The resting metabolism of muscle tissue isn’t that high. It’s mostly overstated when it comes to actual passive calorie burn.
But that isn’t to say that having significant muscle doesn’t have a measurable/significant effect on calorie expenditure. If you’re building muscle by going to the gym, each trip back to the gym will involve more weight and therefore more calories due to the exercise itself. So packing on muscle makes each trip to the gym more productive in terms of calories burned.
Around 15 kCal/kg daily, maybe not very high indeed, but it’s significant, say I have 10-15kg more muscles than the average untrained person, that would be 150-225 more calories at rest, also you’re not always resting as you say already, the number will likely be higher, when considering daily activities, also since there’s more strength, it’s likely that the muscles are more used when doing sports (faster running/cycling, more weights, etc.), which is also relevant.
(For my case, I have a very inefficient metabolism likely (rather results in heat than fat-increase), I eat a lot even when I’m not trained, but right now, as I’m a little bit more packed I eat absurd amounts of food (due to a lot of drumming mostly btw. wouldn’t have thought it results in that much extra muscle/calories-burning))
15 kg of muscle (not just water and the accompanying fat/glycogen/bone density that comes from being that strong) is a lot. That might represent a 30 kg difference in actual body weight. For someone that big, an extra 250 calories per day (fat is metabolically active, too) is pretty insignificant compared to the immense calorie burn they’ll get from the actual exercise needed to maintain that muscle.
Like you mention, a huge chunk of the effect is the increase in calories of just moving that heavier body around in daily activities.
Yeah and don’t forget that the newly built muscle needs more energy as well just to maintain.
I have to eat painfully much… (I’m quite active, and even when not I eat a looot more than others…)
The resting metabolism of muscle tissue isn’t that high. It’s mostly overstated when it comes to actual passive calorie burn.
But that isn’t to say that having significant muscle doesn’t have a measurable/significant effect on calorie expenditure. If you’re building muscle by going to the gym, each trip back to the gym will involve more weight and therefore more calories due to the exercise itself. So packing on muscle makes each trip to the gym more productive in terms of calories burned.
Around 15 kCal/kg daily, maybe not very high indeed, but it’s significant, say I have 10-15kg more muscles than the average untrained person, that would be 150-225 more calories at rest, also you’re not always resting as you say already, the number will likely be higher, when considering daily activities, also since there’s more strength, it’s likely that the muscles are more used when doing sports (faster running/cycling, more weights, etc.), which is also relevant.
(For my case, I have a very inefficient metabolism likely (rather results in heat than fat-increase), I eat a lot even when I’m not trained, but right now, as I’m a little bit more packed I eat absurd amounts of food (due to a lot of drumming mostly btw. wouldn’t have thought it results in that much extra muscle/calories-burning))
15 kg of muscle (not just water and the accompanying fat/glycogen/bone density that comes from being that strong) is a lot. That might represent a 30 kg difference in actual body weight. For someone that big, an extra 250 calories per day (fat is metabolically active, too) is pretty insignificant compared to the immense calorie burn they’ll get from the actual exercise needed to maintain that muscle.
Like you mention, a huge chunk of the effect is the increase in calories of just moving that heavier body around in daily activities.