Doesn't track lifting???

Options
taylorjgarner
taylorjgarner Posts: 27 Member
edited February 2016 in Fitness and Exercise
How come the app doesn't show calories you burn with weight lifting? Am I inputting something wrong?

Replies

  • Sumiblue
    Sumiblue Posts: 1,597 Member
    Options
    It's under cardiovascular-strength training. Doesn't burn much, though.
  • emistevenson
    emistevenson Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    To track strength training calorie burn accurately you will need a HRM. The estimates built into the cardio section of the exercise tracker are WAY off...they assume you're like like, lying on the ground doing chest presses the whole time or something.

    I do a 40-minute weight training session with a HRM a couple times a week and routinely burn 350-450 calories. MFP estimates that 40 minutes of strength training should burn like 108 calories.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Options
    Hrms were not made for strength training and are very inaccurate. They are only accurate for steady state cardio. Strength training has a low calorie burn
  • emistevenson
    emistevenson Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    1920s style weight training where guys were just sitting on benches curling their biceps or doing barbell presses has a very low caloric burn. Modern circuit training methods incorporate things like plyometrics, burpees, supersets, and other demanding full-body movements in order to maintain a high heart rate and high calorie burn.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Options
    A hrm is still not accurate in recording calorie burn for that
  • Sumiblue
    Sumiblue Posts: 1,597 Member
    Options
    emistevenson wrote: »
    1920s style weight training where guys were just sitting on benches curling their biceps or doing barbell presses has a very low caloric burn. Modern circuit training methods incorporate things like plyometrics, burpees, supersets, and other demanding full-body movements in order to maintain a high heart rate and high calorie burn.

    True. I do KB circuits once a week and it burns more but I consider it cardio. I lift heavy 4x/week for 60 minutes and it burns less than 150 calories. But I'm small. A taller, heavier person would burn more. The benefits are more for the long range than for a immediate big burn.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Options
    Strength training shouldn't be about the calorie burn. I don't lift to burn calories, I lift to get stronger, retain and gain muscle.
  • blues4miles
    blues4miles Posts: 1,481 Member
    Options
    emistevenson wrote: »
    I do a 40-minute weight training session with a HRM a couple times a week and routinely burn 350-450 calories. MFP estimates that 40 minutes of strength training should burn like 108 calories.

    As someone already stated, HRMs are not accurate ways to gage calorie burn from strength training.

    Here's some quotes from someone named Azdak who wrote an MFP blog way back in 2010 to explain:
    There is a mistaken belief among many people--repeated even by many "experts" on bodybuilding websites--that ANY increase in heart rate reflects aerobic conditioning and an increase in caloric expenditure. This is not true. The primary reason is that the increase in heart rate that occurs with strength training results from a different physiologic mechanism than it does during aerobic exercise.

    The increased heart rate that occurs with aerobic exercise is the result of the need for increased cardiac output--the heart must pump more blood to meet the energy demand of the activity. Heart rate increases because of a VOLUME load.

    The increased heart rate that occurs with strength training is the result of changes in intrathoracic pressure and an increase in afterload stress. There is no corresponding increase in cardiac output, and thus only a modest increase in oxygen uptake. Heart rate increases because of a PRESSURE load.

    So, unlike aerobic exercise, the increased heart rate during strength training DOES NOT reflect either an increase in oxygen uptake or a significant increase in caloric expenditure. Moving quickly from machine to machine to keep the heart rate elevated does not change this fact. It is still a pressure load, not a volume load.

    Does this mean that strength training is a less useful activity for weight loss, or that it does not contribute to maintaining a calorie deficit? Of course not. Strength training is a critical part of a weight loss program. Strength training may only have a modest observable calorie burn--actually it's more like a simmer--but it can contribute to an overall calorie deficit in other ways--a modest "afterburn", conservation of lean muscle mass, the metabolic effects of more rapid protein turnover, for example. But the effects of strength training are not general in nature--they are very specific to the individual, and they are affected by so many different variables, it is impossible to formulate an equation or prediction table that is applicable to the general population
  • MommyMeggo
    MommyMeggo Posts: 1,222 Member
    Options
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    Strength training shouldn't be about the calorie burn. I don't lift to burn calories, I lift to get stronger, retain and gain muscle.

    This.
  • taylorjgarner
    taylorjgarner Posts: 27 Member
    Options
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    Strength training shouldn't be about the calorie burn. I don't lift to burn calories, I lift to get stronger, retain and gain muscle.
    It's not that I rely on strength training to burn calories, I know that..I was just wondering why it doesn't show that aspect of your caloric expenditure, but thanks for your input! :)

  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    emistevenson wrote: »
    To track strength training calorie burn accurately you will need a HRM. The estimates built into the cardio section of the exercise tracker are WAY off...they assume you're like like, lying on the ground doing chest presses the whole time or something.

    I do a 40-minute weight training session with a HRM a couple times a week and routinely burn 350-450 calories. MFP estimates that 40 minutes of strength training should burn like 108 calories.

    No, using any conventional HRM will give incredibly inaccurate results for weight lifting. HRM's work based on using heartbeats to estimate blood volume, blood volume to estimate oxygen usage, oxygen usage to estimate fat oxidation, and fat oxidation to estimate calories. In weight lifting, heart rate changes have almost nothing to do with moving oxygen around (cardio is also called aerobic training, while lifting is called anaerobic training) and mostly to do with providing blood pressure in the muscles being used.
  • emistevenson
    emistevenson Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    Then why does the HRM have a different mode for strength training, if not to compensate for that difference? It also has different modes for biking vs running for the same reason - adjusting for the difference in what you're doing.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    Options
    emistevenson wrote: »
    Then why does the HRM have a different mode for strength training, if not to compensate for that difference? It also has different modes for biking vs running for the same reason - adjusting for the difference in what you're doing.

    HRM is not to be used for strength training. You may could it for circuit training but not regular lifting. Here is all you need to know about that....

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-17698

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
  • DaddieCat
    DaddieCat Posts: 3,646 Member
    Options
    I'm just gonna say that my hrm often says I've burned upwards of 4k calories in a lifting session and it also has a "strength training" mode. That doesn't make it accurate as evidenced by the numbers if gives. It does seem to be accurate for steady state cardio, but then again, the documentation even said that it would only accurately measure that.

    What model of hrm do you have/use? It might be helpful to look up the user manual and see what it says.

    It's generally accepted as common knowledge that hrms are only for steady state cardio. The only reason I wear mine is to attempt to keep my hr up over a certain bpm during my sessions.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    BecomingBane wrote: »
    I'm just gonna say that my hrm often says I've burned upwards of 4k calories in a lifting session and it also has a "strength training" mode. That doesn't make it accurate as evidenced by the numbers if gives. It does seem to be accurate for steady state cardio, but then again, the documentation even said that it would only accurately measure that.

    What model of hrm do you have/use? It might be helpful to look up the user manual and see what it says.

    It's generally accepted as common knowledge that hrms are only for steady state cardio. The only reason I wear mine is to attempt to keep my hr up over a certain bpm during my sessions.

    I do agree with this statement to some degree. We all know we burn something right? But to what measurable degree can use that data for caloric expenditure?

    The links I provided explain the most commonly accepted method for measuring the calories burned for a particular activity is to measure oxygen uptake (VO2).

    The increased heart rate during strength training DOES NOT reflect either an increase in oxygen uptake or a significant increase in caloric expenditure. As it states keeping the heart rate elevated during lifting still does not reflect the increase in oxygen uptake or the caloric expenditure so should not be used for this. As it states still a pressure load, not a volume load.

  • DaddieCat
    DaddieCat Posts: 3,646 Member
    Options
    Personally, I'm not worried about calories at all.. not why I do what I do.

    I'm more concerned with VO2 max... but I'm currently reading up on that, including the links that you posted to better educate myself on that particular aspect.

    Ultimately I view it only as data... it may or may not be valuable based on facts and circumstance, but then again, I'm a junky for data. I don't rely on this information gathered for any purpose other than looking back and making adjustments to the plan... if I learn that something is not useful, I don't adjust for it in the future.

    I'm definitely not of the opinion that I am right... more that this is a journey and I will continue to learn and grow as I progress. Facts are challenged all of the time, mine included and it's through these challenges that I come to learn and grow.

    So TLDR: Thanks for the links and info... I'm learning.
  • emistevenson
    emistevenson Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    It's a Polar M400 with the chest strap monitor.

    Interesting discussion here. I don't try to track CICO religiously but I do record them. I usually try to err on the side of overestimating how much food I ate since I know the opposite problem is common, and I never eat back my exercise calories - I eat the same steady maintenance amount of calories every day (which I used a Breezing to determine). Whatever exercise I get in the week is my calorie deficit that week. The only cardio I do is about 20-25 minutes of elliptical or treadmill just before my strength training sessions (which are circuit training), twice a week, and I have lost about a pound every week since I started doing this, with 19 pounds lost currently. Maybe it's calorie burn from the circuit training, or maybe it's afterburn + increased muscle mass increasing my metabolism.

    So, the calories may or may not be accurate, but whatever it is, the net impact of circuit training twice a week has been enough for me to lose weight without eating below my sedentary maintenance level! YMMV :)
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    BecomingBane wrote: »
    Personally, I'm not worried about calories at all.. not why I do what I do.

    I'm more concerned with VO2 max... but I'm currently reading up on that, including the links that you posted to better educate myself on that particular aspect.

    Ultimately I view it only as data... it may or may not be valuable based on facts and circumstance, but then again, I'm a junky for data. I don't rely on this information gathered for any purpose other than looking back and making adjustments to the plan... if I learn that something is not useful, I don't adjust for it in the future.

    I'm definitely not of the opinion that I am right... more that this is a journey and I will continue to learn and grow as I progress. Facts are challenged all of the time, mine included and it's through these challenges that I come to learn and grow.

    So TLDR: Thanks for the links and info... I'm learning.

    I will call my self a data junky too! LOL

    and I do understand exactly where you are coming from.. at least I may not be the only one here do it as well..

Categories