Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Thoughts on calorie burns
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
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.2 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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 15.0 -
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.2 -
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.0 -
There tends to be an increase in TDEE when bulking due to increases in NEAT.wackyfunster 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.
Also, if you are bulking and have high calorie needs, you can afford some donuts FFS.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Boy there is an awful lot here that makes a lot of sense. I have been doing different cycles with my weight training. Cycling from low reps with medium rest 2 to2.5min. To reps of 8/12 with 1/1.5 rest between sets. To 25 reps with 3/4 min between sets. I know by my breathing my heart rate must be up there. Now I do HIIT for my cardio. Now my heart rate can get up to 144. Now that is just for 30 sec then it will drop to 124 and my breathing returns to a little . more than normal. Now I can burn around 288 calories during a 30min HIIT workout. Now it seems like my weight workout should burn more based on my heart rate wouldn't you think?0
-
Before switching to TDEE I would just log strength training as 100 calories/hour. It might not have been accurate but I did exactly what @sijomial was suggesting - make a best guess. I figured I could adjust the calories up or down if my weight was not doing what I wanted it to.0
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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 find it fairly ridiculous to "eat back" any exercise calories. Everything we do here is an inexact approximation. Trying to figure out how many calories you've burned (and then eating them back) just adds 2 more layers of inexactitude.
Weigh your food. Figure out approximately how many calories you're eating. Follow a workout program.
Within a few months, you'll know whether to eat a little more or a little less or the same amount.
Everyone wants to complicate this far more than is necessary by adding in additional approximations. It's pointless.
edit: Obviously, if you up your caloric burn for given period (for a marathon, or whatever) you'll want to eat a little more. Or in my case, during week long backpacking trips, I just don't bother counting at all. But those are edge cases that don't apply to most people anyway. At least, not more than once every few months, making their effect negligible.1 -
Boy there is an awful lot here that makes a lot of sense. I have been doing different cycles with my weight training. Cycling from low reps with medium rest 2 to2.5min. To reps of 8/12 with 1/1.5 rest between sets. To 25 reps with 3/4 min between sets. I know by my breathing my heart rate must be up there. Now I do HIIT for my cardio. Now my heart rate can get up to 144. Now that is just for 30 sec then it will drop to 124 and my breathing returns to a little . more than normal. Now I can burn around 288 calories during a 30min HIIT workout. Now it seems like my weight workout should burn more based on my heart rate wouldn't you think?
No--heart rate during weight training has no correlation to calorie burn. The heart rate increase that occurs during lifting is driven by a different mechanism than the elevated HR during cardio. The number May look the same, but what is going on inside is different.
0 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »I find it fairly ridiculous to "eat back" any exercise calories. Everything we do here is an inexact approximation. Trying to figure out how many calories you've burned (and then eating them back) just adds 2 more layers of inexactitude.
Weigh your food.
Scales are an inexact approximation. Why would you want to complicate things with that kind of guess work?1 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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 find it fairly ridiculous to "eat back" any exercise calories. Everything we do here is an inexact approximation. Trying to figure out how many calories you've burned (and then eating them back) just adds 2 more layers of inexactitude.
Weigh your food. Figure out approximately how many calories you're eating. Follow a workout program.
Within a few months, you'll know whether to eat a little more or a little less or the same amount.
Everyone wants to complicate this far more than is necessary by adding in additional approximations. It's pointless.
edit: Obviously, if you up your caloric burn for given period (for a marathon, or whatever) you'll want to eat a little more. Or in my case, during week long backpacking trips, I just don't bother counting at all. But those are edge cases that don't apply to most people anyway. At least, not more than once every few months, making their effect negligible.
For me, it's necessary. My overall workout routine isn't regular enough where I can adjust off of a calculated TDEE. My lifting routine is regular, but my running is not.
I've gone from running ~40mi per wk, to not at all, to 10 to 15 to 20mi per wk in the last three months. I'll be doing half-marathon training to get my endurance back as soon as temps dip below 80F at night, and from there to marathon training. I'll be steadily adding miles and calories for months.
From previous experience, I do NOT want to lift and follow running regimen of steadily increasing mileage and be at all low on calorie intake - which is where I would be if I followed your advice. That's a recipe for crashing and burning.1 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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 find it fairly ridiculous to "eat back" any exercise calories. Everything we do here is an inexact approximation. Trying to figure out how many calories you've burned (and then eating them back) just adds 2 more layers of inexactitude.
Weigh your food. Figure out approximately how many calories you're eating. Follow a workout program.
Within a few months, you'll know whether to eat a little more or a little less or the same amount.
Everyone wants to complicate this far more than is necessary by adding in additional approximations. It's pointless.
edit: Obviously, if you up your caloric burn for given period (for a marathon, or whatever) you'll want to eat a little more. Or in my case, during week long backpacking trips, I just don't bother counting at all. But those are edge cases that don't apply to most people anyway. At least, not more than once every few months, making their effect negligible.
MFP uses the NEAT method, and as such the system is designed for exercise calories to be eaten back. However, many consider the burns given by MFP to be inflated and only eat a percentage, such as 50%, back.
When I eat the calories given to me by MFP, weigh and log my food, exercise, and eat back some (but not all) of my exercise calories, my average weight loss over time matches the weekly weight loss goal I set.
If I didn't eat back exercise calories, I would lose faster than my weekly weight loss goal, and would be hungry and miserable. I don't need to do the few months experiment. I can just use MFP as it was designed to be used.
2 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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 find it fairly ridiculous to "eat back" any exercise calories. Everything we do here is an inexact approximation. Trying to figure out how many calories you've burned (and then eating them back) just adds 2 more layers of inexactitude.
Weigh your food. Figure out approximately how many calories you're eating. Follow a workout program.
Within a few months, you'll know whether to eat a little more or a little less or the same amount.
Everyone wants to complicate this far more than is necessary by adding in additional approximations. It's pointless.
edit: Obviously, if you up your caloric burn for given period (for a marathon, or whatever) you'll want to eat a little more. Or in my case, during week long backpacking trips, I just don't bother counting at all. But those are edge cases that don't apply to most people anyway. At least, not more than once every few months, making their effect negligible.
For me, it's necessary. My overall workout routine isn't regular enough where I can adjust off of a calculated TDEE. My lifting routine is regular, but my running is not.
I've gone from running ~40mi per wk, to not at all, to 10 to 15 to 20mi per wk in the last three months. I'll be doing half-marathon training to get my endurance back as soon as temps dip below 80F at night, and from there to marathon training. I'll be steadily adding miles and calories for months.
From previous experience, I do NOT want to lift and follow running regimen of steadily increasing mileage and be at all low on calorie intake - which is where I would be if I followed your advice. That's a recipe for crashing and burning.
I'm marathon training right now (two weeks to go!) and if I hadn't already figured out how to eat to fuel my activity I don't know if I could have made it as far as I have.
Yeah, all calorie counting is an approximation. But I know, from months of experience, how to make my calorie burn approximations as accurate as I can. Why not use that information?1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions