Metabolic Muscle - A 'beef' about muscle with Dr. Gregory Ellis

There is a lot of controversy over how much higher your metabolism is raised by adding muscle to your body.

Some say a pound of muscle requires 100 calories, some say, 50, some say as low as 5.

Well, which is it? Truth is, no one knows exactly how many calories a single pound of muscle requires over the course of a day. In several different text books it is estimated that the muscular system accounts for ~20-40% of REE (resting energy expenditure). This doesn't bode well for muscle as a calorie burner - at rest.

Research by Dr. Westcott and several other experts in the field found that men and women who added between 5-10 pounds of muscle after 16 weeks of strength training increased their resting metabolic rate (RMR) by 200-300 calories a day, meaning, they needed to eat this many more calories to remain at the same weight.

Clearly then, there's more to the add muscle/calorie burning equation than just measuring muscle in a resting state.

It is also difficult to measure how many more calories adding 5 pounds of muscle will help you burn by being more active since you will feel more able to do more things for longer throughout the day. This along with possible increases in bone density and hormonal tone all caused by resistance training add to improvements in RMR.

Gregory Ellis PhD, a self proclaimed expert on human metabolism and diet (IOW,his books are all self published) claims a single pound of muscle uses only 5 calories. He states (seemingly everywhere he can) that adding muscle is useless for raising metabolic rate.

In an article/interview I read on line Dr. Ellis article by Art Carey Ellis apparently argues that if a pound of muscle required as much as 50 calories, a 200 pound man who has 80 pounds of muscle would require 4000 calories just from muscle alone, which accounts for roughly half of the total metabolic cost of the human body (brain, liver, kidney, etc. function make up for ~60% of human metabolism).

IOW, the 200 pound man would require ~10,000 calories - at rest - to remain at 200 pounds which he states is impossible.

I agree.

But let's use Dr. Ellis' number of 5 calories which he claims he figured from detailed and exacting metabolic testing.

80 pounds of muscle X 5 calories = 400 calories. If, as Dr. Ellis suggests, muscle is ~40% of the metabolic milieu, Dr. Ellis is suggesting that a 200 pound man only requires ~1100 calories at rest.

Don't think so. So it's certainly not 5 calories and certainly not 50.

A 200 pound man in reasonable shape, say 18% body fat, requires close to 3000 calories to keep status quo. If we use 20 calories as a number per pound of muscle we arrive at 1600 calories for muscle alone. 1600 calories X 2 = 3200 calories. A 200 pound man with 80 pounds of muscle can easily require between 3200 and 3600 calories to remain at 200 pounds depending on how much fat he has, how tall he is and how active he is.

Dr. Ellis also claims that women bodybuilders only have about 6 more pounds of muscle on their bodies than untrained women and that women bodybuilders who take anabolic steroids only have 8-10 pounds more.

This is a female bodybuilder:

 

If Dr. Ellis really thinks that this woman has only 6-10 pounds more muscle than my mom who has never lifted a weight in her life, he needs to get a new pair of spectacles or a better pair of skin fold calipers - or both.

And if he thinks that her metabolic rate is only 30 calories per day higher than grandma's, I shudder to think of the other advice he's giving out.

To be fair, Dr. Ellis does have a lot of good things to say about diet and about strength training in general.

All of you who are currently pumping iron to gain muscle in order to raise your metabolic rate, keep on pumping. Don't let the likes of Dr. Ellis and others of his ilk slow you down. There is much more to the metabolic equation than inactive muscle mass in a resting state.

Comments

[Ratfungus]

Hi guys, stumble on your site here. Some intersting comments. I (probably like most of you) have read lots of stuff and different opinions. I find it had to disagree with much of what Greg Ellis says. If muscle uses only 5 or 6 cals (as Greg Ellis says) then this is better than fat. Also someone here said "if you train twice a week" - well twice a week is ... well twice a week. Which doesn't mean the extra muscle you've packed on is at rest (walking around, picking things up etc) most of the time - but it's also not being exercised (at least specifically). I think the point Ellis is trying to make is that it does use extra cals but not a big difference as the body is not in a constant state of being exercised. Does anyone else see Dr Ellis's point of view as I do?

[Jimmy Auty]

Thanks, guys.

[Viking Dan]

Here's one for you:

http://proteinpower.com/forum/showthread.php?t=622&highlight=weight+training+thermic

[Fred Hahn]

I'll see if I can find the Westcott studies.

But again, the total cost of calories per pound of muscle is not the entire issue. It might even be a bit different for different people.

Pack the beef on I say and enjoy the consequences.

[Viking Dan]

Try some of these, Jim.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=resistance+training+lean+OR+%22fat+free%22+mass+increase+metabolic+rate+resting&btnG=Search

[Jimmy Auty]

I think maybe I didn't make myself clear. I don't disagree with anyone.

What I meant was, can anyone please give me the details of studies that conclude a greater energy expendature than Ellis claims. I want the details (including the name of the Wescott study).

[Audley]

Whatever the reason or how it changes your metabolism, for fat loss and gaining muscle, weight training works. The same applies to sprinters and long distance runners, with sprinters usually leaner and more muscular than their long distance counterparts. Most sprinters train like weight trainers, short, hard workouts. (I know, my 16 year daughter is one of them, she cycles the weights with sprints). Of course the diet makes all the difference for definition. For the record, the female bodybuilder is Lenda Murrey, 8x winner of the Ms. Olympia. I heard rumors that she was dropping out of the pro bodybuilding scene due to the drug use. She has more muscle than most men I know.

[Viking Dan]

Maybe the increase in bmr with regards to weight training has something to do with the neurological adaption more than the additonal muscle mass.

Or it could just be increased GH release. Who knows?

[Viking Dan]

http://www.mkeonline.com/people/blogs.asp?id=111&entry=16909

This Cedric Bryant guy says 7-10 calories/pound. Not that he references anything to back that up.

[fred hahn]

Sources such as...? I mentioned research by Dr. Wayne Westcott. Drs. Eades can confirm that while a single pound of muscle - at rest - may only use 5 or 6 calories per pound, there is more to increasing metabolic rate than just adding tissue. If you are strength training 2X per week properly you are causing a cascade of metabolic events that increase metabolic rate to a much greater degree than the addition of more tissue alone. Strength training has been showin in peer reviewd and published research to imcrease metabolic rate for up to 48 hours after the event.

And you can see for yourself that the female bodybuilder in the photo has more than 6 pounds of beef above the typical woman in the street. Heck, she'd probably got 20 pounds more than I do!

Some male bodybuilders at my height can have 150 pounds more muscle than I do! It is common for a tall professional bodybuilder to weigh up to 300 pounds - some more - these days. I am 5'11" and weigh ~170.

[Jimmy Auty]

Fred,

What are your sources? Do you know of any studies that disagree with Dr Ellis?

[Viking Dan]

The reason I ask it this: if muscle is 3x as active at rest as fat is, is it 3x as active during exercise?

Love the blog, btw.

[Fred Hahn]

"Do leaner people at the same weight burn more calories in an exercise than a fatter person?"

Good question. Not necessarily. Depends on the fitness level, intensity level and on the experience with the exercise.

TIP: Forget calorie buring via exercise of any kind for any duration. Focus on building strength, eating a low sugar nourishing diet a la Protein Power and getting a sound nights sleep every night you can.

The rest will take care of itself pretty much.

[Viking Dan]

No argument there, Mr. Hahn. Even at the worst estimate where muscle burns 6 and fat burns 2, that's still 3x as active.

Here's a wacky question: Do leaner people at the same weight burn more calories in an exercise than a fatter person?

[Fred Hahn]

There is a lot of controversey and there is more to it than just muscle at rest.

Point is adding muscle DOES raise your metabolic rate in more ways than one so keep on pumping - slowly and safely that is!

[Viking Dan]

This article http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/cals.htm suggests its 6 cals/lb. but that seems unreasonably low.