I read this somewhere a few weeks ago and the thought just hit me today -- maybe I should take some time off from cutting to do a bulking cycle, so that cutting will be easier later on -- if this quote is true?? Unfortunately I have had no luck in trying to retrace wherever it was I read this, bah

That's a pretty broad assumption.

I heard it was an average of 30-50 cals per day. Depending upon the metabolism.

Regardless, we all know the more muscle you have the faster your metabolism is anyway and faster metabolisms burn more calories.

Revised estimates are that muscle burns ~6cal/lb/day and fat burns ~2cal/lb/day.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/forums/sh...le+calorie+burn

I think that link should work.

it doesn't really matter... people can speculate on numbers all they want... the take home message here kiddies is that muscle is a far more metabolically active tissue than fat.

-Layne

Yeah each pound only burns about 5 kcal a day. Do the math, if it were 50 kcal/day most bodybuilders could cut on 3000 calorie diets easily.

The acute response to resistance training burns a lot of calories though, in the realm of 200-400 in the 36 hrs after exercise.

Wow! That's the first time I ever heard someone put a number to that figure! So about 300 then? How accurate is that? And what about for HIIT (sprints on track) and "traditional" slow-paced cardio?

I read Lyle or someone say 15-20cal/day.

Average is about 40. This is the number I use when figuring out how many calories difrent people need to support BMR.

that is ludicrous... according to that, I'd need 8000 kcals per day

I don't think so.

Those numbers are for bodyweight and include metabolic activity of the organs, brains, blah blah spread out over total body mass.

The only thing I have seen lyle state is 6kcal for muscle and 3kcal for adipose when not accounting for other metabolic activity.

Somewhat. Some work showed a 7% increase in BMR d/t protein synthesis and repair mech. So this is where the the rather skewed number came from. I suspect more on the line of 150-200 kcal (taking into effect an average BMR of 2500 kcal). A HIIT session will have an EPOC of maybe 60-100 kcal with 100 only coming from totally exhausting work (HINT: if you are doing some BB model HIIT crap you are not getting there). SS cardio the EPOC is about 3-5 kcal, whoopeee!!!

I could be wrong. Mabey it is closer to 20. The system I work with uses software to figure that all out. It's been a while since I had my head burried in the text.

EPOC meaning? something with energy and oxygen i assume?

EPOC = post-exercise oxygen consumption (as in, above and beyond what normal EQ would be). If you create an anearobic energy deficit during activity, your body will generally compensate in the post-workout time-frame (typically 24-36 hrs.) by adjusting & augmenting substrate utilization.


And generally, the thing with muscle tissue(s) to take home are:

1. 6-8kcal/lb/lbm/ED is about the active rate, which isn't terribly higher than what an equivalent amount of fat require but it is still significant.

2. Exercised muscle however requires energy demands above and beyond the above. Exercised fat (pretty much irregardless of blood flow) doesn't. Exercise-- it's good for you.

3. EPOC is generally overrated/overstated, but it certainly doesn't hurt. The benefits of EPOC-inducing exercises goes way beyond simply 'burning more calories in the after-hours' though.

Probably even more important than an increase in energy expenditure is the improvement in nutrient partioning. More muscle = more area for nutrient disposal there, which will not only decrease the availability of nutrients to go to fat, but will also decrease plasma nutrient levels, which will result in an improvement in leptin sensitivity.

Perhaps I misunderstand leptin and it ramifications, but if leptin levels are closely correlated with absolute fat mass, then the more lean tissue you have the lower %bodyfat one could maintain without suffering as many negative physiological / psychological adaptations?

So, while you cannot change your "settling point" in terms of fat mass, you could in terms of fat % by adding lbm? Yes? No? Bueller?

So I don't make this confusing let me make this example based on a lot of assumptions and completey made up numbers:

Settling Point = 25lbs adipose

Composition State A: 150 ffm, 25 adipose; 175lbs @ 14.3%
Composition State B: 150 ffm, 10 adipose; 160lbs @ 9.4%
Composition State C: 200 ffm, 25 adipose; 225lbs @ 11.1%
Composition State B: 200 ffm, 10 adipose; 210lbs @ 4.8%

In composition state A, I am at settling point and therefore able to have an erection, sleep, be warm and generally enjoy life.

Now if i cut to State B with no lean mass loss (yea right), I get to composition state B, which is leaner but difficult to maintain.

Instead I could add 50 lbs muscle over an extended period of time and then have the same effect at 11% as I would at 14%.

Also, then if I dropped the same 15lbs of adipose as going from A to B, but starting at C the difficulty that yielded 9.4% now yields 4.8%.

Is this retarded or generally correct?

Skeletal muscle figures into the leptin picture too. Leptin is primarily secreted from adipose tissue, but cellular energy state/signalling is also important, and there is leptin interplay within LBM. But yeah, in general, what you're saying makes sense, and is pretty on the money (be forewarned, I'm kinda drunk right now, but I don't think that's overly affecting the judgement here...). If you carry 20 lbs of fat on a 150 lb. frame, that's nowhere near the same picture as carrying 20 lbs of adipose on a 250 lb. frame.

There's also the glucose disposal, mitochondrial aspect which will adaptively improve the picture when more LBM is added, which is what Par is alluding to above.