PDA

View Full Version : 3500cals= 1lb of fat, how much equals 1lb of muscle?



Gymjunkie
07-01-2009, 12:51 PM
I read that 600cals equal 1lb of muscle. But that seems hard to believe to me... I read it in Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty Nutrition book..

KoSh
07-01-2009, 12:56 PM
3500 calories is one pound. Not necessarily fat...

VikingWarlord
07-01-2009, 02:34 PM
3500 calories is one pound. Not necessarily fat...

Incorrect. Think of the macronutrient breakdowns. Do fat and protein have the same number of kCal/g?

KoSh
07-01-2009, 04:32 PM
Incorrect. Think of the macronutrient breakdowns. Do fat and protein have the same number of kCal/g?

No. But 3500 calories is not all fat.

Not sure how that's incorrect...

Fat is 9 kCal/g, protein is 4 kCal/g. How does that make what I said incorrect?

By the way, I'm not being a smart ass. I'm confused.

BFGUITAR
07-01-2009, 04:56 PM
It's 3500 calories for one lb of lipids. Bodyfat contains water and other things so really... a lb of bodyfat is not equal to a pound of pure fat.

A pound of muscle... well that is a lot more complicated. Fat cells are mostly made up of fat so it's easy to round off the numbers. Muscle has a lot of water in it so it's hard to say. Really... such information is useless to a person trying to gain some muscle.

VikingWarlord
07-01-2009, 05:33 PM
No. But 3500 calories is not all fat.

Not sure how that's incorrect...

Fat is 9 kCal/g, protein is 4 kCal/g. How does that make what I said incorrect?

By the way, I'm not being a smart ass. I'm confused.

3500 is the generally accepted number for the caloric content of 1lb of bodyfat. It's based on general averages because, as was mentioned above this post, what is considered bodyfat isn't 100% fat but also doesn't contain any muscle. It's lipids and water...and water has no caloric content so it's, for this purpose, dead weight.

If we were talking pure fat, it would actually be a little over 4000kCal (453.6g x 9kCal). Muscle has a significantly lower caloric content.

KingWilder
07-01-2009, 06:22 PM
I've heard it's around 2200 calories

can I say if that's a legitimate number? No, but it could be close.

Gymjunkie
07-02-2009, 05:30 AM
It's just interesting fact for me.. since you need less cals to gain muscles, it should be easier to gain them than fat. But it isn't. So it's just strange to me..

BFGUITAR
07-02-2009, 07:29 AM
It's just interesting fact for me.. since you need less cals to gain muscles, it should be easier to gain them than fat. But it isn't. So it's just strange to me..

There is a lot more to gaining muscle then that. Our bodies don't want muscle. We evolved with a certain body type that will pack on as much fat as possible while getting by with as little muscle as possible. Extra muscle is heavy and serves no purpose. Fat serves as heat insulation, protects against impact, and is a great source of energy. Early humans were nomadic hunter/gatherer types of people. We still have the EXACT same bodies we did 50 000 years ago. Why would nomadic people need large amounts of muscle? We don't.

In fact... us weightlifters are fighting an uphill battle to become lean and muscular. Our bodies do not want to be like that simply because it is not the best body type for survival.

It's hard to grasp at first... but EVERY single feature us humans have exists for the single goal of all life forms (including humans). We exist on this planet for one reason, and that is to procreate. Every single feature we have and every single human variation exists for the goal of procreating before we die. From finger nails, to hair, to eye colour, to height, to body type... all of this has a reason. Our ability to get by with as little muscle as possible and sotre as much fat as possible is no different.

Coqui
07-02-2009, 08:38 AM
Google says 600

http://www.fitnessatlantic.com/muscle-mass.htm


A pound of muscle contains 600 calories; a pound of fat contains 3500.

Gymjunkie
07-03-2009, 06:23 AM
Google says 600

http://www.fitnessatlantic.com/muscle-mass.htm

The site doesn't look credible to me, plus reminds of what Mike Mentzer wrote in his book..

And this is hard to believe for me:

If you were to stimulate 10 pounds of lean muscle growth this year, it would be necessary to consume 600 (the number of calories in a pound of muscle) x 10 (the number of pounds to be gained) or 6000 calories a year over and above the amount needed for maintenance. Not 6000 extra calories a day, a week, or a month, but a year. To figure out how many calories you would need a day in addition to your maintenance needs, divide 6000 by 365, the number of days in a year, and you’ll come up with approximately 16 calories.

Damn, you only need 16 cals a day over your BMR? Nah..can't believe it..

Gymjunkie
07-03-2009, 06:24 AM
There is a lot more to gaining muscle then that. Our bodies don't want muscle. We evolved with a certain body type that will pack on as much fat as possible while getting by with as little muscle as possible. Extra muscle is heavy and serves no purpose. Fat serves as heat insulation, protects against impact, and is a great source of energy. Early humans were nomadic hunter/gatherer types of people. We still have the EXACT same bodies we did 50 000 years ago. Why would nomadic people need large amounts of muscle? We don't.

In fact... us weightlifters are fighting an uphill battle to become lean and muscular. Our bodies do not want to be like that simply because it is not the best body type for survival.

It's hard to grasp at first... but EVERY single feature us humans have exists for the single goal of all life forms (including humans). We exist on this planet for one reason, and that is to procreate. Every single feature we have and every single human variation exists for the goal of procreating before we die. From finger nails, to hair, to eye colour, to height, to body type... all of this has a reason. Our ability to get by with as little muscle as possible and sotre as much fat as possible is no different.

Oh yeah I agree, from evolutionary standpoint muscles are unnecessary risk.. BTW, you must be reading L.McDonald's stuff?? :)

BFGUITAR
07-03-2009, 07:25 AM
Oh yeah I agree, from evolutionary standpoint muscles are unnecessary risk.. BTW, you must be reading L.McDonald's stuff?? :)

I have read his stuff. He is a good writer in my opinion.

Gymjunkie
07-03-2009, 09:39 AM
I have read his stuff. He is a good writer in my opinion.

I have no doubt he is great on nutrition, I've read his UD2 book, it is good read but damn hard to read because of all those medical/biological chemical terms he uses. He is clearly a nerd who gets giant hardon on nutrition science... I wish though he learned to explain himself better... I really hate reading those terms...

Skalami
07-03-2009, 11:01 AM
1lb of muscle is equal to 600 cals of protein. Thats not at all saying what it takes to gain that muscle but if you were to cut a person up take a 1lb of muscle off him and do whatever process it takes to get the caloric value it would be approximately 600calories but that info isnt really that helpful for muscle gaining purposes.

Gymjunkie
07-03-2009, 01:22 PM
1lb of muscle is equal to 600 cals of protein. Thats not at all saying what it takes to gain that muscle but if you were to cut a person up take a 1lb of muscle off him and do whatever process it takes to get the caloric value it would be approximately 600calories but that info isnt really that helpful for muscle gaining purposes.

Hmm.. protein is only 22 percent of muscle. Else is water and it doesn't have cals...maybe it's good number then... Thanx