# How many calories does.



## Ukmeathead (Dec 4, 2010)

How many calories does it take to build a pound of muscle?


----------



## bluesteel (May 28, 2010)

1 thousand trillion calories from pure fat or sugar or a substantial amount less if the calories are from protein.

calories dont build muscle, a combination of trianing, proper nutrient intake, hormones, natural adaptation and many other bodily processes do. there is no way that it can be as simple as "eat an extra 1000 calories per day to add 1lb of muscle per day". if that were the case all these morbidly obese slobs would look like ronnie coleman


----------



## Ukmeathead (Dec 4, 2010)

LoL you completely missed the point no one can gain a pound of muscle a day, and of course proper nutrition to build muscle is needed but there has to be a calorie amount to build muscle i.e when losing a pound of bodyfat its 3500 calories spread through the week to lose a pound ( i know its not as easy as that ) but the standard 500 cal deflict a day works out to be 3500 cals a week so by that assumption there has to be a certain amount of calories to build a pound of muscle whether it be over a week or a month.


----------



## Wardy211436114751 (Jan 24, 2011)

Ukmeathead said:


> LoL you completely missed the point no one can gain a pound of muscle a day, and of course proper nutrition to build muscle is needed but there has to be a calorie amount to build muscle i.e when losing a pound of bodyfat its 3500 calories spread through the week to lose a pound ( i know its not as easy as that ) but the standard 500 cal deflict a day works out to be 3500 cals a week so by that assumption there has to be a certain amount of calories to build a pound of muscle whether it be over a week or a month.


I guess this is only applicable (if true) if you are eating to maintain the same weight.


----------



## Ukmeathead (Dec 4, 2010)

Well just been reading a few other sites and they all say the same 3500 cals over maintance will add bodyweight whether it be fat or muscle solely depends on your diet.


----------



## swampy9785 (Sep 27, 2008)

Ukmeathead said:


> Well just been reading a few other sites and they all say the same 3500 cals over maintance will add bodyweight whether it be fat or muscle solely depends on your diet.


I wouldnt recommend eating 3500cals over maintenance!


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

swampy9785 said:


> I wouldnt recommend eating 3500cals over maintenance!


3.5k over maintenance is normally in relation to a weekly period (500 a day).


----------



## Ukmeathead (Dec 4, 2010)

2004mark said:


> 3.5k over maintenance is normally in relation to a weekly period (500 a day).


yeah thats what i was trying to say


----------



## PumpingIron (Feb 7, 2011)

Some people are slow


----------



## bluesteel (May 28, 2010)

Ukmeathead said:


> LoL you completely missed the point no one can gain a pound of muscle a day, and of course proper nutrition to build muscle is needed but there has to be a calorie amount to build muscle i.e when losing a pound of bodyfat its 3500 calories spread through the week to lose a pound ( i know its not as easy as that ) but the standard 500 cal deflict a day works out to be 3500 cals a week so by that assumption there has to be a certain amount of calories to build a pound of muscle whether it be over a week or a month.


If i missed your "point" its because the question was worded incorrectly.

you cant make an assumption that if to lose 1lb of fat you need a certain amount of calories then the same applies to muscle. that 3500 deficit = 1lb of fat is by no means accurate as not all calories are created equally. that also depends on hormones, genetics, the way your body utilises nutrients for energy etc so its not as simple as that. the problem is this. losing fat is nothing like in any way shape or form the same process as building muscle. when dropping fat if you are in a calorie deficit and your body requires energy your body HAS to get that energy from somewhere whether its your bodyfat, your muscle proteins or by converting protein from your diet into glucose. however when building muscle if you achieve a calorie surplus your body has an abundance of extra calories that it can do whatever it wants with. it has a choice, and building muscle is not one of your bodies main priorities (obviously forced adaptation due to progressive overload training will make it more of a priority though). the other options are to store the extra calories as fat or excrete them. its not as simple as the more calories you intake the more muscle you build. you may not build any more muscle intaing 10,000 as you would from intaking 3000. it depends on the circumstances and other determining factors.

that was the point i was trying to make. why dont you try a 3000 calorie per day diet and record how much muscle you put on, then do a 10,000 calorie diet and compare. let us know your findings and we can work it out.


----------



## Ukmeathead (Dec 4, 2010)

bluesteel said:


> If i missed your "point" its because the question was worded incorrectly.
> 
> you cant make an assumption that if to lose 1lb of fat you need a certain amount of calories then the same applies to muscle. that 3500 deficit = 1lb of fat is by no means accurate as not all calories are created equally. that also depends on hormones, genetics, the way your body utilises nutrients for energy etc so its not as simple as that. the problem is this. losing fat is nothing like in any way shape or form the same process as building muscle. when dropping fat if you are in a calorie deficit and your body requires energy your body HAS to get that energy from somewhere whether its your bodyfat, your muscle proteins or by converting protein from your diet into glucose. however when building muscle if you achieve a calorie surplus your body has an abundance of extra calories that it can do whatever it wants with. it has a choice, and building muscle is not one of your bodies main priorities (obviously forced adaptation due to progressive overload training will make it more of a priority though). the other options are to store the extra calories as fat or excrete them. its not as simple as the more calories you intake the more muscle you build. you may not build any more muscle intaing 10,000 as you would from intaking 3000. it depends on the circumstances and other determining factors.
> 
> that was the point i was trying to make. why dont you try a 3000 calorie per day diet and record how much muscle you put on, then do a 10,000 calorie diet and compare. let us know your findings and we can work it out.


So all this stuff about eating over maintaince by 500 cals a day is a load of [email protected] cool so everything i have read up untill this point is rubbish ok thanks.


----------



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

there are 3500 cals in a pound so yeah eat that in a week or a day less than maintanance and you should in effect lose roughly a pound, eat 3500 cals over maintanance you will put on roughly a pound, in relation to muscle its not a correct correlation cals equating to muscle , like bluesteel says its got too many variables that decides wether it stores as muscle or fat . if you keep protein levels up and eat 3500 cals less than maintanance you will lose mainly water and fat and not muscle , but eat 3500 cals over maintanance and its not going to be fat, muscle or water its going to be an unknown until you have done something with it !!!!


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Ukmeathead said:


> How many calories does it take to build a pound of muscle?


This is a simple question with a complex answer... the most straightforward way of answering being to say that it depends.

Fat and muscle are very different tissues... one lb of active bodyfat consistently contains around 3500kcals of useable energy, one lb of active muscle around 1000kcals of energy from protein, and up to a couple of hundred calories (variable amount) of combined creatine and glycogen stores. When you grow new muscle your body also adds these non protein calories at the same time... so muscle calories aren't just protein, and the bit that isn't protein is variable in amount depending on the ratio of energy stores to muscle protein (which varies between slow and fast twitch dominant muscles).

Fat and muscle also differ in that fats don't have a caloric cost for maintaining themselves - muscles do however cost calories even at rest, and this calorie cost varies depending upon activity levels. On a day of moderate activity, caloric cost to maintain muscle has been calculated as an average of 6.6kcals per lb of muscle per hour, but the amount goes up a lot if more active and is reduced somewhat when very inactive.

This variable calorie cost also factors into growing new muscle - it costs more calories to grow muscle when your activity levels are high as compared to when they are low.

Very basically though, provided your intake of protein is high enough to maintain protein turnover for your current muscle mass plus a bit extra, and that your calorie balance (through dietary and stored kcals) is high enough to prevent increased muscle breakdown for energy, you should grow muscle without difficulty or worrying about the specific caloric cost... the hard part if you have these bases covered is firstly optimising the way you stimulate growth in a consistent and progressive fashion, and then remembering to continually adjust calorie and protein intake to match the cost of maintaining muscle.


----------



## bluesteel (May 28, 2010)

^^ thats what i was trying to say lol


----------



## bluesteel (May 28, 2010)

Ukmeathead said:


> So all this stuff about eating over maintaince by 500 cals a day is a load of [email protected] cool so everything i have read up untill this point is rubbish ok thanks.


you're very welcome. im glad i could post an opposing argument to the "certain facts" that you have read on the internet. glad you appreciate me trying to help with a different point of view.


----------

