Re: 50 calories per pound of muscle? Where did it come from?

[Guest guest]

,

I visited your site last week, saw the post, and printed it out to read at home.

Excellent info! What do you think about Berardi's G-Flux methodology, by

the way?

Pérez

Reynosa, Mexico

________________________________

From: Supertraining [mailto:Supertraining ] On

Behalf Of shredaholic

Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 6:48 PM

Supertraining

Subject: 50 calories per pound of muscle? Where did it come

from?

I'm sure some of you have heard the saying, " You increase your metabolism by 50

calories for every pound of muscle you build. "

However, a close inspection of this figure indicates that it's dramatically

over-inflated. The reality is more around 6 calories per pound. I wrote a blog

post about this here; there was some interesting comments that followed:

http://weightology.net/?p=192

I've been personally wondering where this inflated number came from in the first

place. There is almost no scientific data out there of which I'm aware that even

comes close to supporting such a number.

=========================

[Guest guest]

It's like the fishermans story- the fish that got away gets a little bigger

every time he tells the story.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

________________________________

From: shredaholic <Yngvai@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Tue, June 8, 2010 7:48:18 PM

Subject: 50 calories per pound of muscle? Where did it come

from?

I'm sure some of you have heard the saying, " You increase your metabolism by 50

calories for every pound of muscle you build. "

However, a close inspection of this figure indicates that it's dramatically

over-inflated. The reality is more around 6 calories per pound. I wrote a blog

post about this here; there was some interesting comments that followed:

http://weightology.net/?p=192

I've been personally wondering where this inflated number came from in the first

place. There is almost no scientific data out there of which I'm aware that

even comes close to supporting such a number.

Krieger

Weightology, LLC www.weightology.net

The Health Sleuth www.thehealthsleuth.com

Editor, Journal of Pure Power www.jopp.us

Redmond, WA

[Guest guest]

Hey my personal theory is somebody was selling something and rounded UP by what,

44 calories?

Can't explain why I saw 7 calories a pound a couple months ago in a lady's

fitness magazine either by the way....

Maybe 50 calories a pound is the " enhanced " version on PEDs? <grin>

the Phantom

aka Schaefer, CMT/RMT, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

50 calories per pound of muscle? Where did it come

from?

I'm sure some of you have heard the saying, " You increase your metabolism by 50

calories for every pound of muscle you build. "

However, a close inspection of this figure indicates that it's dramatically

over-inflated. The reality is more around 6 calories per pound. I wrote a blog

post about this here; there was some interesting comments that followed:

http://weightology.net/?p=192

I've been personally wondering where this inflated number came from in the first

place. There is almost no scientific data out there of which I'm aware that even

comes close to supporting such a number.

Krieger

Weightology, LLC www.weightology.net

The Health Sleuth www.thehealthsleuth.com

Editor, Journal of Pure Power www.jopp.us

Redmond, WA

[Guest guest]

It may have come from this source. In his book LifeFit, Ralph Paffenbarger made

the following assertion:

" Indeed, when you replace 10 pounds of fat with 10 pounds of muscle, your weight

remains the same, but you can expect to expend 500 or more additional

kilocalories each day at rest. "

That book came out in 1996. Not sure if this number was floating around before

then or not.

Krieger

Weightology, LLC www.weightology.net

The Health Sleuth www.thehealthsleuth.com

Journal of Pure Power www.jopp.us

Redmond, WA

>

> Hey my personal theory is somebody was selling something and rounded UP by

what, 44 calories?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, ,

Thanks for your comment! I'm not familiar with Berardi's G-Flux program. I did

meet once at an ACSM conference, and I've read some of his stuff, but I

haven't read anything about this particular program.

Krieger

Weightology, LLC www.weightology.net

The Health Sleuth www.thehealthsleuth.com

Journal of Pure Power www.jopp.us

Redmond, WA

>

> ,

>

>

>

> I visited your site last week, saw the post, and printed it out to read at

home. Excellent info! What do you think about Berardi's G-Flux

methodology, by the way?

>

> Pérez

> Reynosa, Mexico

>

[Guest guest]

Ralph,

Totally agree. One contributing factor is also the fact that most people

cite calories and forget or are obvlivious of the unit of time they have to

be quoted with.

Therefore if a research article mention 6 cal/day per pound, and the next

person who quotes it ( Krieger himself) reports 6 cal per pound, the

person who quotes it after him/her is left to guess to what unit of time the

6 cal per pound were referring to. The devil is in the details.

Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn@...> wrote:

>

>

> It's like the fishermans story- the fish that got away gets a little bigger

> every time he tells the story.

>

> Ralph Giarnella MD

> Southington Ct USA

>

> ________________________________

> From: shredaholic <Yngvai@... <Yngvai%40comcast.net>>

> Supertraining <Supertraining%40>

> Sent: Tue, June 8, 2010 7:48:18 PM

> Subject: 50 calories per pound of muscle? Where did it come

> from?

>

>

> I'm sure some of you have heard the saying, " You increase your metabolism

> by 50 calories for every pound of muscle you build. "

>

> However, a close inspection of this figure indicates that it's dramatically

> over-inflated. The reality is more around 6 calories per pound. I wrote a

> blog post about this here; there was some interesting comments that

> followed:

>

> http://weightology.net/?p=192

>

> I've been personally wondering where this inflated number came from in the

> first place. There is almost no scientific data out there of which I'm aware

> that even comes close to supporting such a number.

>

> Krieger

> Weightology, LLC www.weightology.net

> The Health Sleuth www.thehealthsleuth.com

> Editor, Journal of Pure Power www.jopp.us

> Redmond, WA

>

>

[Guest guest]

: Thanks for your contribution to this always confusing topic. I know the

guy who co-wrote " ghosted " the book with Paff. Who knows who actually slipped in

the offending factoid? Too late now. Anyway, I once found a chart that listed

calorie burn of various body tissues per kg per day. Or something very close to

that. You know: skeletal muscle, cardiac muscle, liver, brain. I'm sure everyone

knows the brain is a big hog. I don't think I have the basic comparative info

any longer, so would be interested to see if anyone on this group can find it,

and post it.

Amby Burfoot

Runner's World

Emmaus PA USA

>

> It may have come from this source. In his book LifeFit, Ralph Paffenbarger

made the following assertion:

>

> " Indeed, when you replace 10 pounds of fat with 10 pounds of muscle, your

weight remains the same, but you can expect to expend 500 or more additional

kilocalories each day at rest. "

>

> That book came out in 1996. Not sure if this number was floating around before

then or not.

>

> Krieger

> Weightology, LLC www.weightology.net

> The Health Sleuth www.thehealthsleuth.com

> Journal of Pure Power www.jopp.us

> Redmond, WA

>

[Guest guest]

,

I found a Muscular Development article from about 1987 by Ken Hutchins and

Ellington Darden who were promoting the Nautilus Diet book stating that... " A

gain of one pound of muscle raises the metabolic rate by 75 calories per day; "

Curious where they got that number from.

Manchester, CT

: Thanks for your contribution to this always confusing topic. I know the

guy who co-wrote " ghosted " the book with Paff. Who knows who actually slipped in

the offending factoid? Too late now. Anyway, I once found a chart that listed

calorie burn of various body tissues per kg per day. Or something very close to

that. You know: skeletal muscle, cardiac muscle, liver, brain. I'm sure everyone

knows the brain is a big hog. I don't think I have the basic comparative info

any longer, so would be interested to see if anyone on this group can find it,

and post it.

Amby Burfoot

Runner's World

Emmaus PA USA

>

> It may have come from this source. In his book LifeFit, Ralph Paffenbarger

made the following assertion:

>

> " Indeed, when you replace 10 pounds of fat with 10 pounds of muscle, your

weight remains the same, but you can expect to expend 500 or more additional

kilocalories each day at rest. "

>

> That book came out in 1996. Not sure if this number was floating around before

then or not.

>

> Krieger

> Weightology, LLC www.weightology.net

> The Health Sleuth www.thehealthsleuth.com

> Journal of Pure Power www.jopp.us

> Redmond, WA

>

____________________________________________________________

Penny Stock Jumping 2000%

Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c1426858bd703d49dast01vuc

[Guest guest]

: Nice town, Manchester. I did a Google book search that returned

the below " hit. " Not 1987, but definitely pointing to Ellington Darden as an

early source:

Soft steps to a hard body & #8206; - Page 8

Ellington Darden - Health & Fitness - 1993 - 173 pages

Each pound of muscle requires 75 calories per day for sustenance. That's why

gaining muscle helps to supply a net calorie intake, and thus burns fat. ...

Amby Burfoot

Runner's World

Emmaus PA USA

>

>

>

> ,

>

> I found a Muscular Development article from about 1987 by Ken Hutchins and

> Ellington Darden who were promoting the Nautilus Diet book stating that... " A

> gain of one pound of muscle raises the metabolic rate by 75 calories per day; "

> Curious where they got that number from.

>

> Manchester, CT

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Darden is not the best at gathering reliable information.

Secondly, while muscle mass burns more calories, burning 50 calories or 75

calories per pound of muscle makes no sense.

Let's do the math. If someone where let's say 200 lbs at 15% body fat. That

would mean they their lean mass (everything but fat) would be 170 lbs.

If 1/3 of that lean mass was muscle that would be about 56 lbs (170 divided by

3). So, 56 lbs of muscle idling in front of a TV, computer, basically doing

nothing all day is going to burn 2800 kcal a day (56 lb of muscle X 50 kcal) to

4200 kcal a day (56 lb X 75 kcal).

Burning 50 to 75 kcal per pound of muscle is some REALLY.... " Fuzzy Math " .

Kenny Croxdale

Rio Rancho, NM

Re: 50 calories per pound of muscle? Where did it come

from?

: Nice town, Manchester. I did a Google book search that returned

the below " hit. " Not 1987, but definitely pointing to Ellington Darden as an

early source:

Soft steps to a hard body & #8206; - Page 8

Ellington Darden - Health & Fitness - 1993 - 173 pages

Each pound of muscle requires 75 calories per day for sustenance. That's why

gaining muscle helps to supply a net calorie intake, and thus burns fat. ...

Amby Burfoot

Runner's World

Emmaus PA USA

>

>

>

> ,

>

> I found a Muscular Development article from about 1987 by Ken Hutchins and

> Ellington Darden who were promoting the Nautilus Diet book stating that... " A

> gain of one pound of muscle raises the metabolic rate by 75 calories per day; "

> Curious where they got that number from.

>

> Manchester, CT

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This topic has come up several times over the past several years- Below is

information I posted in the past with citations from several authors. It is

interesting how the cal/lb/day has gone from 6 to 50 to 75- That fish gets

bigger all the time.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

*************************

Contribution of muscle tissue to Resting Metabolic

Rate

I believe that it is Bob Forney who has been asking

for someone to cite supporting literature for the

statement that muscle tissue is more metabolically

active than fat tissue.

The data I cited in my previous post on RMR were from

a text book McKardle, Katch and Katch) which

unfortunately did not have cite specific studies for

the break down of contribution percentages of various

organ systems to RMR.

The vast majority of studies I have looked at

concerning RMR usually look at RMR as it relates to

Fat Free Mass but not specifically muscle mass.

There are however several studies which look

specifically at Resting Energy Expenditure of specific

tissues.

Perhaps the best that I have come across is:

(Elia, M. (1992) Organ and tissue contribution to

metabolic rate.

Kinney, JM Tucker, HN eds. Energy

Metabolism: Tissue Determinants and Cellular

Corollaries ,61-80 Raven Press New York.)

I could not get the actual original, but it has been

cited in several other articles. Most notable are:

Articles by Heymsfield, S. B.

Obesity Research 9:331-336 (2001)

© 2001 The North American Association for the Study

of Obesity

Mini Review:

Resting Energy Expenditure: Systematic Organization

and Critique of Prediction Methods

ZiMian Wang, Stanley Heshka, Kuan Zhang, Carol N.

Boozer and B. Heymsfield

and

Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 279: E539-E545, 2000;

0193-1849/00

Vol. 279, Issue 3, E539-E545, September 2000

Resting energy expenditure-fat-free mass

relationship: new insights provided by body

composition modeling

Zimian Wang, Stanley Heshka, Dympna Gallagher, Carol

N. Boozer, P. Kotler, and B. Heymsfield

Obesity Research Center, St. Luke's-Roosevelt

Hospital, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia

University, New York, New York 10025)

excerpt from above article:

“Elia, in his synthetic review, highlighted

the existence of large between tissue/organ

differences in resting metabolic rate.

(note 1 kg - 2.2 lbs- to get cal/lb divide below numbers by 2.2 RG)

Heart and kidneys have the highest resting metabolic

rate (440 kcal/kg per day),

whereas :

brain (240 kcal/kg per day) and

liver (200 kcal/kg per day) also have high values.

In contrast, resting metabolic rates of:

skeletal muscle (13 kcal/kg per day) and

(13/2.2= 5.9 cal/lb/day)

adipose tissue (4.5 kcal/kg per day) are low.

(4.5/2.2= 2.04 kcal/lb/day)

Therefore, although skeletal muscle and adipose

tissue are the two largest components, their

contribution to REE is smaller than that of organs.

The majority of the REE of the body (60%) arises from

organs such as liver, kidneys, heart, and brain, which

account for only 5% to 6% of Body Mass.

Based on the above information you would have to

increase your muscle mass by 8 kg to raise your RMR

104 calories per day.

Increased muscle mass does increase RMR but not as

much as many have assumed.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

________________________________

From: ambyb <amby.burfoot@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Sat, June 12, 2010 10:32:23 AM

Subject: Re: 50 calories per pound of muscle? Where did it come

from?

: Thanks for your contribution to this always confusing topic. I know the

guy who co-wrote " ghosted " the book with Paff. Who knows who actually slipped in

the offending factoid? Too late now. Anyway, I once found a chart that listed

calorie burn of various body tissues per kg per day. Or something very close to

that. You know: skeletal muscle, cardiac muscle, liver, brain. I'm sure everyone

knows the brain is a big hog. I don't think I have the basic comparative info

any longer, so would be interested to see if anyone on this group can find it,

and post it.

Amby Burfoot

Runner's World

Emmaus PA USA

>

> It may have come from this source. In his book LifeFit, Ralph Paffenbarger

made the following assertion:

>

> " Indeed, when you replace 10 pounds of fat with 10 pounds of muscle, your

weight remains the same, but you can expect to expend 500 or more additional

kilocalories each day at rest. "

>

> That book came out in 1996. Not sure if this number was floating around before

then or not.

>

> Krieger

> Weightology, LLC www.weightology.net

> The Health Sleuth www.thehealthsleuth.com

> Journal of Pure Power www.jopp.us

> Redmond, WA

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, Amby,

I don't have breakdowns for specific organs, but I do have these breakdowns:

Internal organs: 24.4 kcal/lb

Muscle: 6 kcal/lb

Bone: 1 kcal/lb

Fat: 2 kcal/lb

Krieger

Weightology, LLC www.weightology.net

The Health Sleuth www.thehealthsleuth.com

Journal of Pure Power www.jopp.us

Redmond, WA

[Guest guest]

Hi, W,

Funny how it's all the HIT guys claiming the high numbers (Hutchins,

Darden, Westcott, Hahn....)

Krieger

Weightology, LLC www.weightology.net

The Health Sleuth www.thehealthsleuth.com

Journal of Pure Power www.jopp.us

Redmond, WA