You guys know about that claim that building muscle helps to

>>40743459
>but it's almost certainly negligible

This is the part you need to prove.

pretty basic thought experiment

1. does muscle have a higher caloric maintenance than fat? (y/n)

if y muscle technically 'helps burn fat'.

>>40743933
A guy with 20 lbs more muscle doesn't burn enough more calories to make up the difference. Skinny people eat like hogs and never gain weight to begin with. The number of calories you burn just by having more muscle is negligible. It's nothing but a myth.

>>40743956
Wrong. The correct question is HOW MUCH MORE in calories are burnt per gram of muscle mass? And the answer is unlikely to be much. Does it exist? Sure. Is it a material difference? You're kidding yourself.

>>40743976

nope, your point verbatim is

> You guys know about that claim that building muscle helps to burn more calories?

does muscle help burn fat?

1. does muscle have higher metabolic maintenance than fat (y/n)?

if y it helps burn fat.

>>40743985
>verbatim
Stop using that word, you dumb pleb. You don't know what it means.

>Although I suppose if you have more muscle, that means more cells are consuming nutrients, but it's almost certainly negligible.

>>40743459
You sound like a fatty or a skinnyfat who doesn't want to lift

>>40744039
Oh I exercise both cardio and weight training. Just saying, you people believe a lot of bullshit.

>>40744023

> copying and pasting doesn't qualify as verbatim.

yeah right, good thread.

time to hit that sage button.

>>40744051

Thank you, enlightened one.

File: 1489695702728.jpg (91KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1280x720px

>>40744051
I fucking guarantee that there is logic in the concept of believing that MUSCLE burns FAT.

a muscle is like an engine. The fat surrounding said muscle is like fuel. I believe that the muscle, when needing energy, uses the fat around it to convert into energy that the muscle absorbs.

I was a skinnyfat fuck and I guarantee that the fucking change in I went through in just one year was damn well astonishing. A small muscle doesn't need to eat. A big muscle needs to eat and will use the fat around it TO eat while the food you also consume will be turned to energy.

Especially on days where you're cutting and you consume less calories that it takes to run your body. AKA 2000. If you consume less than that in a 24 hour span, your body will look to the logic of "okay, I had less than 2000 to work with. Let's take some of this bulky shit I converted into fat reserves and convert that into usable energy for the body's muscles".

Correct me if I am wrong.

File: wrong.jpg (10KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x250px

>>40744096

>>40743459
>Mitochondria were isolated from the 0700 hr biopsy and analyzed by high-resolution respirometry (Lanza and Nair, 2009). Mitochondria were added to a 2 mL chamber (Oxygraph-2K, Oroboros) followed by sequential additions of glutamate, malate, ADP, succinate, and inhibitors. Mitochondrial membrane integrity was verified with cytochrome-c

That's more a measure of a peripheral contribution to VO2max, not energy expenditure.

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2000&issue=01000&article=00012&type=abstract

In vivo, they're gonna be in idling respiration at rest.

Aside from acute exercise, HIIT can increase energy expenditure from tissue building / remodeling if it's a progressive overload program. Same goes for RT. Preservation of a given load will eliminate this after adaptation. There also tends to be some hypertrophy (look at sprinters vs. marathon runners) and there's definitely some additional energy investment to maintain those extra mitochondria. With RT, you have much greater hypertrophy.

>but it's almost certainly negligible
It's most certainly not.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21734/abstract
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(16)31456-7
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01577-8
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-013925

>>40744247
This bit of this paper is also particularly relevant

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.21513/full
>Consistently, the strongest predictor of both TEE and BMR is body size, particularly fat-free mass

>>40744023
Does verbatim suddenly not mean word for word anymore you fucking idiot?

tl;dr this thread

op is mostly wrong but like 5% correct which is what he's latching onto.

also he doesn't know what verbatim means.

this thread can be deleted now.

>>40743459
Look up Katch-McArdle