Question - Caloric burn from weights. Does it include rest?
drewlfitness
Posts: 114 Member
I've been logging my weight lifting, 60 minutes, 70 minutes, whatever it is, I type it into myfitnesspal and it gives me an "estimate" on calories burned.
My question - If for example I take 100 minutes to complete all the lifts I want to do, and that 100 minutes includes probably about 30 minutes of rest between sets, then should I log only 70 minutes in myfitnesspal? Or should I log the whole thing, knowing that the "estimate" that myfitnesspal gives me already assumes a certain percentage of the 100 minutes I enter is spent resting?
Thanks.
My question - If for example I take 100 minutes to complete all the lifts I want to do, and that 100 minutes includes probably about 30 minutes of rest between sets, then should I log only 70 minutes in myfitnesspal? Or should I log the whole thing, knowing that the "estimate" that myfitnesspal gives me already assumes a certain percentage of the 100 minutes I enter is spent resting?
Thanks.
0
Replies
-
I would log the full 100 minutes.0
-
If you use the cardio classification "Strength training (weight lifting, weight training)", that has rest built in. That's why the logged burn is so low.0
-
I log the full work-out time. Your body continues to burn hot in between sets. You don't fully recover until the work-out is finished so let it run!!
0 -
Yes it assumes and includes rest/recovery between sets. Log the full time.0
-
Huh. I've always subtracted it. How would MFP know how long I was resting?0
-
Assumed rest time is recovering enough to complete the next set.0
-
Huh. I've always subtracted it. How would MFP know how long I was resting?
It doesn't know, or need to know. It's a standard assumption based on people strength training in a "standard" way.
A rough estimate, which is all anybody really needs.
Calorie estimates for something so difficult to measure and a low burn rate really aren't worth the effort in trying to be more accurate.
0 -
I've been subtracting some of the time spent resting. I'm almost giddy about this info. I get an extra snack!0
-
NICE. That means I've been burning more calories than I thought over the last 6 months. That also makes sense, vs. requiring the user to guess how much total time they had been resting. And yeah, I'm pretty much out of breath between sets, so I'm definitely working. Thanks for the help all.0
-
You didn't. I don't get a whole lot of calories, so 50-100 is sweet!0 -
I always subtract rest. If I'm there 1.5 hours I log 1 hour0
-
FrankWhite27330 wrote: »I always subtract rest. If I'm there 1.5 hours I log 1 hour
Why would you do that? It's not like you finish a set and your body says oh stop burning calories there not benching deadlifting or squating....0 -
FrankWhite27330 wrote: »I always subtract rest. If I'm there 1.5 hours I log 1 hour
Why would you do that? It's not like you finish a set and your body says oh stop burning calories there not benching deadlifting or squating....
It's negligible anyway. The majority of expenditure during the period is BMR, so it makes an apples worth of difference.0 -
Not if you are lifting HEAVY!!!MeanderingMammal wrote: »FrankWhite27330 wrote: »I always subtract rest. If I'm there 1.5 hours I log 1 hour
Why would you do that? It's not like you finish a set and your body says oh stop burning calories there not benching deadlifting or squating....
It's negligible anyway. The majority of expenditure during the period is BMR, so it makes an apples worth of difference.
0 -
Not if you are lifting HEAVY!!!MeanderingMammal wrote: »FrankWhite27330 wrote: »I always subtract rest. If I'm there 1.5 hours I log 1 hour
Why would you do that? It's not like you finish a set and your body says oh stop burning calories there not benching deadlifting or squating....
It's negligible anyway. The majority of expenditure during the period is BMR, so it makes an apples worth of difference.
That would be the kool-aid that you've been drinking.
Being generous, 150 cals per 30 minutes, ok it's 1.5 apples.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
Not if you are lifting HEAVY!!!MeanderingMammal wrote: »FrankWhite27330 wrote: »I always subtract rest. If I'm there 1.5 hours I log 1 hour
Why would you do that? It's not like you finish a set and your body says oh stop burning calories there not benching deadlifting or squating....
It's negligible anyway. The majority of expenditure during the period is BMR, so it makes an apples worth of difference.
That would be the kool-aid that you've been drinking.
Being generous, 150 cals per 30 minutes, ok it's 1.5 apples.
Considering the number of people on MFP who are eating 1200-1500 calories per day, I don't consider 150 calories negligible.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
Not if you are lifting HEAVY!!!MeanderingMammal wrote: »FrankWhite27330 wrote: »I always subtract rest. If I'm there 1.5 hours I log 1 hour
Why would you do that? It's not like you finish a set and your body says oh stop burning calories there not benching deadlifting or squating....
It's negligible anyway. The majority of expenditure during the period is BMR, so it makes an apples worth of difference.
That would be the kool-aid that you've been drinking.
Being generous, 150 cals per 30 minutes, ok it's 1.5 apples.
Considering the number of people on MFP who are eating 1200-1500 calories per day, I don't consider 150 calories negligible.
As one of those people, neither do I.0 -
The calorie burn from strength training comes afterwards while resting, it's about raising your metabolism.
Don't bother logging every single exercise and worrying whether you're tracked each calorie burnt. A better approach to calculate your intake based on activity level. Going to the gym 4-5 times per week for 1 hour is a moderate level.0 -
Not if you are lifting HEAVY!!!MeanderingMammal wrote: »FrankWhite27330 wrote: »I always subtract rest. If I'm there 1.5 hours I log 1 hour
Why would you do that? It's not like you finish a set and your body says oh stop burning calories there not benching deadlifting or squating....
It's negligible anyway. The majority of expenditure during the period is BMR, so it makes an apples worth of difference.
You forgot the smiley.0 -
VanillaGorillaUK wrote: »The calorie burn from strength training comes afterwards while resting, it's about raising your metabolism.
Don't bother logging every single exercise and worrying whether you're tracked each calorie burnt. A better approach to calculate your intake based on activity level. Going to the gym 4-5 times per week for 1 hour is a moderate level.
If you are using a TDEE calculator to determine your calories that works. But if you are using the traditional MFP method, you log your exercise and set your activity level to match your activity level outside of exercise.
That being said, if you want to do a kind of blend, your method works. When I set my activity level in MFP to reflect my overall activity level, your gym estimate of 4-5 times per week for an hour being moderate comes reasonably close to my actual TDEE.0 -
VanillaGorillaUK wrote: »The calorie burn from strength training comes afterwards while resting, it's about raising your metabolism.
Don't bother logging every single exercise and worrying whether you're tracked each calorie burnt. A better approach to calculate your intake based on activity level. Going to the gym 4-5 times per week for 1 hour is a moderate level.
If you are using a TDEE calculator to determine your calories that works. But if you are using the traditional MFP method, you log your exercise and set your activity level to match your activity level outside of exercise.
That being said, if you want to do a kind of blend, your method works. When I set my activity level in MFP to reflect my overall activity level, your gym estimate of 4-5 times per week for an hour being moderate comes reasonably close to my actual TDEE.
Yup that's true, the traditional MFP method tries to calculate your activity and exercise separately. It's very silly
0 -
VanillaGorillaUK wrote: »VanillaGorillaUK wrote: »The calorie burn from strength training comes afterwards while resting, it's about raising your metabolism.
Don't bother logging every single exercise and worrying whether you're tracked each calorie burnt. A better approach to calculate your intake based on activity level. Going to the gym 4-5 times per week for 1 hour is a moderate level.
If you are using a TDEE calculator to determine your calories that works. But if you are using the traditional MFP method, you log your exercise and set your activity level to match your activity level outside of exercise.
That being said, if you want to do a kind of blend, your method works. When I set my activity level in MFP to reflect my overall activity level, your gym estimate of 4-5 times per week for an hour being moderate comes reasonably close to my actual TDEE.
Yup that's true, the traditional MFP method tries to calculate your activity and exercise separately. It's very silly
I've actually been unsure as to what I should set my activity level to, specifically because of what you're talking about here. If I workout 2-3 hours each workout, 5 days a week, but the times that I'm NOT exercising consist of basic activity that most people do like driving from point A to point B, getting out of car to walk into a store to do shopping/errands, getting out of the car to meet someone for coffee and discussion, getting home to cook dinner, sit to watch tv...then what should I set my "activity level" to? It's not like I work a construction job or landscaping job, so therefore would I put "lightly active" or "active"?0 -
drewlfitness wrote: »VanillaGorillaUK wrote: »VanillaGorillaUK wrote: »The calorie burn from strength training comes afterwards while resting, it's about raising your metabolism.
Don't bother logging every single exercise and worrying whether you're tracked each calorie burnt. A better approach to calculate your intake based on activity level. Going to the gym 4-5 times per week for 1 hour is a moderate level.
If you are using a TDEE calculator to determine your calories that works. But if you are using the traditional MFP method, you log your exercise and set your activity level to match your activity level outside of exercise.
That being said, if you want to do a kind of blend, your method works. When I set my activity level in MFP to reflect my overall activity level, your gym estimate of 4-5 times per week for an hour being moderate comes reasonably close to my actual TDEE.
Yup that's true, the traditional MFP method tries to calculate your activity and exercise separately. It's very silly
I've actually been unsure as to what I should set my activity level to, specifically because of what you're talking about here. If I workout 2-3 hours each workout, 5 days a week, but the times that I'm NOT exercising consist of basic activity that most people do like driving from point A to point B, getting out of car to walk into a store to do shopping/errands, getting out of the car to meet someone for coffee and discussion, getting home to cook dinner, sit to watch tv...then what should I set my "activity level" to? It's not like I work a construction job or landscaping job, so therefore would I put "lightly active" or "active"?
Sedentary or lightly active. Pick one. Follow that for four weeks. Adjust up/down from there.0 -
VanillaGorillaUK wrote: »VanillaGorillaUK wrote: »The calorie burn from strength training comes afterwards while resting, it's about raising your metabolism.
Don't bother logging every single exercise and worrying whether you're tracked each calorie burnt. A better approach to calculate your intake based on activity level. Going to the gym 4-5 times per week for 1 hour is a moderate level.
If you are using a TDEE calculator to determine your calories that works. But if you are using the traditional MFP method, you log your exercise and set your activity level to match your activity level outside of exercise.
That being said, if you want to do a kind of blend, your method works. When I set my activity level in MFP to reflect my overall activity level, your gym estimate of 4-5 times per week for an hour being moderate comes reasonably close to my actual TDEE.
Yup that's true, the traditional MFP method tries to calculate your activity and exercise separately. It's very silly
Whether it's silly or not depends on the type of exercise you do. Based on the original question, basing it on lifting I wouldn't disagree significantly. The progressive calorie expenditure in a lifting programme is relatively small. Going from 600cals per week to 700 to 800 is something that's lost in the noise of weight gain and loss. If one is doing something that consumes more calories, and has a cyclic training plan then the variation in calorie expenditure is much more significant, and non-linear.
If one starts on a plan that has a 4000cal week, followed by a 4500cal week, 5000 cal week, 5500cals and then reducing back to 4500 that's not lost in the noise. One could change TDEE on a weekly basis, but that's not really the point of TDEE and undermines the prospect of actually calculating it appropriately.
0 -
drewlfitness wrote: »I've actually been unsure as to what I should set my activity level to, specifically because of what you're talking about here. If I workout 2-3 hours each workout, 5 days a week, but the times that I'm NOT exercising consist of basic activity that most people do like driving from point A to point B, getting out of car to walk into a store to do shopping/errands, getting out of the car to meet someone for coffee and discussion, getting home to cook dinner, sit to watch tv...then what should I set my "activity level" to? It's not like I work a construction job or landscaping job, so therefore would I put "lightly active" or "active"?
If you want simple, set it to "lightly active" and don't log your exercise -- as @jemhh says, you'll want to tweek up calories down if you're losing too slow, or up if losing too fast. If you get motivation out of logging your exercise, then set to sedentary and log exercise separately (but you'll still need to tweek).0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
Not if you are lifting HEAVY!!!MeanderingMammal wrote: »FrankWhite27330 wrote: »I always subtract rest. If I'm there 1.5 hours I log 1 hour
Why would you do that? It's not like you finish a set and your body says oh stop burning calories there not benching deadlifting or squating....
It's negligible anyway. The majority of expenditure during the period is BMR, so it makes an apples worth of difference.
That would be the kool-aid that you've been drinking.
Being generous, 150 cals per 30 minutes, ok it's 1.5 apples.
Considering the number of people on MFP who are eating 1200-1500 calories per day, I don't consider 150 calories negligible.
In the context of the question, that 150 cals is 33% of the calories expended in a session. I was also being pretty generous about that 150, which is where we get into the uncertainty around what we're measuring.
Given that energy expended is a function of mass and distance, and the mass moved is relatively small compared to bodyweight, and moving for very short distances, the prospect of burning 450cals in a 90 minute session is pretty far out for most in the category that you're referring to.
I'd also observe that many of the discussions I see here that relate to I'm netting 1200 cals and burning 300 in training, how much should I eat back generally end up with people fronting up to taking a calorie expenditure, doing some arcane and ill defined arithmetic and coming up with an arbitrary deduction. That would suggest that the 150 cals I mentioned disappear in a puff of calculation error anyway.
As ever it comes down to tracking progress, then testing and adjusting the treatment of assessed calorie expenditure anyway.0 -
drewlfitness wrote: »VanillaGorillaUK wrote: »VanillaGorillaUK wrote: »The calorie burn from strength training comes afterwards while resting, it's about raising your metabolism.
Don't bother logging every single exercise and worrying whether you're tracked each calorie burnt. A better approach to calculate your intake based on activity level. Going to the gym 4-5 times per week for 1 hour is a moderate level.
If you are using a TDEE calculator to determine your calories that works. But if you are using the traditional MFP method, you log your exercise and set your activity level to match your activity level outside of exercise.
That being said, if you want to do a kind of blend, your method works. When I set my activity level in MFP to reflect my overall activity level, your gym estimate of 4-5 times per week for an hour being moderate comes reasonably close to my actual TDEE.
Yup that's true, the traditional MFP method tries to calculate your activity and exercise separately. It's very silly
I've actually been unsure as to what I should set my activity level to, specifically because of what you're talking about here. If I workout 2-3 hours each workout, 5 days a week, but the times that I'm NOT exercising consist of basic activity that most people do like driving from point A to point B, getting out of car to walk into a store to do shopping/errands, getting out of the car to meet someone for coffee and discussion, getting home to cook dinner, sit to watch tv...then what should I set my "activity level" to? It's not like I work a construction job or landscaping job, so therefore would I put "lightly active" or "active"?
Sedentary or lightly active. Pick one. Follow that for four weeks. Adjust up/down from there.
This sounds reasonable, since everyone is different so just test out and see if you're losing the "1 pound per week" or not. If you're not, then adjust down to sedentary.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »
Not if you are lifting HEAVY!!!MeanderingMammal wrote: »FrankWhite27330 wrote: »I always subtract rest. If I'm there 1.5 hours I log 1 hour
Why would you do that? It's not like you finish a set and your body says oh stop burning calories there not benching deadlifting or squating....
It's negligible anyway. The majority of expenditure during the period is BMR, so it makes an apples worth of difference.
That would be the kool-aid that you've been drinking.
Being generous, 150 cals per 30 minutes, ok it's 1.5 apples.
Considering the number of people on MFP who are eating 1200-1500 calories per day, I don't consider 150 calories negligible.
In the context of the question, that 150 cals is 33% of the calories expended in a session. I was also being pretty generous about that 150, which is where we get into the uncertainty around what we're measuring.
Given that energy expended is a function of mass and distance, and the mass moved is relatively small compared to bodyweight, and moving for very short distances, the prospect of burning 450cals in a 90 minute session is pretty far out for most in the category that you're referring to.
I'd also observe that many of the discussions I see here that relate to I'm netting 1200 cals and burning 300 in training, how much should I eat back generally end up with people fronting up to taking a calorie expenditure, doing some arcane and ill defined arithmetic and coming up with an arbitrary deduction. That would suggest that the 150 cals I mentioned disappear in a puff of calculation error anyway.
As ever it comes down to tracking progress, then testing and adjusting the treatment of assessed calorie expenditure anyway.
I agree that the calories can be "lost in calculation" or however anyone would like to justify it, which can either work in your favor or against you, depending on your unique self. After thinking about this more, I say that if I'm really that concerned with the 150 calorie difference, then I just need to do a little more cardio or whatever I chose. At least that's how I think about it. Nothing works better (for me) than working hard at something, and just doing it above and beyond.
For me personally, when I complete a 90 minute heavy lifting routine, I go through a few towels soaked in sweat, my heart rate goes up to 120's (I think), and afterwards I am quite exhausted. And it feels great. So for myfitnesspal to say that I burned 500+ calories from doing the lifting routine I just mentioned, I wouldn't disagree. If after a month of doing this type of logging, I don't actually lose the weight I was supposed to (1 or 2 pounds a week etc.), then perhaps at that point I can change my "activity level" down to sedentary, or perhaps even increase it to active if I end up losing more weight.
I can say for me, since starting my diet/workout regiment about 6 months ago, I have actually lost just about exactly the amount of weight that I chose in my plan (1.5 pounds per week). That includes eating about 80-90% of my exercise calories back, eating about 2,900 calories per day under a 2,200 calorie per day plan, or eating even more depending on how many exercise calories I had logged that day.
It WOULD be nice if myfitnesspal allowed me to choose how many exercise calories to eat back, instead of just choosing "on" or "off".
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions