Trying to find out how many calories are burned per pound of muscle
every day by passive metabolism, I Googled the phrase "calories per
pound of muscle".  Here are the results from the pages that came up:

5
5
10
100
10
100
50
50
7 to 10
50
18
30-50
35
50
40

etc. (and that's not even counting all the conflicting information
sources that didn't use that exact phrase).

Look, I realize this is the Internet, where you can find "information
sources" claiming the Amazing Diet Patch will help you lose a pound
per day while keeping you hard for 48 hours all in exchange for
providing your banking information to your Dear Friend in Nigeria who
has a Business Proposal for you.  But how can the data on this simple
question be this bad?  (By comparison, if you Google "the average
person weighs", almost all of the results give about the same number.)

The first article from my calorie search
(http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/living/health/4747575.htm --
registration required, use fuckyou1234@fuckyou.com and password
"password" to view) makes a compelling argument that the 50-calorie
figure is a myth: if that were true, than a 200-pound man with 80
pounds of muscle would burn 4,000 calories a day doing almost nothing.
But then why is the 50-calorie myth so prevalent?  Sure, there are
companies selling bodybuilding equipment that push that number, but
most of the pages claiming "50 calories per pound of muscle" did not
appear to be written by shills for the bodybuilding equipment
industry.

Anyway, is there a number that the scientific community agrees on?

-Bennett