 
> ...


Oh. Thanks for the responce, but one more q: is a pound of fat from different animals always the same though? I would just assume, since we CAN figure the amount of cals in 1 lb fat.


----------



## tojomo (Dec 14, 2007)

Actually Banana Brain is correct. There is a minimum level of calorie excess you need you need to create a LB of muscle. You must also give your body the nutrients it needs to create that muscle but that is beside the point you need energy (calories) as well as building materials (nutrients) to create anything.  

  On the flip side to this, if you diet improperly, by severe calorie restrictions below your RMR (resting metabolic rate) and your body flips into starvation mode, it will harvest the calories from muscle instead of fat. So there is also a harvestable calories per lb of muscle, just as 3500 calories is harvestable per LB of fat.

Unfortunately I don't know what it is. That’s why I came here. I am searching for that number. I want to calculate how much muscle I am losing if I restrict my diet too much. Calories per lb of muscle is not the only number I need, however I do need it to make the calculation, and I do know it is has been calculated before even if only from finding the amount of calories in human muscle by heating one gram of water one degree Celsius at 15°C (definition of a calorie). Unfortunately no one in the “health” community seems interested in explaining how or where they got their information, so there is no way to believe or disbelieve them only to guess at who is correct. Is being healthy science or a faith? If you say it is faith then I say that is why so many diets fail. It takes faith in science to lose weight and stay fit and healthy. (Or a very lucky guess)


----------



## auntdot (Dec 14, 2007)

Good grief, I have no idea what is going on here.

Frankly I am confused as to what the poster wants to know.

And I cannot fathom the post by tojomo.

Sorry guys, you're not asking cogent questions.


----------



## suziquzie (Dec 14, 2007)

auntdot said:


> Good grief, I have no idea what is going on here.
> 
> Frankly I am confused as to what the poster wants to know.
> 
> ...


 Thanks auntdot, this thread made my head hurt like a crockpot thread a few weeks ago. 
Not that I'm dumb, there's just too much thought involved about food sometimes! 
EAT! DON"T SIT! (alot)
There, problem solved.


----------



## Michael in FtW (Dec 14, 2007)

tojomo said:


> Actually Banana Brain is correct. There is a minimum level of calorie excess you need you need to create a LB of muscle. You must also give your body the nutrients it needs to create that muscle but that is beside the point you need energy (calories) as well as building materials (nutrients) to create anything.


 
Not true as you stated it! Yes, you must have more calories than your BMR PLUS the calories you expend exercising ... this is where the building blocks come from to build new muscle. But there is no one magic number. How much you stress your muscles is a factor - and how you stress them ... you can do light weight/high reps and build strength without building muscle mass - even on the same diet and expending the same number of calories.



tojomo said:


> On the flip side to this, if you diet improperly, by severe calorie restrictions below your RMR (resting metabolic rate) and your body flips into starvation mode, it will harvest the calories from muscle instead of fat. So there is also a harvestable calories per lb of muscle, just as 3500 calories is harvestable per LB of fat.
> 
> Unfortunately I don't know what it is. That’s why I came here. I am searching for that number.


 
If you take your BMR + daily activity level factor to get your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) and reduce your caloric intake by about 14%-18% .... for every pound you lose (3,500 calories burned above that level) about 75%-80% will be fat and 20%-25% will be muscle - by weight. But, then you have to look at the volumetrics and density ... the density of fat is about 0.9g/cm³ amd muscle is about 1.1g/cm³ - so muscle is about 22% more dense than fat.



tojomo said:


> I want to calculate how much muscle I am losing if I restrict my diet too much.


 
Again - the answer is theoretical without testing - and a little more complex because it's not a linear inverse proportional relationship. I have seen nomograms in my physiology books ... but I don't have them anymore. 



tojomo said:


> Calories per lb of muscle is not the only number I need, however I do need it to make the calculation, and I do know it is has been calculated before even if only from finding the amount of calories in human muscle by heating one gram of water one degree Celsius at 15°C (definition of a calorie). Unfortunately no one in the “health” community seems interested in explaining how or where they got their information, so there is no way to believe or disbelieve them only to guess at who is correct. Is being healthy science or a faith? If you say it is faith then I say that is why so many diets fail. It takes faith in science to lose weight and stay fit and healthy. (Or a very lucky guess)


 
LOL ... the "health community" gets their information about diet and nutrition from physiologists, exercise physiologists, sports medicine, and nutritionists. If every GP knew everything about medicine there wouldn't be a need for Diagnosticians (Internests) or sub specialties like Cardiologists, Pulmonologists, Endocrinologists, and the various sub-specialties of surgeons, etc.

Since you are referencing BB (who is trying to bulk up) and I get the general impression from your post that you're trying to shed a few pounds of fat with a minimal loss of lean muscle mass (not the same thing) .... you might try reading these sites:

How To Gain Lean Bodyweight - it also explains the weight gain/weight loss in the bodybuilding cycle.

The BMI/BMR calculator ... includes sensible weight gain/loss information

Hope this helps you find your magic numbers.


----------



## schnarf. (Mar 31, 2008)

I too am interested in how many cals you need to eat extra to gain a pound of muscle, or, how to calculate it. As said the amount extra for a pound of fat gain is ref'd as 3500, but muscle should be alot less.

Also, I don't see how you can build strength without also building muscle.


----------



## Andy M. (Mar 31, 2008)

Wouldn't it be nice if you could eat something and add muscle by doing that.

Sadly, it's not that easy. You have to exercise to add muscle.  If you demand more of muscles on a regular basis, they will get bigger to satisfy that demand.

You have to eat 3500 calories more than your body uses to gain a pound.  To lose a pound, you have to burn 3,500 more calories than you eat.  Whether it's fat or muscle is dependent on whether you sit on the couch and watch TV or exercise.  

It's your choice.


----------



## schnarf. (Mar 31, 2008)

Andy M. said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if you could eat something and add muscle by doing that.
> 
> Sadly, it's not that easy. You have to exercise to add muscle. If you demand more of muscles on a regular basis, they will get bigger to satisfy that demand.
> 
> ...


 
Exercise goes without saying.
I'm just wondering about the cals required to gain 1 pound of muscle. It should be less than a pound of fat if you think about it.


----------



## Andy M. (Mar 31, 2008)

I'm not sure that's something that's easily measureable.  To gain a pound of muscle you must do some extensive exercising.  How many calories you have to expend to do the amount of exercise needed to add a pound of muscle may vary for several reasons.  

If a person is a couch potato who does not exercise at all, he may be able to add a pound of muscle with a lower number of calories spent on exercise vs. a highly developed, body builder who already has lots of highly developed musculature.

Why do you think it would be less than the number of calories to add a pound of fat?


----------



## schnarf. (Mar 31, 2008)

Andy M. said:


> I'm not sure that's something that's easily measureable. To gain a pound of muscle you must do some extensive exercising. How many calories you have to expend to do the amount of exercise needed to add a pound of muscle may vary for several reasons.
> 
> If a person is a couch potato who does not exercise at all, he may be able to add a pound of muscle with a lower number of calories spent on exercise vs. a highly developed, body builder who already has lots of highly developed musculature.
> 
> Why do you think it would be less than the number of calories to add a pound of fat?


 
Couch potatoes vs BBrs I know, that's why I said how many cals extra. Not how many to eat, but how many excess over and above maintenance for metabolism and activity, etc. 

It should be less going by the energy value of a pound of muscle vs a pound of fat. Muscle, aside from the energy it's going to take for the structure's physiology to be built which is more complex than adipose tissue I would think, is like a store of protein (sure to us it's more than that) whereas adipose is a store of fat. The energy from a gram of protein is 4cals, 9cals for 1g fat. So, unless the difference in the energy of fat and muscle formation going by their stored energy is made up by the extra complexity of muscle vs adipose I'm thinking muscle would be less.

Also, most of fat tissue is fat, whereas much of muscle is water.


----------



## Mystic (Mar 31, 2008)

I don't think there's any exact answer to this.  Everybody is different and will have different needs.  Also, training programs are different and will produce different results in different people. With that said, we are left with general guidelines such as eat an extra 3500 calories to gain a pound (hopefully mostly muscle but there will be some fat).

I recently started reading "Fitness an Health" by Sharkey and Gaskill.  I haven't gotten to the speific section yet but I looked up their recommendations for weight gain and they say the following for adding one pound per week:

- Have a strength training program to build lean body weight.
- Reduce calorie burning activities such as aerobics and sports activities.
- Increase calorie consumption (+750 calories on weight training days and +250 calories on non training days).  These extra calories should be largely from low fat, protein rich foods.  

Seems pretty basic to me but remember that YMMV.  I used to do a lot of weight training with some pretty hardcore people.  I've known people who can add lean pounds easily and others who would eat everything in sight and never gain a pound.

Michael


----------



## kitchenelf (Mar 31, 2008)

There's about 100 calories in a pound of mussels - If you cook them in wine and other stuff it will go up


----------



## suziquzie (Mar 31, 2008)

kitchenelf said:


> There's about 100 calories in a pound of mussels - If you cook them in wine and other stuff it will go up


----------



## schnarf. (Mar 31, 2008)

Mystic said:


> I don't think there's any exact answer to this. Everybody is different and will have different needs. Also, training programs are different and will produce different results in different people. With that said, we are left with general guidelines such as eat an extra 3500 calories to gain a pound (hopefully mostly muscle but there will be some fat).
> 
> .. I've known people who can add lean pounds easily and others who would eat everything in sight and never gain a pound.


 
Sure there will be some ppl that are extremes, but if there is a typical guide for a pound of fat I figure there should be one for muscle. It seems odd to me we just use the same advice for muscle gain as we do fat when one seems to require much more energy than the other.


----------



## Andy M. (Mar 31, 2008)

If you consume 3500 more calories than your body uese, you gain a pound.  As you are not using these calories, your body stores it as fat. 

If you consume 3500 added calories *and* increase your exercise levels to burn an additional 3500 calories, your body won't store it as fat but use it to fuel your additional exercise, whih results in more muscle.

Following this process, I don't think you can calculate how much muscle you will gain as a result.  It may be a pound or much less.  There are a lot of variables that would effect the efficiency with which individual bodies work to build muscle.


----------



## schnarf. (Mar 31, 2008)

Andy M. said:


> If you consume 3500 more calories than your body uese, you gain a pound. As you are not using these calories, your body stores it as fat.
> 
> If you consume 3500 added calories *and* increase your exercise levels to burn an additional 3500 calories, your body won't store it as fat but use it to fuel your additional exercise, whih results in more muscle.
> 
> Following this process, I don't think you can calculate how much muscle you will gain as a result. It may be a pound or much less. There are a lot of variables that would effect the efficiency with which individual bodies work to build muscle.


 
That wouldn't work. If you burn 3500extra and eat 3500 extra there is no weight gain. You need to eat more than you need to gain weight, be that weight fat or muscle. I am a weightlifter, I have figured over the years how much I need to stay the same or gain lose/weight. I'm just interested in a typical figure for muscle gain as there is one for fat, and with a guide for muscle, I'd also like to know how that was calculated. Also, we don't need to consider individuals' variables, we can just make the statement that whatever an individual requires if he/she eats 3500cals more than he/she can use (be that for maintenance or used in building muscle) he/she will then gain a pound of fat. You see we don't need to know someone's needs, we still have the guide that 3500 makes a pound of fat, but we have no such value for muscle, just guides that say eat a little extra and try not to gain more than x amount of weight or more will be fat. Oh well....


----------



## Michael in FtW (Apr 1, 2008)

schnarf. said:


> Sure there will be some ppl that are extremes, but if there is a typical guide for a pound of fat I figure there should be one for muscle. It seems odd to me we just use the same advice for muscle gain as we do fat when one seems to require much more energy than the other.


 
And, that is where you are missing the point ... fat is _accumulated_ from excess calories - muscle is _built_ thru work, some calories fuel the muscles' needs to perform the exercise and some provide the building blocks to build muscle during the recovery period.

Now, stop and think about this for a minute ... *IF* there was a magic formula of how many calories to eat to gain x pounds of lean muscle mass ... every guy could sit on the couch, watch TV, and look like Arnold or Lou without ever breaking a sweat! Joe Weider would certainly have already patented it and put it in a can if that was possible.

Sorry, dude - it doesn't work that way. And, FWIW - two guys starting out at the same weight and size - eating the same diet and exercising the same will not have the same muscle building results.


----------



## schnarf. (Apr 1, 2008)

Michael in FtW said:


> And, that is where you are missing the point ... fat is _accumulated_ from excess calories - muscle is _built_ thru work, some calories fuel the muscles' needs to perform the exercise and some provide the building blocks to build muscle during the recovery period.
> 
> Now, stop and think about this for a minute ... *IF* there was a magic formula of how many calories to eat to gain x pounds of lean muscle mass ... every guy could sit on the couch, watch TV, and look like Arnold or Lou without ever breaking a sweat! Joe Weider would certainly have already patented it and put it in a can if that was possible.
> 
> Sorry, dude - it doesn't work that way. And, FWIW - two guys starting out at the same weight and size - eating the same diet and exercising the same will not have the same muscle building results.


 

I didn't say I wasn't lifting. I still don't know why there's no figure for muscle or if it really is the same as fat give/take, how they calculated it.


----------



## Michael in FtW (Apr 1, 2008)

schnarf. said:


> I didn't say I wasn't lifting. I still don't know why there's no figure for muscle or if it really is the same as fat give/take, how they calculated it.


 
The reason there is no figure for "claories consumed = muscle mass increase" like there is for "3,500 excess calories consumed = 1 lb fat" is because _*they are not the same things*_. 

As I said before - fat is accumulated - muscle is built - and building muscle depends on a lot of factors other than just calories.


----------



## schnarf. (Apr 1, 2008)

Michael in FtW said:


> The reason there is no figure for "claories consumed = muscle mass increase" like there is for "3,500 excess calories consumed = 1 lb fat" is because _*they are not the same things*_.
> 
> As I said before - fat is accumulated - muscle is built - and building muscle depends on a lot of factors other than just calories.


 

I could say the same thing about fat. Eating an excess of cals doesn't necessarily equate to a particular amount of fat bcz of different metabolisms, yet, we still have a figure for a guesstimate. I don't see a reasonable difference, they're both subject to variance as a result of individual body types. Bodytype suggests both disposition toward fat gain/loss and muscle gain/loss. What other factors are there?


----------



## Michael in FtW (Apr 2, 2008)

schnarf. said:


> I could say the same thing about fat. Eating an excess of cals doesn't necessarily equate to a particular amount of fat bcz of different metabolisms, yet, we still have a figure for a guesstimate.


 
Yeah, you could say that - but look again at what you just said, it's wrong (as stated). *Excess* calories are those comsumed above those metabolized. What makes a difference in whether the excess calories goes to fat or muscle depends on the source of the calories, amount of calories consumed at one time and frequency, number of feedings per day, and exercise (intensity and duration).



schnarf. said:


> I don't see a reasonable difference, they're both (subject to variance as a result of individual body types. Bodytype suggests both disposition toward fat gain/loss and muscle gain/loss. What other factors are there?


 
You, and some other previous posters, want an exact (guesstimate) number of calories required to gain 1-Lb of lean muscle so here it is - 3,500 calories. 

How many calories you need to consume is fairly simple to calculate:

(your body weight x (100 - % body fat) x exercise factor) + 750

Exercise factors:
11 if you do little or no exercise at all
13 if you do light exercise (1 to 2 hours per week) (most of us)
15 if you do moderate exercise (3 to 5 hours per week)
17 if you do heavy exercise (6 or more hours per week)
19 if you do heavy body-building exercise (8-10 or more hours per week)

Nutrition: The source of the calories, how many are consumed at one time, when they are consumed, the number of times you eat per day - these are some other factors that make the difference between gaining fat and building muscle from the same number of calories.

There are sites devoted to body building that go into greater detail - if you're really curious you can google them. I thought I posted a couple of links - oops I DID ... you might want to back up and read them. FYI: I don't waste the time to look-up and post links to sites unless they are relevant.


----------



## schnarf. (Apr 2, 2008)

Michael in FtW said:


> Yeah, you could say that - but look again at what you just said, it's wrong (as stated). *Excess* calories are those comsumed above those metabolized.


 
I agree on the best ways to partition towards muscle, but just as a nitpick, it's wrong to say excess are those that are not metabolised. Metabolism is any processing of nutrients, excess or not, they are all processed whether or not they are burned off or stored.


> You, and some other previous posters, want an exact (guesstimate) number of calories required to gain 1-Lb of lean muscle so here it is - 3,500 calories.
> 
> .


I'm not after a plan to gain muscle, I have that down. I am just interested in the energetic cost to build a pound of muscle. If it is 3500cals (guide) then my final question is, how was that calculated? Isn't it a bit coincidentally suspicious it's the same for fat although fat is much higher in energy? That would mean the energy value of muscle which would be well below that of fat by itself, would be pretty balanced with fat when the energy for the extra complexity of muscle components was all tallied up.


----------



## wysiwyg (Apr 2, 2008)

Dear all, I have no clue what are you talking about but using some basic engineering principles, I will drop my two cents:

Quoting scharf.: "I am a weightlifter, I have figured over the years how much I need to stay the same or gain lose/weight. I'm just interested in a typical figure for muscle gain as there is one for fat"

If you know approx. how many calories you need to keep the same/gain/lose weight, then do the following experiment.  
a) Check your BMI for your desired/regular/normal weight.
    Calculate your muscle weight based on body weight and BMI %.
b) Increase your calories ingestion and your gym routine for a certain period of time.
    Both increases should be controlled and monitored, you should gain muscle weight.
c) Verify your BMI and calculate your muscle weight again for your new body weight.
    If the increases were significant, you should have higher muscle weight.

You can estimate now, the muscle weight increase based on the calories and gym routine changes. 
Since there are two variables (in theory, I will explain more later), you can't associate the muscle weight gains just to calorie ingestion.  I believe it probably better to associate it to the gm routine since calories are easier to monitor, therefore, keep as a constant for this experiment.
All of this is assuming your body functions and muscle weight changes are _*Linear variables*_, which I am sure they are not.  I'd venture to say they are time, body weight and total muscle weight (BMI) dependant.  

_*Linear variables explanation*_: By this, I mean that muscle gains are probably fast in the beginning of a program (time dependancy) but not so fast after an adaptation period.  Muscle weight also is dependant in total body weight; this is harder to explain but think the reverse: a heavier person will burn more calories doing exactly the same excercise than a lighter person because of the added effort required and muscle weight gain is certainly dependant on your BMI, the higher the BMI is, the harder will be to gain weight.

Since these variables are not strictly linear, it is pretty hard to establish a general guideline since we are and function differently, and even ourselves can gain/lose muscle weight according to different circumstances.

I hope this makes sense to you.  I put with some engineering terms what some other fellows have already explained but I guess using this, you can calculate an estimated number.

Oops, I didn't read the last comment that Michael in FtW posted.


----------



## buckytom (Apr 2, 2008)

schnarf. said:


> Also, I don't see how you can build strength without also building muscle.


 
it depends on what you call "building muscle". there's different types of muscle fibers, with different densities. essentially, there's slow twitch and fast twitch muscle fibers (and sub-cats of each), each with their own characteristics of athletic strength.  

i think the best answer stated here is there's no fixed number because of the number of variables involved, the most basic of which are genetics and epi-genetics.


----------



## schnarf. (Apr 2, 2008)

wysiwyg said:


> Dear all, I have no clue what are you talking about but using some basic engineering principles, I will drop my two cents:
> 
> Quoting scharf.: "I am a weightlifter, I have figured over the years how much I need to stay the same or gain lose/weight. I'm just interested in a typical figure for muscle gain as there is one for fat"
> 
> ...


 

Good answer. I'm a member of a few bodybuilding boards and this hasn't been covered directly. I have actually just found something which is pretty useful. It is a list of laymen points discerned from multiple and complex studies on the issue of fat loss/muscle loss, but you can take the reverse to see this from a muscle gain/fat standpoint. In the context of burning muscle for fuel it mentions a pound of muscle is 600cals, but this doesn't necessarily mean it only takes that much to create it. As you have mentioned the guide here says to experiment to see how weight changes. On a deficit of 3500 lose it slowly and most maybe be fat, a loss of ~1lb. Lose it very quickly and much maybe muscle- worst case all---> 6lbs weight loss as each lb muscle gives only 600cals. Once again the ratios of loss of fat/muscle depend on the persons type and size. eg the more fat you have the more readily your body will lose a higher proportion of fat than muscle. Going back to my question, the amount of energy to gain an amount of muscle could be estimated from experimenting.

However, while the general figure for loss is 600 for muscle, it does seem to be implied for gain is 3500 as it is recommended to increase daily by 500. With that in mind I'm interested in how the shortfall of 2900cals comes into play when the product itself is only 600. Clearly buidling muscle is not like building fat stores, but it would be interesting to see how the energy was split up into various parts of the building process.


----------



## schnarf. (Apr 2, 2008)

I just came across conflicting info on cals to gain muscle, according to this source you do (variance aside which you can adjust for) only need as many cals to build muscle as it gives when it's broken down, ie 600cals for 1lb per week, or about 100 cals per day surplus.



> If we chemically analyzed a pound of fat and a pound of muscle, we would discover some interesting facts.
> 
> Both fat and muscle contain water, lipids (fats), and protein, in varying amounts: WaterLipidsProteinMuscle70%7%22%Fat22%72%6%
> Calorically speaking, a pound of fat has 3,500 calories while a pound of muscle contains only 600 calories. Most of muscle is water, whereas fatty tissue is mainly composed of fat.
> ...


 

Now I am tempted to dismiss the small energy requirement but, most of muscle is water, and, the 500 per day increases which are mentioned are typically the upper end of recommendations, for hard gainers some of whom go even higher. The lower ranges I have seen are daily increases of 1-250cals, so perhaps this figure of 600 is accurate theoretically.


----------



## Michael in FtW (Apr 3, 2008)

Let's conduct an experiment to put your theory to the test, schnarf.

Since you know how many calories you need to consume to matain your weight without either weight gain or loss ....

Without any other adjustments to your exercise/diet routine ... add 100 cals per day for 4 weeks (28 days). Since the source of the calories seems to be insignficant (you are only looking at clories and not their source, right) - make it 1 Tablespoon US (15 ml) Extra virgin olive oil divided between the number of meals you consume per day (that's about 120 calories/day).

If your theory is right, that +600 cals make a pound of muscle, you should gain about 5.6 lbs in 4 weeks.


----------



## schnarf. (Apr 3, 2008)

Michael in FtW said:


> Let's conduct an experiment to put your theory to the test, schnarf.
> 
> Since you know how many calories you need to consume to matain your weight without either weight gain or loss ....
> 
> ...


 

You're right, I didn't mention source but although I used to lean towards the calorie type idea like most ppl, I have been corresponding with a very well informed nutritional post doc who has convinced many that energy is the overriding factor of importance and not whether you take in slightly more carbs or fat. If I could keep my activity constant I would perform that experiment and I would use the extra virgin too, maybe even a side trial with carbs extra instead just to see. The good thing about the 600 guide is that if it holds you could estimate muscle/fat gain by the scales if your cals were moderate. If you gained only 1 pound from 3500 you'd know it was all fat, if you gained near 6lbs you'd know it would have to be all muscle(simplified).

However, my estimate of daily needs is only an estimate +/- a few hundred cals bcz my activity level is not always the same.
If I ever do have several weeks of similar activity I'll let you know, but don't hold your breath.


----------

