Thoughts on calorie burns

Aaron_K123

This isn't a question so much as it is for discussion. The general wisdom seems to be that cardio burns sufficent calories that it is worth tracking and eating back those calories while weight training burns fewer calories and is harder to accurately account for and is therefore not worth tracking and not worth eating back or just add a tiny bit more calories to account for it.

I was skeptical of this but the more I thought about it the more it actually sort of made sense to me.

The source of the skepticism was that if I go for a long walk I don't feel like I have exerted myself where as if I do a bunch of deadlifts, sqats, pullups and pushups I feel destroyed and my heart is pounding out of my chest. So clearly that resistance training would burn more even if it was hard to tell how much right?

But in thinking about it here is what I thought. I'm not sure its actually correct, hence putting it out there for discussion.

Calorie expenditure is probably directly related to work done, "work" here being used in the way physics uses it, applying force to a mass to move that mass a certain distance.

If I walk one mile over 20 minutes I have effectively transported 170 pounds over a distance of one mile.

If I do pushups and pullups I am really only effectively moving a part of my total weight (say maybe 80% of it) a much smaller distance (say like 1 foot per rep). So even though I exert myself much much more doing pushups and pullups the amount of "work" I am doing is way WAY less for the resistance training. Basically if over that same 20 minutes I manage to do 30 pullups and 100 pushups we are talking about moving my bodyweight like 110 feet rather than a mile. Does that mean going for a 20 minute walk burns significantly more calorically than an intense push-pull resistance workout?

Now obviously there is another variable which is time. If I walk 1 mile in 20 minutes or run 1 mile in 10 minutes I have moved the same mass over the same distance but presumably I burn more running because I do it in less time which increases the intensity. So intensity (kind of determined by heart rate) plays a role, just not sure how much.

So with all of that thought experiment I do wonder, how much of calorie expenditure is due to "work" (moving mass over distance) and how much if it is due to intensity, difficulty of the work and therefore how much it increases your heartrate.

Also clearly there isn't a difference in calorie burn between a stationary bike and an actual bike so your movement over distance doesn't matter as much as the movement of your legs themselves so not sure if the whole "work" thing works, so to speak.

Probably a stupid topic, just letting whats going on in my head spill out see if anyone has something more intelligent to say on the topic of what "work" is in terms of burning calories.

janejellyroll

I walk to and from work on all days that weather allows. These are fairly leisurely walks, but they total up to about four miles in a day so I have no doubt that I burn more calories on those days than I do when I take the bus. It doesn't feel like running four miles, I don't think we need to necessarily feel exertion in order to burn calories -- especially when we're talking about longer walks.

Aaron_K123

janejellyroll wrote: »

I walk to and from work on all days that weather allows. These are fairly leisurely walks, but they total up to about four miles in a day so I have no doubt that I burn more calories on those days than I do when I take the bus. It doesn't feel like running four miles, I don't think we need to necessarily feel exertion in order to burn calories -- especially when we're talking about longer walks.

Oh no I totally agree with that, walking most definately DOES burn calories. I also walk too and from work which for me is about 12 miles per day and makes up the vast majority of my calorie burn from exercise. I have my goal set to 1680 calories per day but I end up eating more like 2400 per day from that alone.

Question for me is the idea of mass transport over distance the KEY component of calorie burn and is that the reason why something as casual as walking burns more calories than something like benchpress or pull-ups which feel so much more intense.

I long distance backpack and if you go far enough calories become a major concern. Caloric burns tend to be something like 6000 calories a day and it becomes impossible to bring enough food so your deficits are gigantic. You go long enough that starts to be a problem.

sijomial

I've never understood the "don't log weight training calorie burns" argument.
Let's use the MFP rough estimate (based on METS) of about 250 cals for an hour for me.
Most people calorie counting would advocate logging a buffet meal where it's impossible to be accurate but your best guess is 250 cals. So why not log your best guess on the other side of the equation?
I just accept there's no practical way to estimate the burn (HR is meaningless for strength training as is perceived effort) and have a wild stab at it. Could well be low for me as I tend to move more weight in my hour than I guess is the "average".

Also clearly there isn't a difference in calorie burn between a stationary bike and an actual bike so your movement over distance doesn't matter as much as the movement of your legs themselves so not sure if the whole "work" thing works, so to speak.

It's the power you produce not the twirling of your legs that is the real measure of work.
My smaller, but much more talented, cycling mate can produce 30% more power than me for the same cadence.
That energy may be expressed as heat from a friction based resistance brake, or moving a huge volume of air with fan resistance, or (outdoors) moving your body mass from here to there.

Aaron_K123

sijomial wrote: »

I've never understood the "don't log weight training calorie burns" argument.
Let's use the MFP rough estimate (based on METS) of about 250 cals for an hour for me.
Most people calorie counting would advocate logging a buffet meal where it's impossible to be accurate but your best guess is 250 cals. So why not log your best guess on the other side of the equation?
I just accept there's no practical way to estimate the burn (HR is meaningless for strength training as is perceived effort) and have a wild stab at it. Could well be low for me as I tend to move more weight in my hour than I guess is the "average".

Also clearly there isn't a difference in calorie burn between a stationary bike and an actual bike so your movement over distance doesn't matter as much as the movement of your legs themselves so not sure if the whole "work" thing works, so to speak.

It's the power you produce not the twirling of your legs that is the real measure of work.
My smaller, but much more talented, cycling mate can produce 30% more power than me for the same cadence.
That energy may be expressed as heat from a friction based resistance brake, or moving a huge volume of air with fan resistance, or (outdoors) moving your body mass from here to there.

Oh yeah I don't disagree with this. I'm just wondering about the difference between something that does not have much percieved effort (walking) versus something that has a ton of percieved effort (weight training) and if the reason for the discrepency is one has more "work" in terms of transport of mass over distance than the other. I'm just commenting on how the common sense of "well this is harder so it must burn more calories) clearly fails us.

I guess my question is this to make it more simple. Is the fundamental part of caloric burn weight transfer over distance or is it something else?

psuLemon

This is actually one of the reasons I am such a huge proponent of the TDEE method. Even within weight training, there are huge variables that can cause a person to burn more calories than the next. And even outside of body composition, sex, genetics, etc.., there are a plethora of routines that do burn a good amount of calories (e.g., body pump, circuit, etc..).

I also think @sijomial makes some good points regarding power.

chocolate_owl

My ramblings about your ramblings:

With regards to how hard something feels, don't we have to take conditioning and neuromuscular adaptation into account?

For me, running a mile in 10 minutes isn't much harder than walking a mile in 20 minutes, but I remember when it was. I wasn't conditioned for it. Back in that day, if I based my calorie burn on how hard I FELT my body was working, I would have thought I was burning a lot more calories than I actually was.

Doing 15 squats with a 65lb barbell would be nearly impossible for me right now. It would get my heart rate up, and my muscles would need a break at the end of it. 2 years ago pre-injury, that was my warmup before my working sets. I banged it out and didn't even think about it.

I imagine in either of these situations, the difference in calories burned due to heart rate would be very few compared to the calories burned by the exercise itself.

And then you're also comparing a constant exercise (walking 20 minutes) to an interval exercise where there are longish periods of rest. You may have spikes in calorie burning during a weight training session, but a good portion of your session is spent recovering, i.e. doing no "work."

The_Enginerd

The weight * distance engineering definition of work analogy breaks down in your example though because you are lifting that weight against gravity. You are effectively doing work every time you lift something. When walking, you are moving (mostly) horizontally. You don't need anywhere near 170 lbs of force to move since you are overcoming just frictional losses.

I logged my calorie burns for weight training, because I was losing slowly without it, and with the variety in my activity level from week to week, I prefer that method over building it in.

psuLemon

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

I've never understood the "don't log weight training calorie burns" argument.
Let's use the MFP rough estimate (based on METS) of about 250 cals for an hour for me.
Most people calorie counting would advocate logging a buffet meal where it's impossible to be accurate but your best guess is 250 cals. So why not log your best guess on the other side of the equation?
I just accept there's no practical way to estimate the burn (HR is meaningless for strength training as is perceived effort) and have a wild stab at it. Could well be low for me as I tend to move more weight in my hour than I guess is the "average".

Also clearly there isn't a difference in calorie burn between a stationary bike and an actual bike so your movement over distance doesn't matter as much as the movement of your legs themselves so not sure if the whole "work" thing works, so to speak.

It's the power you produce not the twirling of your legs that is the real measure of work.
My smaller, but much more talented, cycling mate can produce 30% more power than me for the same cadence.
That energy may be expressed as heat from a friction based resistance brake, or moving a huge volume of air with fan resistance, or (outdoors) moving your body mass from here to there.

Oh yeah I don't disagree with this. I'm just wondering about the difference between something that does not have much percieved effort (walking) versus something that has a ton of percieved effort (weight training) and if the reason for the discrepency is one has more "work" in terms of transport of mass over distance than the other. I'm just commenting on how the common sense of "well this is harder so it must burn more calories) clearly fails us.

I guess my question is this to make it more simple. Is the fundamental part of caloric burn weight transfer over distance or is it something else?

I think part of the problem is people's definition of weight training vs cardio. A lot of the people, and this is complete observation over the years, discuss cardio as LISS (running mainly) for fairly long periods of time. But when the discuss weight training, it mainly refers to going to a gym and doing a bunch of random things. Even if it's a program like stronglift, the length of the program isn't equal to that of their cardio.

Aaron_K123

The_Enginerd wrote: »

The weight * distance engineering definition of work analogy breaks down in your example though because you are lifting that weight against gravity. You are effectively doing work every time you lift something. When walking, you are moving (mostly) horizontally. You don't need anywhere near 170 lbs of force to move since you are overcoming just frictional losses.

I logged my calorie burns for weight training, because I was losing slowly without it, and with the variety in my activity level from week to week, I prefer that method over building it in.

Yeah that is a good point. I guess the real equivalent would be climbing a mile-tall ladder which is obviously insane. So yeah obviously the incline of the distance has a big factor of how much weight you are really moving against gravity.

But assumption errors and calculation errors aside is the core of how much calories are required come down to the transport of mass over distance (where the amount of mass is the amount you are moving against gravity)? In otherwords exercise X moves more mass over distance than exercise Y then exercise X burns more calories no matter how "hard" exercise Y is.

NorthCascades

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Now obviously there is another variable which is time. If I walk 1 mile in 20 minutes or run 1 mile in 10 minutes I have moved the same mass over the same distance but presumably I burn more running because I do it in less time which increases the intensity.

Walking, you always have one foot on the ground. Running, you jump from one foot to the other. So you're actually doing a lot more work when you run vs walk the same distance.

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

So intensity (kind of determined by heart rate) plays a role, just not sure how much.

The standard formulas suggest that walking a mile in 20 vs 30 minutes should burn the same number of calories. Riding a mile on a bike is different because you can coast (not using energy) or you can pedal (burning calories). Also the faster you go, the more work you have to do overcoming air resistance, but it's not a meaningful difference at walking speeds.

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

Also clearly there isn't a difference in calorie burn between a stationary bike and an actual bike so your movement over distance doesn't matter as much as the movement of your legs themselves so not sure if the whole "work" thing works, so to speak.

Very strongly disagree. On a stationary bike only your legs are moving, your body remains stationary. You have to push hard enough to overcome whatever resistance the machine is set to. On an outdoor bike, you're moving your entire body weight against gravity and against the wind. How hard you push is dictated by conditions. What I'm saying is riding an outdoor bike up a hill will burn more calories than spinning lightly.

Aaron_K123

Good point @NorthCascades with regards to running actually inheriently having more work due to the explosiveness and actually getting off the ground hadn't thought of that.

Interesting about time not being that much of a factor, I do agree that heartrate doesn't really inheriently burn much in and of itself but always assumed it played some role.

On the stationary bike I was trying to say if the resistance is equivalent, that it isn't actual moving your mass over distance that matters its the resistance itself. Although in both cases you are moving mass, just the mass of your legs.

The_Enginerd

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

The_Enginerd wrote: »

The weight * distance engineering definition of work analogy breaks down in your example though because you are lifting that weight against gravity. You are effectively doing work every time you lift something. When walking, you are moving (mostly) horizontally. You don't need anywhere near 170 lbs of force to move since you are overcoming just frictional losses.

I logged my calorie burns for weight training, because I was losing slowly without it, and with the variety in my activity level from week to week, I prefer that method over building it in.

Yeah that is a good point. I guess the real equivalent would be climbing a mile-tall ladder which is obviously insane. So yeah obviously the incline of the distance has a big factor of how much weight you are really moving against gravity.

But assumption errors and calculation errors aside is the core of how much calories are required come down to the transport of mass over distance (where the amount of mass is the amount you are moving against gravity)? In otherwords exercise X moves more mass over distance than exercise Y then exercise X burns more calories no matter how "hard" exercise Y is.

I think the biomechanical efficiency would throw off such a simple comparison.

Even going on a perfectly flat path where you don't need to account for moving weight against gravity, walking burns a bit less than 1/2 the number of calories/mile as running because there is a lot less "wasted" motion and force that doesn't go directly into propelling you forward. Most of your calories burned during running are burned propelling yourself upward a little with every step, absorbing the impact of each step, and generating force to move lift/bend your legs and move them against their own inertia.

Aaron_K123

The_Enginerd wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

The_Enginerd wrote: »

The weight * distance engineering definition of work analogy breaks down in your example though because you are lifting that weight against gravity. You are effectively doing work every time you lift something. When walking, you are moving (mostly) horizontally. You don't need anywhere near 170 lbs of force to move since you are overcoming just frictional losses.

I logged my calorie burns for weight training, because I was losing slowly without it, and with the variety in my activity level from week to week, I prefer that method over building it in.

Yeah that is a good point. I guess the real equivalent would be climbing a mile-tall ladder which is obviously insane. So yeah obviously the incline of the distance has a big factor of how much weight you are really moving against gravity.

But assumption errors and calculation errors aside is the core of how much calories are required come down to the transport of mass over distance (where the amount of mass is the amount you are moving against gravity)? In otherwords exercise X moves more mass over distance than exercise Y then exercise X burns more calories no matter how "hard" exercise Y is.

I think the biomechanical efficiency would throw off such a simple comparison.

Even going on a perfectly flat path where you don't need to account for moving weight against gravity, walking burns a bit less than 1/2 the number of calories/mile as running because there is a lot less "wasted" motion and force that doesn't go directly into propelling you forward. Most of your calories burned during running are burned propelling yourself upward a little with every step, absorbing the impact of each step, and generating force to move lift/bend your legs and move them against their own inertia.

Yeah Northcascades said something similar and that makes sense.

NorthCascades

I struggled with the same mental block that @Aaron_K123 pointed out. For a while I couldn't accept that the calorie burn from walking was as high as it is. I'd think about what it takes to burn 250 kCal on a bike and by walking; cycling as a workout, walking as leisure and for relaxation. I'd point to my elevated heart rate on the bike and be incredulous. Of course walking burnt calories, but surely not that many. (On the other hand, I spend 99 % of my time on the bike sitting down...)

sijomial

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

I've never understood the "don't log weight training calorie burns" argument.
Let's use the MFP rough estimate (based on METS) of about 250 cals for an hour for me.
Most people calorie counting would advocate logging a buffet meal where it's impossible to be accurate but your best guess is 250 cals. So why not log your best guess on the other side of the equation?
I just accept there's no practical way to estimate the burn (HR is meaningless for strength training as is perceived effort) and have a wild stab at it. Could well be low for me as I tend to move more weight in my hour than I guess is the "average".

Also clearly there isn't a difference in calorie burn between a stationary bike and an actual bike so your movement over distance doesn't matter as much as the movement of your legs themselves so not sure if the whole "work" thing works, so to speak.

It's the power you produce not the twirling of your legs that is the real measure of work.
My smaller, but much more talented, cycling mate can produce 30% more power than me for the same cadence.
That energy may be expressed as heat from a friction based resistance brake, or moving a huge volume of air with fan resistance, or (outdoors) moving your body mass from here to there.

Oh yeah I don't disagree with this. I'm just wondering about the difference between something that does not have much percieved effort (walking) versus something that has a ton of percieved effort (weight training) and if the reason for the discrepency is one has more "work" in terms of transport of mass over distance than the other. I'm just commenting on how the common sense of "well this is harder so it must burn more calories) clearly fails us.

I guess my question is this to make it more simple. Is the fundamental part of caloric burn weight transfer over distance or is it something else?

Perceived effort is very misleading - 20kg isolation lifts can feel just as hard as 100kg compound lifts for example but, I would assume, there's x5 the calorie burn for the 100kg lift?

I've just finished an hour training on a WattBike Pro (power meter equipped cycle trainer) which shows how "feelings" are a poor judge of calorie burns even for cardio.
5 minute intervals at 210/140 watts. The 210w parts felt 50 times harder rather than 50%.
The last few set of intervals also felt far harder than the first few sets of intervals although the calorie burn is likely to be almost identical.

@psulemon
The way that so many people successfully use the TDEE method which has an added variable over the NEAT method (duration/frequency of training) to me underlines that often the requirement for accuracy is vastly over-stated and over-emphasised on here.

Aaron_K123

NorthCascades wrote: »

I struggled with the same mental block that @Aaron_K123 pointed out. For a while I couldn't accept that the calorie burn from walking was as high as it is. I'd think about what it takes to burn 250 kCal on a bike and by walking; cycling as a workout, walking as leisure and for relaxation. I'd point to my elevated heart rate on the bike and be incredulous. Of course walking burnt calories, but surely not that many. (On the other hand, I spend 99 % of my time on the bike sitting down...)

From your name and your profile pic I assume you hike (I hike in the Cascades quite frequently myself being in Seattle). It took me a while to come to terms with backpacking calorie burn estimates being legitimate. I realized it would be hard to pack enough to meet my calorie needs but when it became apparent that my calorie "needs" were like 6500 calories a day I didn't really believe it.

Then I got back from a 14 day backpack and I had lost 10 pounds. Not like water weight either, like legit longterm weight loss.

Walking done often is kind of crazy caloric burn and walking over tough terrain with a pack on is totally nuts for that. These days if I catch myself being a bit overweight I just make a point to walk more and that seems to help sort it out.

NorthCascades

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

On the stationary bike I was trying to say if the resistance is equivalent, that it isn't actual moving your mass over distance that matters its the resistance [and rpms] itself. Although in both cases you are moving mass, just the mass of your legs.

Ok, I can agree with this. Except I'm compelled to nitpick the very last part: that's only true of the stationary bike, you move your whole body outdoors, you just do it using only your legs.

Fun fact: Every time I ride my bike, I record two things from my pedals: how many rpms I'm turning, and how much torque I'm pushing. It's amazing how choppy that data is. The rpms are a little choppy but the torque looks completely random. It's pretty rare for it to be even close to steady for 3 seconds at a time. So it wouldn't be possible for me to set an equivalent resistance on an indoor bike. Other people are incredibly steady and you could absolutely do what you described.

Another fun fact: There are indoor bike setups now that change the resistance for you automatically to mimic outdoor riding - specific routes even.

Azdak

Walking on level ground is not a high-intensity activity, nor is it a particularly big calorie-burner.

The aerobic intensity of walking on level ground is between 2 and about 4.5 METs. For an 80kg person, that's 160-360 calories per hour. (Activities such as incline walking or hiking with a load are not "walking"--they are completely different activities). Walking can be a successful walk of weight loss because it can be done for longer periods of time and it can be done frequently. So it means that someone, esp a beginner, can accumulate a useful volume of work if they can put in the time.

A similar concept can apply to lifting weights. While the direct burn during the activity itself may be modest (although it can be the equivalent of walking on the level), it can also be done for extended periods. That plus the "afterburn" likely means that one can reach the 300-500 calories per workout session recommended for a weight loss program. I suspect that most of the people who say "I only lift weights, never cardio, and lose weight" are lifting for at least 60 min per workout (it only makes sense if you are someone who really enjoys lifting and doesn't like cardio).

So, I think sometimes weight lifting gets undervalued as a calorie-burning tool. Again, just because it doesn't burn at the highest rate (cals/min), doesn't mean it can't burn at a sufficient rate to augment weight loss efforts.

The reasons for the discrepancies in calorie burn vs perceived effort for weight lifting vs cardio are pretty straightforward. Calorie burn is increased by a metabolic demand that increases cardiac output, i.e. a volume load. Elevated heart rate during aerobic exercise is accompanied by an increase in oxygen uptake.

Heavy weight lifting places a pressure load on the heart, mostly due to increased peripheral resistance and increased afterload. This results in a dramatically increased heart rate, but LITTLE increase in cardiac output and oxygen uptake. So you feel like you are working harder, and heart rate increases, but oxygen uptake does not increase the same way it does when your heart rate goes up during cardio.

(This effect occurs to a much lesser degree in different types of cardio as well--at the same aerobic effort/calorie burn, exercisers report notably higher rates of perceived exertion on steppers and bikes compared to running on a treadmill. Why? Increased resistance for the legs).

The intermittent nature of heavy weight lifting also plays a role. Intensity during a heavy squat is higher, but the longer recovery period means the overall cal/min of the workout session is lower.

The "lifting weights burns fewer calories" statement is also complicated by the fact that there are an infinite variety of "weight training" workouts. Routines like boot camps or other higher intensity circuits will burn more calories than 4 RM squats (however that will also lessen the quality of the strength workout).

The "log or don't log" question is personal and subjective. When I did log exercise, I wouldn't log strength training because a) I burned 500-900 during my cardio workouts, so the extra lifting calories didn't seem that important; b) I only lifted for 30-45 min, so the total burn was not that great and c) there are so many variables, it would have been a made up number anyhow. I just looked at it as "buffer" to help with the inherent inacccuracies of logging.

I concur with others who promote the TDEE method. Most recently I used my activity tracker (Polar V800) to track my TDEE. I found that if I kept that number over 3200 cals/day, and kept my intake to 1700-2000 cals/day, I lost weight. If I ate more or was active less, I plateaued. It was very simple.

CrabNebula

chocolate_owl wrote: »

My ramblings about your ramblings:

With regards to how hard something feels, don't we have to take conditioning and neuromuscular adaptation into account?

For me, running a mile in 10 minutes isn't much harder than walking a mile in 20 minutes, but I remember when it was. I wasn't conditioned for it. Back in that day, if I based my calorie burn on how hard I FELT my body was working, I would have thought I was burning a lot more calories than I actually was.

This is part of why I hate the elliptical. It seems much harder than incline running for some reason, but I am burning about a quarter less calories in the same amount of time. It is annoying.

wackyfunster

So I think I am a little late to the party, but wanted to chime in on this. It is impossible to accurately calculate caloric expenditure from resistance training, as we still don't understand post-exercise energy expenditure. It is estimated that for every calorie you burn with heavy resistance training it takes 4-5 calories to recover/build muscle. So an hour of high intensity weights can easily burn 1000 calories. You can also burn practically no calories in an hour at the gym doing low intensity work, or just messing around (which is 99% of the people I see in the gym).

Simply put, we do not understand how to quantify energy expenditure for weight training, and the component that is expended during training itself is potentially a small fraction of post-exercise expenditure, something we only also see in Tabata and similarly intense HIIT protocols.

Aaron_K123

According to my fitbit my TDEE was 5200 calories after walking on level ground for about 10 hours. I walked about 32 miles. Given my NEAT is around 1900 that is a burn if 330 calories per hour.

Not claiming perfect accuracy on a fitbit but I weigh close to 80kg and I suppose that is in the upper end of your range. But 330 calories an hour is hardly insignificant considering how many hours a day we are walking.

I obviously don't do that everyday but I do routinely walk 12 miles a day from which I net around 1k or so calories per day which is quite significant and outshines any 50 minute workout I might do that day. Most of my exercise related TDEE comes from walking and if I made the mistake of dismissing it I'd be way off on my caloric needs.

tomteboda

It's been awhile since I took introductory physics, but I recall that there is another source of work involved in movement of an object; you have to overcome the moment of inertia with torque.

This can contribute significantly to energy expendatures because your kinetic energy is a sum of energies, not a single term.

...actually this isn't as exotic to me as I thought at first, it just hit me that I've e spent the last 15 years calculating kinetic and potential energy of physical systems, and angular momentum is pretty darned important. So..that works with both classical and quantum physics.

I apologize, I'm very tired and a bit rambly and not going to pencil out the calculation but I suspect if you looked at torque and inertia for weightlifting exercise you'd see a significant contribution that's overlooked when you only consider spacial dislocation against gravity. It's also important in the distinction of energy expendatures between walking and running. I could be wrong, but it's be with looking at.

Azdak

wackyfunster wrote: »

So I think I am a little late to the party, but wanted to chime in on this. It is impossible to accurately calculate caloric expenditure from resistance training, as we still don't understand post-exercise energy expenditure. It is estimated that for every calorie you burn with heavy resistance training it takes 4-5 calories to recover/build muscle. So an hour of high intensity weights can easily burn 1000 calories. You can also burn practically no calories in an hour at the gym doing low intensity work, or just messing around (which is 99% of the people I see in the gym).

Simply put, we do not understand how to quantify energy expenditure for weight training, and the component that is expended during training itself is potentially a small fraction of post-exercise expenditure, something we only also see in Tabata and similarly intense HIIT protocols.

While it is impossible to accurate measure the afterburn for a specific workout, there is a wealth of data that suggests that the amount is not as high as many people like to think. Lyle McDonald did a review of research that suggested that the "afterburn" effect from a HIIT or Tabata type workout averages about 14% of the energy expenditure during the workout itself.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/research-review-effects-of-exercise-intensity-and-duration-on-the-excess-post-exercise-oxygen-consumption.html/

From reviewing dozens of studies that feature high-intensity exercise (whether the purpose was to study EPOC or not), I can say that the average post-exercise calorie burn from a HIIT or tabata workout falls into the 75-125 calorie range (total), no matter how long the duration of the "elevated metabolism".

While EPOC is a real thing and it is not a negligible amount, it does not seem to be close to the numbers that you claim. An excellent study from CB Scott et all in 2011 measured the energy expenditure for one set of a bench press at 90% of 1 RM to have a total energy expenditure of 8 calories--about half during the exercise and half during the period of EPOC.

psuLemon

Azdak wrote: »

wackyfunster wrote: »

So I think I am a little late to the party, but wanted to chime in on this. It is impossible to accurately calculate caloric expenditure from resistance training, as we still don't understand post-exercise energy expenditure. It is estimated that for every calorie you burn with heavy resistance training it takes 4-5 calories to recover/build muscle. So an hour of high intensity weights can easily burn 1000 calories. You can also burn practically no calories in an hour at the gym doing low intensity work, or just messing around (which is 99% of the people I see in the gym).

Simply put, we do not understand how to quantify energy expenditure for weight training, and the component that is expended during training itself is potentially a small fraction of post-exercise expenditure, something we only also see in Tabata and similarly intense HIIT protocols.

While it is impossible to accurate measure the afterburn for a specific workout, there is a wealth of data that suggests that the amount is not as high as many people like to think. Lyle McDonald did a review of research that suggested that the "afterburn" effect from a HIIT or Tabata type workout averages about 14% of the energy expenditure during the workout itself.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/research-review-effects-of-exercise-intensity-and-duration-on-the-excess-post-exercise-oxygen-consumption.html/

From reviewing dozens of studies that feature high-intensity exercise (whether the purpose was to study EPOC or not), I can say that the average post-exercise calorie burn from a HIIT or tabata workout falls into the 75-125 calorie range (total), no matter how long the duration of the "elevated metabolism".

While EPOC is a real thing and it is not a negligible amount, it does not seem to be close to the numbers that you claim. An excellent study from CB Scott et all in 2011 measured the energy expenditure for one set of a bench press at 90% of 1 RM to have a total energy expenditure of 8 calories--about half during the exercise and half during the period of EPOC.

I would concur too. EPOC was overblow in the early 2000s and the science doesnt support high levels of calorie burns post exercise. Don't get me wrong, EPOC is real but study like the one done here would largely suggest its only about 6 to 15% of total expenditure.

sunnybeaches105

I think this entire discussion comes down to how we all deal with how close or far we are from the mean of the population used to calculate NEAT, those calorie expenditure issues, and the inherent noise in calculating our intakes. I think we all accept CICO and I'm assuming that here, but we all know that none of our calculations are all that accurate, just accurate "enough" so that we make progress. For me to make progress, I use sedentary in my settings and track my cardio, but I don't give myself calories for lifting. That said, maybe I am burning significant calories when lifting but my NEAT is lower. I think that's certainly possible but either way it washes out at the end.

My other thought on this (and I think this is probably more to your original point) is I take at least two or more minutes between sets and, let's be honest, a set may only take a few seconds. That means that for a hour workout, I may only have weights in my hands for say 15-20 actual minutes, and I think it's more likely to be the 15.

wackyfunster

Azdak wrote: »

wackyfunster wrote: »

So I think I am a little late to the party, but wanted to chime in on this. It is impossible to accurately calculate caloric expenditure from resistance training, as we still don't understand post-exercise energy expenditure. It is estimated that for every calorie you burn with heavy resistance training it takes 4-5 calories to recover/build muscle. So an hour of high intensity weights can easily burn 1000 calories. You can also burn practically no calories in an hour at the gym doing low intensity work, or just messing around (which is 99% of the people I see in the gym).

Simply put, we do not understand how to quantify energy expenditure for weight training, and the component that is expended during training itself is potentially a small fraction of post-exercise expenditure, something we only also see in Tabata and similarly intense HIIT protocols.

While it is impossible to accurate measure the afterburn for a specific workout, there is a wealth of data that suggests that the amount is not as high as many people like to think. Lyle McDonald did a review of research that suggested that the "afterburn" effect from a HIIT or Tabata type workout averages about 14% of the energy expenditure during the workout itself.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/research-review-effects-of-exercise-intensity-and-duration-on-the-excess-post-exercise-oxygen-consumption.html/

From reviewing dozens of studies that feature high-intensity exercise (whether the purpose was to study EPOC or not), I can say that the average post-exercise calorie burn from a HIIT or tabata workout falls into the 75-125 calorie range (total), no matter how long the duration of the "elevated metabolism".

While EPOC is a real thing and it is not a negligible amount, it does not seem to be close to the numbers that you claim. An excellent study from CB Scott et all in 2011 measured the energy expenditure for one set of a bench press at 90% of 1 RM to have a total energy expenditure of 8 calories--about half during the exercise and half during the period of EPOC.

Definitely not denying your claims, but EPOC is only a fraction of the additional caloric expenditure you see post-workout with heavy resistance training (recovery and muscle synthesis make up the majority). Anecdotally, when I go from a relaxed (3x45 minute weight workouts a week) routine to a bulking routing (6x2 hour routines) my TDEE goes from ~2000 to ~3200, which is pretty much in line with the higher end of estimates for post-workout burn.

I certainly WISH I only had to add a few hundred calories when bulking, as eating 3.5k+ clean calories is a monumental pain.

mommarnurse

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

I walk to and from work on all days that weather allows. These are fairly leisurely walks, but they total up to about four miles in a day so I have no doubt that I burn more calories on those days than I do when I take the bus. It doesn't feel like running four miles, I don't think we need to necessarily feel exertion in order to burn calories -- especially when we're talking about longer walks.

Oh no I totally agree with that, walking most definately DOES burn calories. I also walk too and from work which for me is about 12 miles per day and makes up the vast majority of my calorie burn from exercise. I have my goal set to 1680 calories per day but I end up eating more like 2400 per day from that alone.

Question for me is the idea of mass transport over distance the KEY component of calorie burn and is that the reason why something as casual as walking burns more calories than something like benchpress or pull-ups which feel so much more intense.

I long distance backpack and if you go far enough calories become a major concern. Caloric burns tend to be something like 6000 calories a day and it becomes impossible to bring enough food so your deficits are gigantic. You go long enough that starts to be a problem.

I think the mass over distance moved is really only relative to your energy expenditure while walking , running, or biking (which takes the bicycle into account) . With calisthenics, you're using your muscles in a completely different way, and can still burn a good amount of calories based on the work of your muscles at that time, but it just isn't easy to measure it like it is a calculated, steady-state energy expenditure of walking or running.

The_Enginerd

wackyfunster wrote: »

Azdak wrote: »

wackyfunster wrote: »

So I think I am a little late to the party, but wanted to chime in on this. It is impossible to accurately calculate caloric expenditure from resistance training, as we still don't understand post-exercise energy expenditure. It is estimated that for every calorie you burn with heavy resistance training it takes 4-5 calories to recover/build muscle. So an hour of high intensity weights can easily burn 1000 calories. You can also burn practically no calories in an hour at the gym doing low intensity work, or just messing around (which is 99% of the people I see in the gym).

Simply put, we do not understand how to quantify energy expenditure for weight training, and the component that is expended during training itself is potentially a small fraction of post-exercise expenditure, something we only also see in Tabata and similarly intense HIIT protocols.

While it is impossible to accurate measure the afterburn for a specific workout, there is a wealth of data that suggests that the amount is not as high as many people like to think. Lyle McDonald did a review of research that suggested that the "afterburn" effect from a HIIT or Tabata type workout averages about 14% of the energy expenditure during the workout itself.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/research-review-effects-of-exercise-intensity-and-duration-on-the-excess-post-exercise-oxygen-consumption.html/

From reviewing dozens of studies that feature high-intensity exercise (whether the purpose was to study EPOC or not), I can say that the average post-exercise calorie burn from a HIIT or tabata workout falls into the 75-125 calorie range (total), no matter how long the duration of the "elevated metabolism".

While EPOC is a real thing and it is not a negligible amount, it does not seem to be close to the numbers that you claim. An excellent study from CB Scott et all in 2011 measured the energy expenditure for one set of a bench press at 90% of 1 RM to have a total energy expenditure of 8 calories--about half during the exercise and half during the period of EPOC.

Definitely not denying your claims, but EPOC is only a fraction of the additional caloric expenditure you see post-workout with heavy resistance training (recovery and muscle synthesis make up the majority). Anecdotally, when I go from a relaxed (3x45 minute weight workouts a week) routine to a bulking routing (6x2 hour routines) my TDEE goes from ~2000 to ~3200, which is pretty much in line with the higher end of estimates for post-workout burn.

I certainly WISH I only had to add a few hundred calories when bulking, as eating 3.5k+ clean calories is a monumental pain.

There tends to be an increase in TDEE when bulking due to increases in NEAT.

Also, if you are bulking and have high calorie needs, you can afford some donuts FFS.

NorthCascades

mommarnurse wrote: »

I think the mass over distance moved is really only relative to your energy expenditure while walking , running, or biking (which takes the bicycle into account) . With calisthenics, you're using your muscles in a completely different way, and can still burn a good amount of calories based on the work of your muscles at that time, but it just isn't easy to measure it like it is a calculated, steady-state energy expenditure of walking or running.

Doesn't apply to cycling either. You can weigh me and my bike, and then come to Colorado and watch me do a 100 mile ride, all down hill, without having to turn the pedals once. Bit of mass, lots of distance, no calories propelling the bike. Bikes are a special case because of our wheels and our speed.

NorthCascades

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

I struggled with the same mental block that @Aaron_K123 pointed out. For a while I couldn't accept that the calorie burn from walking was as high as it is. I'd think about what it takes to burn 250 kCal on a bike and by walking; cycling as a workout, walking as leisure and for relaxation. I'd point to my elevated heart rate on the bike and be incredulous. Of course walking burnt calories, but surely not that many. (On the other hand, I spend 99 % of my time on the bike sitting down...)

From your name and your profile pic I assume you hike (I hike in the Cascades quite frequently myself being in Seattle). It took me a while to come to terms with backpacking calorie burn estimates being legitimate. I realized it would be hard to pack enough to meet my calorie needs but when it became apparent that my calorie "needs" were like 6500 calories a day I didn't really believe it.

Then I got back from a 14 day backpack and I had lost 10 pounds. Not like water weight either, like legit longterm weight loss.

Walking done often is kind of crazy caloric burn and walking over tough terrain with a pack on is totally nuts for that. These days if I catch myself being a bit overweight I just make a point to walk more and that seems to help sort it out.

I had plans one year to hike from Easy Pass to Stehekin, and changed my plans on the fourth day, mostly because I couldn't stomach the freeze dried food, and didn't have much energy or recover from the day's efforts without food. I wound up coming out at Colonial Creek.