How Many Calories does Muscle Really Burn? Not as Many as You Think...

By , SparkPeople Blogger
Do you strength train? No?! Well, you know, muscle burns more calories at rest than fat does, so you should build more muscle to boost your metabolism and help you lose weight.

How many times have you heard (or said) something similar yourself? I've heard it (and even said it) hundreds of times myself, mainly because that little fact can motivate people to start (and stick with) strength training—especially women who fear "bulking up" or cardio bunnies who only exercise to burn as many calories as possible. Raise your hand if YOU want to burn more calories while at rest. (I'm right there with you.)

Well, exactly how many calories does that newly sculpted muscle really burn? Not as much as you'd think, according to an article written by fitness expert, Dr. Cedric X. Bryant, the Chief Science Officer for the American Council on Exercise (ACE).

The common stat experts and laypeople alike tend to cite is that a single pound of muscle can burn 30-50 calories per day—so the more muscle you build, the more calories your body will burn all day long. But Dr. Bryant writes that research indicates otherwise. According to an article he wrote for the ACE FitnessMatters newsletter:

"[M]uscle tissue has been observed to burn roughly seven to 10 calories per pound per day, compared to two to three calories per pound per day for fat. Therefore, if you replace a pound of fat with a pound of muscle, you can expect to burn only approximately four to six more calories a day. Given the fact that the average person who strength trains typically gains approximately 3 to 5 pounds of muscle mass over a period of three to four months, the net caloric effect of such a training regimen is very modest—only 15 to 30 calories per day (the equivalent of a few potato chips)."

Hmm...that doesn't sound too motivating. But then again, every little bit helps, right? If you were to decide to either burn 15-30 more calories per day or NOT, wouldn't you still choose to burn it? I would. Over time, it adds up. That's 450-900 more calories burned per month, or 5,400-10,800 more calories burned in a year—that's about a 3-pound weight loss, simply by building and preserving your muscle mass. That sounds pretty good to me!

But remember, strength training offers your body many more benefits than just increased calorie burn! If you're cutting calories to lose weight, it will help reduce the amount of muscle you lose in the process, which could be significant. Plus it helps you improve your appearance, remain strong and independent, decrease joint pain, strengthen your bones and improve your athletic performance. Those all sound like valuable reasons to keep lifting weights to me.

To read Dr. Cedric X. Bryant's full article, click here.

Are you surprised by the modest calorie-burn of muscles? Will you keep (or start) strength training anyway?

Click here to to redeem your SparkPoints
  You will earn 5 SparkPoints


PATRICIAAK 11/25/2020
:) Report
BONNIE1552 9/16/2020
Many reasons to strength train at any age. Report
PATRICIAAK 9/10/2020
:) Report
ROCKRS 7/29/2020
Thanks Report
SHOAPIE 7/10/2020
Thank you Report
PATRICIAAK 6/23/2020
:) Report
OCHUUU 6/21/2020
I loved what you shared especially about I would. Over time, it adds up, I will combine it with what I am doing to improve my results Report
PATRICIAAK 2/14/2020
:) Report
LIL-VIXEN 12/24/2019
Thanks for the interesting article. I always thought that having muscle mass would enable you to lose more weight. Good to know I was proven wrong. Report
Thanks! Report
Interesting article. Good need-to-know information! Report
I do strength training because I found it helps keep my blood sugar numbers lower. Report
Fat jiggles, is flabby, and look old. Muscles ripple and look toned and youthful. 'Nuff said! Report
Interesting. Report
Not sure why this article would expect me to waste my exercise time worrying about Kcal burn on Strength Training. I do not work strength training to burn kcals, I do cardio for that. I strength train to improve my health, joints, mobility... Report
It's not the calories burned at rest by muscles. Instead it is the calories you burn building that muscle. https://
This video explains what I mean. Report
Wow...I think this article really misses the point. The thesis seems to be "the net caloric effect of such a training regimen is very modest—only 15 to 30 calories per day" taken directly from the article written by Dr. Bryant.

That's really disappointing. Yes, this article talks about the "modest" 3 pounds per year of weight loss, but completely ignores the 500-600 calories burned per hour of the actual weight training (statistic is taken from SparkPeople article called "You Asked: How Many Calories Does Strength Training Burn?", and taken from a study done at ASU).

So, in the end, the latent caloric loss is minimal, but the muscle that is built can only be done so by spending a minimum of three hours training per week, which would burn around 1500 calories. That's a tad bit less than 2 pounds a month doing the bare minimum, or 22 pounds per year.

This article should be amended to include this information, because it seems a shadow is cast upon weight training as not leading to much weight loss, when in actuality weight training can be just as effective as cardio (though the heart still needs to get pumping for overall health).

Weight training is awesome! Report
Bottom line...muscle burns more calories than fat! A big YaY there...equally as important, it improves your overall fitness level. For me looking toned and fabulous beats soft and squishy any day! I cannot begin to imagine how I would look today if I hadn't been consciously trying to sculpt and define...rolls and jiggling, no thanks! With all of the exercise options available, there is literally something out there for everyone...regardless of mobility and physical limitations. It all begins with our willingness to try, and then getting after it! Report
Enjoyed the article and the comments! As you said, "strength training offers many more benefits than just increased calorie burn!" I am 75 years old and love how alive and limber my body feels after a good workout! That surely does beat feeling stiff and lethargic! I have recently begun strength training again (for the umpteenth time) and can already feel the beginnings of a waistline again!

As someone else mentioned, I've noticed my weight is going down on more calories, too! You can't beat that! Report
This article also doesn't mention the fact that the more muscle that you have, the faster your metabolism! As you age, you metabolism naturally slows down, which is another reason that woman should add strenth training! Also, I don't remember if the article mentions, but it also strenthens your bones! Something EVERY woman should be concerned with! Report
I think there's too much focus on the number of calories any exercise burns and not enough on what it accomplishes in terms of fitness. In the end, it's all relative anyway. The less you weigh, the less you burn. According to my Nike+ Sport Kit, after a forty-minute run, I burn a rather disappointing 300 calories. The meal I consume afterwards will be at least that much! Losing weight and achieving fitness go hand-in-hand with a balanced and portion-controlled nutrition plan, strength training and cardio. The older you are, especially if you are a woman, the more important muscle-building becomes! Report
All I know is that when I strength train AND do cardio I lose weight even though I average 1600 calories a day. When I take strength training out of the occasion I struggle to lose at 1400 calories a day. If I stop strength training and cardio both, I don't lose weight even if I limit myself to 1200 calories a day. I don't care that much what causes that, I care that I'm losing weight, and looking toned. Even according to this article, muscle is still burning between 3.33 to 5 times as many calories as fat does, that sounds good to me. Report
You know I'm getting a little tired of seeing these particular studies bandied around the internet saying that 3 pounds of 'new' muscle burn 120 extra calories a day. People, the studies do not say that. Nowhere in the study report does it attribute the 120 calorie daily increase to the muscle. Its attributed to the training program.

QUOTE: 'the same strength-training program that increased lean (muscle) weight by about 3 pounds, likewise increased resting metabolic rate by about 7%. '

Put simply. If doing 'X' results in effects 'Y' and 'Z', this doesnt mean'Y' is caused by 'Z' just that both may be caused by 'X'.

Have fun, enjoy your training and be very wary of selective analysis from people who may be pursuing their own agendas.
This article is False and outdated!!!

There is new research that now proves that a pound of "new" muscle will burn on average 35 calories. We are not talking about skeleton muscles, we are talking about new muscle that you've developed by working out. Skeleton muscles on the other hand only burns on average 5.7 calories per lb of muscle.

Here is the research
Although Bouchard's mathematical calculations seem to make sense, they definitely do not line up with the classic research studies on this topic. Two well-conceived and well-conducted research studies examined the effects of strength training on muscle development and resting metabolic rate.

One study was conducted by Campbell and his research associates at Tufts University1,and the other study was conducted by Pratley and his research associates at the University of Maryland5.

At Tufts University, the subjects performed progressive resistance exercise three days a week for 12 weeks. Each training session consisted of four standard strength exercises, each of which was performed for three sets of eight to 12 repetitions.

After three months of training, the subjects, on average, added 3.1 pounds of lean (muscle) weight and lost 4.0 pounds of fat weight. As a result, their resting metabolic rate increased by 6.8 %, or approximately 105 calories per day. At face value, this finding would indicate that 1 pound of muscle uses about 35 calories per day at rest (105 calories per day ÷ 3 pounds of muscle = 35 calories per day per pound of muscle).

At the University of Maryland, the subjects performed progressive resistance exercise three days a week for 16 weeks. Each training session consisted of 14 standard strength exercises, most of which were performed for one set of 10 to 15 repetitions.

After four months of training, the subjects, on average, added 3.5 pounds of lean (muscle) weight and lost 4.2 pounds of fat weight. As a result, their resting metabolic rate increased by 7.7%, or approximately 120 calories per day. At face value, this finding would indicate that 1 pound of muscle uses about 34 calories per day at rest (120 calories per day ÷ 3.5 pounds of muscle = 34 calories per day per pound of muscle).

It is interesting to note that, in both of these studies, the same strength-training program that increased lean (muscle) weight by about 3 pounds, likewise increased resting metabolic rate by about 7%.

It is also interesting to note that, in both of these studies, the strength-training programs responsible for these impressive results were relatively basic and brief. The Tufts University subjects performed just 12 sets of exercise per session (three sets of four exercises), and the University of Maryland subjects completed 17 sets of exercise per session (one set of 11 exercises and two sets of three exercises).

These represent essentially 30-minute workouts that are manageable both time-wise and energy-wise for most adults. It is nothing short of remarkable that such modest investments in strength exercise can produce such profound physical outcomes.

The bottom line: Actively trained muscles burns almost 6 times more calories than untrained muscles. Report
Yes, the news IS discouraging to me. But it does not mean I'll quit strength training. I certainly like being Shaped better, plus I've think I've FINALLY it through my thick head, that alot of my aches & pains are from WEAK MUSCLES. ahem.
Jenn Report
Well... overall fitness is more important than how many calories you burn when you're sitting on your butt. And if you don't have muscle, it makes it a lot harder to power through cardio trying to burn calories. I don't think I really care either way - muscle looks a heck of a lot better than fat. And I want to bounce quarters off my butt someday - can't do that without working on strengthening the glutes! Report
I post this once in awhile to remind myself why strength training is important:

A pound of muscle vs a pound of fat,
If I had 210 pounds of muscle, I would look pretty skinny. Report
I post this once in awhile to remind myself why strength training is important:

A pound of muscle vs a pound of fat,
If I had 210 pounds of muscle, I would look pretty skinny. Report
I'm still new with strength training, so I'll continue to test the theory :D Report
I will still strength train ,because it makes me feel better. Report
Love the kettle bell workout! Report
Love to ST and love having a defining shape to my arms and legs. Would never give it up... Report
Will not stop ST bcoz I see definition in my body esp my shoulders & legs now even tho I weigh nearly the same! Report
I just recently (last 5 weeks) added in strength training with the total gym 3 or 4 days a week with cardio on alternating days. I am still losing weight at the same rate as before. The big difference is with the strenght training added i wear a size smaller than i did at this weight before, and i am shaped better and people are commenting alot more on the weight loss than before. i will never quit the strength training, it makes a huge difference in the way i look, feel, and how well i perform everything i do. Report
Burning more calories is just an added benefit. Muscle makes it easier to do things (like take the stairs after a long day), and it also helps to protect your bones and organs. Don't forget about how having toned muscles looks! Building muscle can help increase the appearance of your chest (if you want that), raise your butt to where it should be, and who doesn't want sexy calves? Report
Well, even if muscle doesn't burn up as many calories as we've all be led to believe, Nichol makes an excellent point when she states that: "If you're cutting calories to lose weight, it will help reduce the amount of muscle you lose in the process." - - - - that will protect your heart and other vital organs!

Sounds like a good reason to me to continue to build up some muscle. Report
This is discouraging a little, but I know that strength training has toned my body. I just wish there could be some little break in the just seems too hard! Report
This information is a bit disappointing but I we all know that there is no magic bullet to weightloss and maintenance. I want to be strong with defined muscle so I will continue to strength train 3 times per week. Report
I do some weight training between my cardio days it helps to get my weight down. Also tones some of my areas that need it. I feel stronger from working on weights. I vary from the machines at the YMCA to the free weights. Report
Great information. Report
I would, regardless how many calories are burned. I want to get rid of my flabby tummy and arms. Report
I love, love strength training...much more because of the definition I am forming and not because of the extra calories I'm burning, although that is a nice bonus:) Report
So the claim that Chalean Extreme boosts your metabolism by up to 500 calories a day cannot be true! I suspected as much as I have not lost and I am nearly done. Report
I was always suspicious of the amount of calories burned from strength training. It makes no difference to me. I will never stop strength training . I do boht strenght and cardio. Strength training mkaes me feel powerful after a workout. Good muscle tone helps maintain posture and balance. Cardio is great for yur heart and lungs. Anyhow the bottom line for weight loss is calories in and calories out. Too each his own. Report
I wonder more about the difference in repetitive motion of cardio / aerobics compared to lifting weights. I mean when one is 200 pounds plus, and they do aerobic training, or jogging, or some form of exercise where their heart rate is above the cardio range...doesnt that repetitive motion of lifting their own excess weight count as ST to fatiuge and burn muscles enough for them to build more? Strength Training does it faster yeah...but without the heart and whole system advantage. I would think the benefits of exercise in general help reduce the amount of muscle you lose in the calorie restriction process, which could be significant from just dieting alone or lower HR fat burning zone.
EXERCISE helps you improve your appearance, remain strong and independent, decrease joint pain, strengthen your bones and improve your athletic ST or aerobic or cardio does too. But so many list it out as if aerobic or high impact cardio doesnt...well it DOES as well.
I was considered a "cardio bunny" who only exercised to burn as many calories as possible and very resistant to ST because its a BORING burn and seeing improvement depends on tracking and recording what was done before, on each machine or form. Its so much easier and more immediate to track distance in time with something that gets the whole body at once and add on to it gradually. Cardio is less resistance to me than lifting weights so Im way more apt to enjoy it and do it again and again.
I GAINED weight doing 90 minutes of above 80% max 4 or more times a week. I KNOW I didnt gain FAT...and I didnt lift weights.
So whats the difference? Some of the ST exercises Personal Trainers have had me do, the rate of speed and my HR doing it...Its the same but with extra weights and a limit to repitition rather than duration of time.
I was told I was over training and thats why I gained and halted my weight loss. I had to go back to doing HR under 130 to loose again. I am now doing ST to rebuild the burt off muscle cells cause Im not building them up anymore with my more intensive routines.
So my question is what is the difference. For those who HATE Strength Training...cant they do a higher or more intensive cardio beyond the cardio range and accomplish the same? Report
However many calories you burn or don't burn in the course of a day, it's important to look at the big picture. I am 64 years old and I have been going to the gym to lift weights pretty regularly (2-3 X/week) and/or getting exercise of some sort almost every day--since 1986. I carefully watch my diet but still weigh more than I should, according to the charts. But I have no physical ailments, no heart problems or signs of diabetes. I scored above average on a recent bone density test. My blood pressure and cholesterol are where they should be. I have always had a lot of energy. My arthritis is minimal and does not bother me at all. When I look around and see the poor health condition of many people my age, I just wonder if exercise could have helped them. Not all of them, of course. That's being unrealistic. But I'll bet that most people's health would be greatly improved if they took the time to exercise, including weight lifting, every day. Report
Hey, the point is? Muscle continues to 'burn calories' even at rest, as in sitting, sleeping & doing nothing when your done & the added benefits to posture & over-all well-being as we age? You'll be grateful for later in Life. And anything that does calories in while I'm doing nothing? Is A OK with me!! Report
Maybe the average person gains only about 3-5 lbs of muscle, but I have gained 15 lbs of muscle in the past year, and lost 30 lbs of fat, primarily by strength training. So if the difference is ~5 calories per lb per day, that's 45 calories per day for me. And besides that I have loads more energy, feel better ALL the time, sleep better, my relatives say that my voice even sounds better/more energetic. :) Forget average. If I were "average" I wouldn't have this much weight to lose. I did cardio for a year and lost almost nothing. Strength training has definitely been the ticket for me to gain momentum in my weight loss efforts, I recommend it for everyone. Report
Being a strength training bigot, I just roll my eyes at this article. I was a distance runner for a few years. I never achieved the aerobic endurance to do a full marathon but I did run half-marathons and ran 7+ miles several days a week. I lost weight and generally I was more fit but those runs often exhausted me and had my share of joint injuries.

For the last year or so I've switched my emphasis to pretty hardcore weight training. The fat is coming off quicker, I am tremendously stronger and my pulse rate is 52. I also look a lot better with my shirt off than I did as a runner.

Do I care what a pound of muscle burns while I'm asleep? Not really. Movement, both aerobic and anaerobic, is what my body was designed for. Rest time is just the time for recuperation from the last time I moved.

If I thought it mattered most that both more fat and more muscle burned more calories, I'd focus on just getting bigger so I guess I could brag that I burn more calories doing nothing than that skinnier guy over there. But my goal is to get more fit, stronger, healthier, with more energy, fewer injuries... It has nothing to do with resting metabolism or any other abstract concept like that. Report