Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronostasis
I don't have links or anything to back myself up with, so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt if you like.
However, my thoughts would be that no, the added muscles does not offset the lower caloric requirements. From what little I've read on the topic, I get the sense that even building measurable amounts of muscle does not add very much to your daily calorie burn - I'd ballpark at <100 kcal. At my age/weight/height/activity level, my daily calorie requirements drop ~100 kcal when I lose 10 more pounds. As I see it, there are only two ways to offset those calories: eat 100 less calories every day or burn 100 more calories through movement (or some combination of both options.)
Also, not to burst your bubble - you're maintaining, if not losing, and that's a huge accomplishment! - but I'm a little concerned that you're justifying a plateau as gaining muscle. See this article.
Wishing you the best on your weight loss journey!
Thanks Chrono! =)
I skimmed the article; one thing that I disagree with is the assertion that muscle is not heavier than fat. Everything I've read says that if you weigh *equal volumes* of fat and muscle, the muscle weighs more than the fat. So if after a month your measurements have stayed the same but your weight has gone up, or if your measurements have gone down but your weight has stayed the same, you've gained muscle.
I believe I'm eating at a calorie deficit, but I'm not sure, and I guess my main concern is, in order to get to my goal weight, will I *have* to cut my calories no matter what (especially since I don't do a lot of cardio, maybe 30 minutes at target heart rate per day).
Speaking of goal weight, I might make it 125 instead of 120...I want to be at he same size I was when I was 120 four years ago, but I have more muscle now than I did then...