The Official Workout Thread

RosettaStoned

New member
Joined:
Jan 4, 2012
Posts:
895
Liked Posts:
729
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...

No I didn't. It depends on what my energy expenditure is.

What I'm saying is that at 170lbs it's going to take you closer to 2500 kcal than 2000 to maintain regardless of what your body composition is. I would imagine you probably aren't tracking them completely accurately.
 

bearmick

Captain Objectivity
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
37,894
Liked Posts:
41,321
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.

Lol that has nothing to do with what I said.
 

HeHateMe

He/Himz/Hiz
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
59,781
Liked Posts:
52,759
No I didn't. It depends on what my energy expenditure is.

What I'm saying is that at 170lbs it's going to take you closer to 2500 kcal than 2000 to maintain regardless of what your body composition is. I would imagine you probably aren't tracking them completely accurately.

Guess that makes sense, my metabolism is considerably lower than it was in my twenties, probably a lot lower than yours.
 

RosettaStoned

New member
Joined:
Jan 4, 2012
Posts:
895
Liked Posts:
729
Lol that has nothing to do with what I said.

Let me do a little very simple math to show you just how ignorant you are.

Like I said muscle accounts for roughly 40% of your mass. So for a 200lb man that's about 80lbs. If a pound of muscle used 50 calories a day that would be roughly 4000 calories a day used, just for muscle alone. Now, since muscle accounts for 25% of your RMR that would mean a 200lb man would need 16,000 calories a day to maintain that weight just at a rest.

Don't be dumb bro.
 

bearmick

Captain Objectivity
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
37,894
Liked Posts:
41,321
Here is what I said, that you started arguing with ....

"If you're shorter and more into body building, a higher percentage of your body weight is probably muscle, whereas it sounds like HHM is more like a regular in shape dude with more average muscle mass and a little taller so more of his is skeletal. If that's the case, your body probably burns more calories at rest."

Are you denying that muscle burns calories faster than other body weight like fat?
 

RosettaStoned

New member
Joined:
Jan 4, 2012
Posts:
895
Liked Posts:
729
Here is what I said, that you started arguing with ....

"If you're shorter and more into body building, a higher percentage of your body weight is probably muscle, whereas it sounds like HHM is more like a regular in shape dude with more average muscle mass and a little taller so more of his is skeletal. If that's the case, your body probably burns more calories at rest."

Are you denying that muscle burns calories faster than other body weight like fat?

Yes, I know what you said, and it was Special person.

The miniscule amount of extra energy that muscle uses is negligible. You do know what negligible means correct?
 

HeHateMe

He/Himz/Hiz
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
59,781
Liked Posts:
52,759
I think I'm going to have to count calories and see what I need to avoid withering away to skin and bones before I try to bulk...
 

BNB

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Jun 9, 2011
Posts:
15,621
Liked Posts:
8,412
Location:
Chicago
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  2. Oakland Raiders
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
I can't gain weight for shit
 

HeHateMe

He/Himz/Hiz
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
59,781
Liked Posts:
52,759
No it isn't. At a rest you are burning more calories than I am at a rest.

I seriously doubt it.

Also, at rest when I was in my twenties I burned way more calories than I do now just sitting around. I could easily consume over 4000 calories a day without weight gain. I partied pretty hard back then.

I'm back to the same weight but can put on weight (albeit bad weight) very easily now. There's got to be more science to all this than what you are presenting here...
 

HeHateMe

He/Himz/Hiz
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
59,781
Liked Posts:
52,759
And FWIW, I am not trying to be disrespectful at all, I am just a little skeptical based on my experience.
 

RosettaStoned

New member
Joined:
Jan 4, 2012
Posts:
895
Liked Posts:
729
I seriously doubt it.

Also, at rest when I was in my twenties I burned way more calories than I do now just sitting around. I could easily consume over 4000 calories a day without weight gain. I partied pretty hard back then.

I'm back to the same weight but can put on weight (albeit bad weight) very easily now. There's got to be more science to all this than what you are presenting here...

You are mistaken. While yes your metabolism can slow down with age, You were never consuming 4000 calories a day without weight gain. You don't know how to track calories properly. The vast majority of people don't, and research shows people are terrible at estimating calories as well.

Believe me, I spend a lot of time in the literature. I'm not wrong.
 

BNB

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Jun 9, 2011
Posts:
15,621
Liked Posts:
8,412
Location:
Chicago
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  2. Oakland Raiders
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
How many calories do you need to survive?

To survive? Shit.... water, a daily vitamin and some bread and I can probably live for a long ass time.

hahahahaha. I try getting in a minimum of 2,000 so I don't lose weight. But I honestly have no idea how much I need to gain weight. I drop weight incredibly fast... which is why I'm skinny haha
 

Top