fitness verses calorie burn

GillianSmith2

If you get better at doing something, get fitter and get stronger does it have any effect on the amount of calories you burn?

3dogsrunning

It can depend on what the activity is. If getting fitter means you can do the movement more efficiently, yes. But something like running, there is very little that can be gained. Being fitter means you can run longer or faster which burns more calories but two people of the same weight running the same course at the same speed will burn pretty much the same amount of calories, regardless of fitness level. The fitter person will percieve it as easier.

lemurcat12

Also, as you get fitter and stronger you may be able to burn more in the same period of time. If I improve my running speed, I can burn more in an hour than before (although if you lose weight you will burn less all else equal).

callsitlikeiseeit

yes because it takes less energy. which is why people increase the intensity/ level of their exercise. also keep in mind as you lose weight, you burn less so you have to go longer and/or harder for the same calorie burn.

3dogsrunning

callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »

yes because it takes less energy. which is why people increase the intensity/ level of their exercise. also keep in mind as you lose weight, you burn less so you have to go longer and/or harder for the same calorie burn.

For something like running, the energy required is more or less the same between a fit person and a less fit one. Assuming they are the same weight doing the same work, they burn the same.

CJsf1t

I have a doubt. If you get better at an activity, say running wouldn't the body just get more efficient at the job and burn lesser calories?

3dogsrunning

CJsf1t wrote: »

I have a doubt. If you get better at an activity, say running wouldn't the body just get more efficient at the job and burn lesser calories?

We are already pretty efficient at running and walking. Certain activities, yes, you can get more efficient, like swimming.

Here is one blog that sort of addresses it
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

GillianSmith2

so what do you think about kickboxing? this is my dedicated sport, i take part in long sessions of kicking, punching, jumping spinning, sparing, strength training, running, weights. some days like today it was a mixture of all the above for 2 hours 15 minutes. As i train most days this is not a problem for me to accomplish. however my partner for the day was wet through with sweat and felt like it was a hard class.
I understand the bit about if you lose weight the burn is less but...
if it was me that was used to training hard, and i had an identical twin in every way that had never trained who would burn more? or would we burn the same??

lemurcat12

Like 3 dogs has said, for activities we are basically good at already there's not going to be any change, all else equal. Bigger factors are you exercise more intensely when fit and burn less when lighter.

With something like swimming you probably do work off extra calories from being less efficient, but you also are unable to exercise as intensely as a result -- for me improving swimming technique makes me faster, so I actually think I end up getting a harder workout, which is why the normal way to estimate calories is time and distance.

For something like kickboxing or a circuit workout or class at the gym I similarly think improvements would pay off in more intense workouts, so I wouldn't think the efficiency increase would be an issue much for calories burned. The idea that our bodies get used to things so stop burning calories isn't really true.

GillianSmith2

Thank you everyone.

Azdak

GillianSmith2 wrote: »

so what do you think about kickboxing? this is my dedicated sport, i take part in long sessions of kicking, punching, jumping spinning, sparing, strength training, running, weights. some days like today it was a mixture of all the above for 2 hours 15 minutes. As i train most days this is not a problem for me to accomplish. however my partner for the day was wet through with sweat and felt like it was a hard class.
I understand the bit about if you lose weight the burn is less but...
if it was me that was used to training hard, and i had an identical twin in every way that had never trained who would burn more? or would we burn the same??

Something like kickboxing is a little more complex. There is a sequence of improvement that may or may not effect calorie burn.

1. Beginner: The absolute beginner will have such an unstable physiological response to the exercise, that calorie burn cannot be estimated. Something like an HRM will really distort the issue because HR will often skyrocket, making the person think they burned a ton of calories, when in fact their entire response is more random chaos.

2. Novice: The novice will have a stable response to the exercise, but the less "efficient" moves will not result in increased calorie burn. That is because they have not mastered the moves well enough to really push themselves. Exercise effort is still limited by lack of movement mastery.

3. Experienced: with mastery of the movement, the individual will now be able to exert the most effort. In this case "increased efficiency" will actually result in MORE calories being burned because the person is coordinated and practiced enough to push harder.

4. Master: depending on the activity, there may be a limit as to how hard one can push. If one has reached that limit, then it is possible that further efficiency will now decrease calorie burn. How much will be different for each person. In most cases, "mechanical efficiency" increases are small, like on the order of 5%. In my younger years, I tried step aerobics. After taking a few classes, I realized I had reached a limit--I could not raise the step higher without risking injury, and I couldn't perform the movements any faster or more vigorously. My heart rate went down to a sub-training threshold, so I stopped doing the class.

Azdak

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Like 3 dogs has said, for activities we are basically good at already there's not going to be any change, all else equal. Bigger factors are you exercise more intensely when fit and burn less when lighter.

With something like swimming you probably do work off extra calories from being less efficient, but you also are unable to exercise as intensely as a result -- for me improving swimming technique makes me faster, so I actually think I end up getting a harder workout, which is why the normal way to estimate calories is time and distance.

For something like kickboxing or a circuit workout or class at the gym I similarly think improvements would pay off in more intense workouts, so I wouldn't think the efficiency increase would be an issue much for calories burned. The idea that our bodies get used to things so stop burning calories isn't really true.

If I may add to your informative comment: what most people think is "increased efficiency" is actually increased fitness level.

All activities have an energy cost--and that cost is a percentage of your aerobic capacity. When an exercise (e.g. Running at a particular speed) starts to feel "easier", it's because one's fitness level has improved and the (relatively fixed) energy cost of the activity now represents a lower % of maximum. One is still burning the same calories (if weight is the same), but now one is capable of burning even more calories by going faster.

The reason why an HRM shows a lower burn is because the HRM does not recognize your increased fitness level, so it is using an outdated "scale".

CJsf1t

Azdak wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Like 3 dogs has said, for activities we are basically good at already there's not going to be any change, all else equal. Bigger factors are you exercise more intensely when fit and burn less when lighter.

With something like swimming you probably do work off extra calories from being less efficient, but you also are unable to exercise as intensely as a result -- for me improving swimming technique makes me faster, so I actually think I end up getting a harder workout, which is why the normal way to estimate calories is time and distance.

For something like kickboxing or a circuit workout or class at the gym I similarly think improvements would pay off in more intense workouts, so I wouldn't think the efficiency increase would be an issue much for calories burned. The idea that our bodies get used to things so stop burning calories isn't really true.

If I may add to your informative comment: what most people think is "increased efficiency" is actually increased fitness level.

All activities have an energy cost--and that cost is a percentage of your aerobic capacity. When an exercise (e.g. Running at a particular speed) starts to feel "easier", it's because one's fitness level has improved and the (relatively fixed) energy cost of the activity now represents a lower % of maximum. One is still burning the same calories (if weight is the same), but now one is capable of burning even more calories by going faster.

The reason why an HRM shows a lower burn is because the HRM does not recognize your increased fitness level, so it is using an outdated "scale".

Thanks! This was what I wanted to know!

GillianSmith2

Azdak wrote: »

GillianSmith2 wrote: »

so what do you think about kickboxing? this is my dedicated sport, i take part in long sessions of kicking, punching, jumping spinning, sparing, strength training, running, weights. some days like today it was a mixture of all the above for 2 hours 15 minutes. As i train most days this is not a problem for me to accomplish. however my partner for the day was wet through with sweat and felt like it was a hard class.
I understand the bit about if you lose weight the burn is less but...
if it was me that was used to training hard, and i had an identical twin in every way that had never trained who would burn more? or would we burn the same??

Something like kickboxing is a little more complex. There is a sequence of improvement that may or may not effect calorie burn.

1. Beginner: The absolute beginner will have such an unstable physiological response to the exercise, that calorie burn cannot be estimated. Something like an HRM will really distort the issue because HR will often skyrocket, making the person think they burned a ton of calories, when in fact their entire response is more random chaos.

2. Novice: The novice will have a stable response to the exercise, but the less "efficient" moves will not result in increased calorie burn. That is because they have not mastered the moves well enough to really push themselves. Exercise effort is still limited by lack of movement mastery.

3. Experienced: with mastery of the movement, the individual will now be able to exert the most effort. In this case "increased efficiency" will actually result in MORE calories being burned because the person is coordinated and practiced enough to push harder.

4. Master: depending on the activity, there may be a limit as to how hard one can push. If one has reached that limit, then it is possible that further efficiency will now decrease calorie burn. How much will be different for each person. In most cases, "mechanical efficiency" increases are small, like on the order of 5%. In my younger years, I tried step aerobics. After taking a few classes, I realized I had reached a limit--I could not raise the step higher without risking injury, and I couldn't perform the movements any faster or more vigorously. My heart rate went down to a sub-training threshold, so I stopped doing the class.

thank you for this. i would class my self as experienced having trained for the last 10 years and being a black belt. but still have plenty to learn