The Official Workout Thread

[HeHateMe]

No. First, that makes literally no sense. Second, bigger bodies burn more calories.

The reason it takes me so much to maintain is because my energy output is high, and I have an extremely healthy metabolism.

I think it kind of makes sense, because the calories I consume are maintaining my natural weight as opposed to what I would need if I put on 30 lbs of muscle that I do not currently have.

I mean seriously, at 170 I pretty much have been the same weight since I was 20 and have just gotten a little soft.

How heavy were you before you started competing? Before you started bulking? Did your caloric needs not change dramatically?

 

[bearmick]

I think it kind of makes sense, because the calories I consume are maintaining my natural weight as opposed to what I would need if I put on 30 lbs of muscle that I do not currently have.

I mean seriously, at 170 I pretty much have been the same weight since I was 20 and have just gotten a little soft.

How heavy were you before you started competing? Before you started bulking? Did your caloric needs not change dramatically?

Muscle also burns more calories than other weight, like fat. If you cloned yourself and one you added 15lbs of lean muscle mass while the other you added 15lbs of taco bell, the former would end up burning more calories at rest than the latter even though you both weighed the same.

 

[RosettaStoned]

Yeah, it does. Every pound of muscle mass you add burns ~50 extra calories a day just at rest. If you have an extra 20lbs of muscle over the average (for example), you'll burn a thousand calories more a day than a person with equal build just minus the extra muscle mass.

Wtf?

No. Muscle doesn't use that much total energy. For example even though it takes up 40% of your total mass it only accounts for roughly 25% of your RMR. While your organs by contrast accounts for 60%.

You are misinformed.

 

[HeHateMe]

Muscle also burns more calories than other weight, like fat. If you cloned yourself and one you added 15lbs of lean muscle mass while the other you added 15lbs of taco bell, the former would end up burning more calories at rest than the latter even though you both weighed the same.

Yeah thanks, I saw your post and then I remembered my daily 100 crunches/atkins diet experiment when I was in my early 20s. I was literally burning off body fat by watching TV and had ten pack abs lol.

 

[Capt. Serious]

I won my meet, beat the weight class above me as well. Squat 385, benched 250, deadlift 445. Not great but not terrible. Got injured training for my next meet.

You want a cookie or some kind of trophy?

 

[RosettaStoned]

You want a cookie or some kind of trophy?

Somebody asked what happened **** smoker.

 

[RosettaStoned]

Muscle also burns more calories than other weight, like fat. If you cloned yourself and one you added 15lbs of lean muscle mass while the other you added 15lbs of taco bell, the former would end up burning more calories at rest than the latter even though you both weighed the same.

The difference is negligible really. You have some very bad info bro. You need to read this.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/re...energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html

 

[HeHateMe]

How heavy were you before you started competing? Before you started bulking? Did your caloric needs not change dramatically?

I'm interested in the above.

What was your weight before you even started weight training?

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

You want a cookie or some kind of trophy?

Lol, you and you're apparent only friend on this website are cute together in this thread.

 

[Nail Polish]

Lol, you and you're apparent only friend on this website are cute together in this thread.

Holy shit, youre an idiot

 

[nvanprooyen]

I guess I don't understand the question then. I haven't started a bulking program yet. I take in 2000 calories to get through a normal day which doesn't involve heavy lifting or extensive cardio and don't see any fluctuation in my weight when I'm sticking to a pretty routine diet. How does one best determine maintenance intake? Honest question, I'm a noob.

Here I go with Lyle links again.....

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/the-baseline-diet-part-1.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/the-baseline-diet-part-2.html

 

[nvanprooyen]

The difference is negligible really. You have some very bad info bro. You need to read this.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/re...energy-needs-of-the-body-research-review.html

Shit, Rosetta already dropping Lyle links

 

[nwfisch]

Somebody asked what happened **** smoker.

Takes one to know one.

 

[nwfisch]

Lol, you and you're apparent only friend on this website are cute together in this thread.

I thought we were on ignore.

And FYI, Capt. Serious has 24 friends on here, compared to your 4.

 

[inactiveuser1]

Lol, you and you're apparent only friend on this website are cute together in this thread.

*Your :tongue:


I'm Fischs friend...I guess

 

[HeHateMe]

Shit, Rosetta already dropping Lyle links

This really is addressing how adding minimal muscle mass plays an insignificant role in calorie burn, but when we are talking about adding 10-20% more muscle to one's natural frame, would that not require exponentially more calories to maintain? I mean, you have to carry it around, that muscle needs to be fed energy while fat does not need to be fed energy, etc? I guess it just makes sense to me that my body at my natural weight would require a lot less caloric intake than my body at a much higher weight that is muscle based rather than fat based...

 

[HeHateMe]

I thought we were on ignore.

And FYI, Capt. Serious has 24 friends on here, compared to your 4.

I like PB, so that makes 5?

 

[RosettaStoned]

I'm interested in the above.

What was your weight before you even started weight training?

100lbs. Was a while before I figured out what I was doing so don't worry. We all start somewhere.

 

[HeHateMe]

100lbs. Was a while before I figured out what I was doing so don't worry. We all start somewhere.

That's fucking awesome. So you definitely didn't need 3500 calories a day before you increased your weight by 50%, and I'm guessing 50% muscle?

I'm guessing if I made it to 220 lbs, I would probably need at least 4000 calories a day...

 

[RosettaStoned]

This really is addressing how adding minimal muscle mass plays an insignificant role in calorie burn, but when we are talking about adding 10-20% more muscle to one's natural frame, would that not require exponentially more calories to maintain? I mean, you have to carry it around, that muscle needs to be fed energy while fat does not need to be fed energy, etc? I guess it just makes sense to me that my body at my natural weight would require a lot less caloric intake than my body at a much higher weight that is muscle based rather than fat based...

Adding weight in general requires more calories to maintain. The type of weight doesn't matter all that much.