We know that muscle burns more calories than fat. Therefore, to increase your metabolism, you should add more muscle to your frame. But what exactly is “more muscle”? Actual volume of muscle via hypertrophy gains? So, if your goal is to burn fat and generally increase your metabolism, should one be utilizing set rep ranges for hypertrophy? Does someone who trains for muscle gain burn more calories that someone who trains for strength gains?

We know that muscle burns more calories than fat. Therefore, to increase your metabolism, you should add more muscle to your frame. But what exactly is “more muscle”? Actual volume of muscle via hypertrophy gains? So, if your goal is to burn fat and generally increase your metabolism, should one be utilizing set rep ranges for hypertrophy? Does someone who trains for muscle gain burn more calories that someone who trains for strength gains?

No expert but I would say Strength training would increase metabolism more than hypertrophy training. Reason why is because logic tells me strength is less volume i.e: sets x reps in comparison to hypertrophy training yet its intensity is higher, its a bit like the HIIT of lifting, as HIIT is generally cardio related.

You know strength is about blasting out a big 1RM, or 4RM in one set, then its a decent rest period, then straight back into work again perhaps with an increase in weight, therefore giving the HR a good workout.

Thats my take on the question.

In terms of fat loss, I always thought of it as a use it or lose it mentallity. You're not going to build much if any muscle while cutting but you are trying your hardest not to lose any either. Without the weight training you would lose more LBM while cutting and therefore you're metabolism could slow down.

At least, that's my take on it.

If you are on a calorie-restricted diet, i.e., you're eating under your maintenance calorie level, then I think lifting weights do several things. One, they prevent slowing of your metabolism, prevent strength loss, and maybe even some muscle gains (definitely prevent some muscle loss), and burn some extra calories.

To this end, there are several "ways" of lifting while dieting.
You can lift heavy, do low reps. You can lift relatively heavy (but not that heavy) and do higher reps. You can do strength-based exercises with minimal rest for the "cardio" effect and burn some real calories (sort of like HIIT for lifting as mentioned above).

I think doing all of the above by cycling your rep/set scheme and putting in some "whole-body"/"olympic-style"/crossfit style exercises should help you burn fat and lose weight.

Hope that made sense.

I'm not asking about cutting or how to lift while cutting. I'm asking whose muscle burns more calories: the bodybuilder or the powerlifter?

Look at the following excerpt from http://www.gain-weight-muscle-fast.com/rep-ranges.html:

In other words, reps under 6 make you stronger, but they don’t necessarily make you bigger because the strength gains come from adaptations in the nervous system - the muscle fibers and other muscle cell structures do not hypertrophy (enlarge). This explains why certain athletes, powerlifters and Olympic lifters can be wicked strong but they don’t look as strong as they are.

When you train with medium reps (6-12) the adaptations are more metabolic and cellular and only moderately neurological. This is why 6-12 reps is the range most often recommended for bodybuilding and hypertrophy. You get bigger and stronger in this rep range, but your strength gains are not maximal. This explains why some bodybuilders look stronger than they are (and why they are often the brunt of jokes made by powerlifters and weight lifters; i.e. “big, weak, slow, useless muscles”, ha ha).


So, keeping that in mind, what is "more muscle" in the phrase "more muscle burns more calories"? Stronger muscle? Or bigger muscle?

Am I making sense? Basically, if you want a body that has a higher metabolism, should you train for strength or muscle size?

stronger i would say, as the stronger muscle can capacitate higher weight/s, therefore having to work that bit harder.

I fall under "genetically acceptable", and I used to carry about 40-50 pounds more fat than I do now. What worked for me was putting all my effort into the discipline aspect of fitness.

I lift 3 times per week religiously and I eat at least a pound of veggies each day. I try to stick to a balanced lift routine and I try to eat clean. I occasionally do pullups more often than I should and I sometimes eat a big piece of pie.

Clearly I'm not ripped, but I have discernible abs and more confidence than ever before. If I did everything I had to for single digit body fat, I'd lose the energy, strength, and some of the joy I have now.

You may find it helpful to ease off the "perfecting the science" approach and instead work patiently toward a harmonious balance between your diet, lifting, and life.

I'm not asking about cutting or how to lift while cutting. I'm asking whose muscle burns more calories: the bodybuilder or the powerlifter?

Look at the following excerpt from http://www.gain-weight-muscle-fast.com/rep-ranges.html:

In other words, reps under 6 make you stronger, but they don’t necessarily make you bigger because the strength gains come from adaptations in the nervous system - the muscle fibers and other muscle cell structures do not hypertrophy (enlarge). This explains why certain athletes, powerlifters and Olympic lifters can be wicked strong but they don’t look as strong as they are.

When you train with medium reps (6-12) the adaptations are more metabolic and cellular and only moderately neurological. This is why 6-12 reps is the range most often recommended for bodybuilding and hypertrophy. You get bigger and stronger in this rep range, but your strength gains are not maximal. This explains why some bodybuilders look stronger than they are (and why they are often the brunt of jokes made by powerlifters and weight lifters; i.e. “big, weak, slow, useless muscles”, ha ha).


So, keeping that in mind, what is "more muscle" in the phrase "more muscle burns more calories"? Stronger muscle? Or bigger muscle?

Am I making sense? Basically, if you want a body that has a higher metabolism, should you train for strength or muscle size?


That's a good question. I'm not sure.

I would have to say that it probably evens out in the long run, but not necessarily by strictly adding muscle. The bodybuilder may have more muscle mass, which can equal a faster metabolism, but the powerlifting type is probably doing exercises that stimulate the metabolism more. It's difficult to say, because some of "traditional" powerlifting exercises have been making their way into commercial gyms and likely, bodybuilding routines in a widespread way.

So to answer your question....I don't really know :lol:

You may find it helpful to ease off the "perfecting the science" approach and instead work patiently toward a harmonious balance between your diet, lifting, and life.

:eat: + :bb: + :cool: = :tucool:

So, keeping that in mind, what is "more muscle" in the phrase "more muscle burns more calories"? Stronger muscle? Or bigger muscle?

Am I making sense? Basically, if you want a body that has a higher metabolism, should you train for strength or muscle size?
Train for both.

More metabolically active tissue means a greater resting energy expenditure. Stronger muscle mean you have the ability to use greater loads during training, which means a larger effect on the cardiovascular system, which means a greater exercise energy expenditure.

But, to answer your question, "more muscle" generally means what it literally says -- a greater tissue volume.