Calories Burned Lifting

krause1cj

Hey all, I had a question to my fellow calorie counters out there.

I keep track of my heart rate during exercises to give myself an idea of how many calories I burn. I take consistent 10 second heart rates throughout the whole exercise period (usually once directly after a set and once at the end of the rest period after the set) and then average the numbers to get my average heart rate for the whole time.

The I plug that into a heart rate calorie calculator online that I use. Pretty simple, you just input your gender, age, weight, heart rate, and how long you worked out.

Now, the reason I'm looking for other opinions on this is because specifically on days that I weight lift, according to my calculations, I burn anywhere from 1000 to 1400 calories in a 1.5 hour session. That just seemed odd to me because most people report much lower calorie burns.

Now, that said, I only lift twice, so when I do I hit bench, squat, deadlifts, muscle ups, weighted pull ups, weighted lunges, and lawnmowers, so pretty much all big compound lifts. And on heavy days I don't take longer than a 2min break, and on high rep days (sets of 15) I don't take longer than 1 minute breaks.

So maybe it's just because I'm doing big compound lifts that my burn is so high. And Ive been staying at my goal weight...but it still just seemed weird, because online I see most people reporting 250 to 300 calories burned for one hour at my weight (175lbs), and it did seem odd to me that I was burning 4 times as much as that or more.

I wanted to see what other people's experiences were in regards to how much they burned while lifting. Let me know!

DancingMoosie

I only record the actual time spent lifting (not resting between sets)and then use whatever mfp calculates. It is ridiculously low, but it doesn't bother me. I don't think calories burned during lifting are calculated the same way as during steady cardio.

MeanderingMammal

Heart rate has no relationship with calorie expenditure when you're doing resistance training.

Personally I don't log resistance training as it's dwarved by my CV expenditure as an endurance runner. It's about 300 cals in an hour.

RoxieDawn

Using a heart rate monitor during lifting is gonna be very very inaccurate for gauging calorie burns.

Lifting actually burns very little compared to steady state cardio.

This is a old blog but still remains quite accurate for answering your question.

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

sijomial

I just use the MFP strength training estimate, it's probably low as I lift a high volume and typically have short rest periods but as it's not possible to measure accurately (certainly not with a HRM) then a consistent estimate is fine.

You can spike your HR to the same levels doing low weight accessory lifts as you can from doing big compound lifts despite the real calorie relationship coming from mass moved over distance.

Ditch the HRM for strength training unless you want to use heart rate to gauge recovery.
Overall keep in mind HRMs measure heartbeats not calories!

krause1cj

Hmm, that article posted was interestinf. However, I don't use a HRM, I take my ten second pulse consistently throughout the workout, once when I finish a set and once at the end of a rest period after the set. I'm not sure if that makes a difference or not.

Hornsby

Tracking HR during strength training is pointless if the only reason is calorie burn. They are barely related. You can stop wasting your time with that.

I usually figure 250 an hour.

MeanderingMammal

krause1cj wrote: »

Hmm, that article posted was interestinf. However, I don't use a HRM, I take my ten second pulse consistently throughout the workout, once when I finish a set and once at the end of a rest period after the set. I'm not sure if that makes a difference or not.

Doesn't matter whether your tracking HR manually or using a monitor. HR isn't a meaningful proxy for calories expended while resistance training.

Azdak

The whole idea of rishing through a strength workout to keep HR elevated and "burn more calories" can be counter productive. You can be lowering the quality of your workout and not really burning many more calories anyhow.

A recent study published by Brad Schoenfeld et al showed that longer rest periods tend to produce greater gains in both strength and hypertrophy.

There are reasons to do circuit training, "metabolic" workouts, etc. But if your goals are primarily to increase strength and gain muscle, then trying to "cardio-ize" your strength workout means you're probably going to do a mediocre job of both.

Just lift your weights and let the calories take care of themselves. Lifting weights might not burn the same calories per minute as running, but if you do 60 min of a full body lifting routine, along with the afterburn, calorie expenditure is more than sufficient to support a weight loss program.

krause1cj

That would probably explain why I haven't gained any weight and stayed at my goal weight.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, weightlifting doesn't produce the same kind of heart rate/oxygen intake relationship cardio does, and that's why HR is an unreliable calorie estimator for lifting.

So what do people think about programs like p90x3 then? During that, even on days like The Challenge routine which is only push ups and pull ups, they move so quickly between the exercises with so few breaks, my HR elevates to around 155bpm and stays there the entire 30mins. And I know my breathing increases heavily. Would HR monitoring be more accurate for programs like p90x?

Hornsby

The ONLY time HR is even remotely accurate is during steady state cardio. P90x does not fall into that category.

Let's remember, HR monitors are training tools and intended to be used as just that. For that, it can be helpful in many circumstances. The calorie burn are just an added feature with more marketing power.

krause1cj

Interesting. I've been reading articles that have been saying something similar to a p90x3 routine or lifting circuit training style (higher reps, shorter breaks) would actually be somewhat more accurate when figuring calories.

I've been using the online HR calculator for about a year now to figure out calories burned while exercising, and so far it's always been consistent weather I've been losing or maintaining weight. I suppose that if those estimates are off, the only explanation would be that I've been constantly undershooting my calories without realizing it. (2100 is my maintenence to stay at 175, which I have for the past 5 months or so). Either that, or the calorie calculator is more accurate with exercises like the p90x3 which tend to be very cardio intensive even with their "conditoning" days. Or its a combo of both I suppose.

Azdak

krause1cj wrote: »

Interesting. I've been reading articles that have been saying something similar to a p90x3 routine or lifting circuit training style (higher reps, shorter breaks) would actually be somewhat more accurate when figuring calories.

I've been using the online HR calculator for about a year now to figure out calories burned while exercising, and so far it's always been consistent weather I've been losing or maintaining weight. I suppose that if those estimates are off, the only explanation would be that I've been constantly undershooting my calories without realizing it. (2100 is my maintenence to stay at 175, which I have for the past 5 months or so). Either that, or the calorie calculator is more accurate with exercises like the p90x3 which tend to be very cardio intensive even with their "conditoning" days. Or its a combo of both I suppose.

Any "success" using an online HR calculator is most likely coincidence, not cause. It could also be that whatever calculator you are using underestimates the calorie burn from the exercise routine.

AnvilHead

Azdak wrote: »

krause1cj wrote: »

Interesting. I've been reading articles that have been saying something similar to a p90x3 routine or lifting circuit training style (higher reps, shorter breaks) would actually be somewhat more accurate when figuring calories.

I've been using the online HR calculator for about a year now to figure out calories burned while exercising, and so far it's always been consistent weather I've been losing or maintaining weight. I suppose that if those estimates are off, the only explanation would be that I've been constantly undershooting my calories without realizing it. (2100 is my maintenence to stay at 175, which I have for the past 5 months or so). Either that, or the calorie calculator is more accurate with exercises like the p90x3 which tend to be very cardio intensive even with their "conditoning" days. Or its a combo of both I suppose.

Any "success" using an online HR calculator is most likely coincidence, not cause. It could also be that whatever calculator you are using underestimates the calorie burn from the exercise routine.

In other words, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

rileysowner

krause1cj wrote: »

Hmm, that article posted was interestinf. However, I don't use a HRM, I take my ten second pulse consistently throughout the workout, once when I finish a set and once at the end of a rest period after the set. I'm not sure if that makes a difference or not.

The issue is not the HRM, it is the relationship between HR and calories burned in strength training regardless of how your numbers are measured. The point is, HR cannot be used to estimate calories for strength training.

krause1cj

Azdak wrote: »

krause1cj wrote: »

Interesting. I've been reading articles that have been saying something similar to a p90x3 routine or lifting circuit training style (higher reps, shorter breaks) would actually be somewhat more accurate when figuring calories.

I've been using the online HR calculator for about a year now to figure out calories burned while exercising, and so far it's always been consistent weather I've been losing or maintaining weight. I suppose that if those estimates are off, the only explanation would be that I've been constantly undershooting my calories without realizing it. (2100 is my maintenence to stay at 175, which I have for the past 5 months or so). Either that, or the calorie calculator is more accurate with exercises like the p90x3 which tend to be very cardio intensive even with their "conditoning" days. Or its a combo of both I suppose.

Any "success" using an online HR calculator is most likely coincidence, not cause. It could also be that whatever calculator you are using underestimates the calorie burn from the exercise routine.

I don't think it's that, since the reason I started this was because I noticed my calorie count seemed higher than others for my burns.

And I dont think it's coincidence either, considering I work out 6 to 7 days a work, and I've been using the HR calculator for over 6 months daily now.

sarahkw04

I use an HRM when I lift. We're big on mobility work though, so in addition to doing our big lifts, we're also doing crazy box jumps (always a good day when "death box jumps" is written on the board...), burpees, weighted step ups, jump squats...

This morning's workout burned 505 according to my HRM - that included low box squats at heavy reps, jumping lunges, weighed step ups, jump squats, and some ab work. Lots of circuit and plyo work.

I'll eat back maybe 200 of those, but I like having the number.

Hornsby

krause1cj wrote: »

Azdak wrote: »

krause1cj wrote: »

Interesting. I've been reading articles that have been saying something similar to a p90x3 routine or lifting circuit training style (higher reps, shorter breaks) would actually be somewhat more accurate when figuring calories.

I've been using the online HR calculator for about a year now to figure out calories burned while exercising, and so far it's always been consistent weather I've been losing or maintaining weight. I suppose that if those estimates are off, the only explanation would be that I've been constantly undershooting my calories without realizing it. (2100 is my maintenence to stay at 175, which I have for the past 5 months or so). Either that, or the calorie calculator is more accurate with exercises like the p90x3 which tend to be very cardio intensive even with their "conditoning" days. Or its a combo of both I suppose.

Any "success" using an online HR calculator is most likely coincidence, not cause. It could also be that whatever calculator you are using underestimates the calorie burn from the exercise routine.

I don't think it's that, since the reason I started this was because I noticed my calorie count seemed higher than others for my burns.

And I dont think it's coincidence either, considering I work out 6 to 7 days a work, and I've been using the HR calculator for over 6 months daily now.

Do you weight all solids and measure all liquids that you ingest?

It doesn't really matter since whatever you are doing is working for now, even if it is just coincidence (my thoughts). If it stops working, then reevaluate. No need in making it more confusing.

krause1cj

This is fascinating though. So, HR calculator's aren't too accurate for anything other than consistent cardio. However, I've been using one basically daily for at least 6 months (probably more, I started using MFP almost exactly one year ago, and I started taking my HR during exercises a few months after that). And I've been eating back the extra calories the HR calculator says I've burned every day for over half a year now, and it's never hampered my results. When I was set to lose 2lbs a week, I stayed at that goal, sa me for 1lb, and for maintaining weight which I've done for about 6 months now.

So either I've consistently undershot my calories for a year now, which is possible, but I've always used MFP 's estimates for my calorie goals, or the HR isn't as inaccurate as people think when it comes to p90x3, which given the high cardio nature of that program is certainly possible.

TR0berts

krause1cj wrote: »

So either I've consistently undershot my calories for a year now, which is possible, but I've always used MFP 's estimates for my calorie goals, or the HR isn't as inaccurate as people think when it comes to p90x3, which given the high cardio nature of that program is certainly possible.

I'd say this is basically correct. P90X (and P90X3) - if done as the videos show - aren't really "lifting" or "strength training." There's a strength component to them, but it's circuit training.

cwolfman13

krause1cj wrote: »

Hey all, I had a question to my fellow calorie counters out there.

I keep track of my heart rate during exercises to give myself an idea of how many calories I burn. I take consistent 10 second heart rates throughout the whole exercise period (usually once directly after a set and once at the end of the rest period after the set) and then average the numbers to get my average heart rate for the whole time.

The I plug that into a heart rate calorie calculator online that I use. Pretty simple, you just input your gender, age, weight, heart rate, and how long you worked out.

Now, the reason I'm looking for other opinions on this is because specifically on days that I weight lift, according to my calculations, I burn anywhere from 1000 to 1400 calories in a 1.5 hour session. That just seemed odd to me because most people report much lower calorie burns.

Now, that said, I only lift twice, so when I do I hit bench, squat, deadlifts, muscle ups, weighted pull ups, weighted lunges, and lawnmowers, so pretty much all big compound lifts. And on heavy days I don't take longer than a 2min break, and on high rep days (sets of 15) I don't take longer than 1 minute breaks.

So maybe it's just because I'm doing big compound lifts that my burn is so high. And Ive been staying at my goal weight...but it still just seemed weird, because online I see most people reporting 250 to 300 calories burned for one hour at my weight (175lbs), and it did seem odd to me that I was burning 4 times as much as that or more.

I wanted to see what other people's experiences were in regards to how much they burned while lifting. Let me know!

Your HR doesn't directly correlate to calorie burn...it is simply used in an algorithm that also assumes steady state cardiovascular activity...the further you get from that, the less accurate it's going to be. It's not accurate at all for lifting...and no way in hell are you burning 1400 calories in 90 minutes of lifting.

Hornsby

krause1cj wrote: »

This is fascinating though. So, HR calculator's aren't too accurate for anything other than consistent cardio. However, I've been using one basically daily for at least 6 months (probably more, I started using MFP almost exactly one year ago, and I started taking my HR during exercises a few months after that). And I've been eating back the extra calories the HR calculator says I've burned every day for over half a year now, and it's never hampered my results. When I was set to lose 2lbs a week, I stayed at that goal, sa me for 1lb, and for maintaining weight which I've done for about 6 months now.

So either I've consistently undershot my calories for a year now, which is possible, but I've always used MFP 's estimates for my calorie goals, or the HR isn't as inaccurate as people think when it comes to p90x3, which given the high cardio nature of that program is certainly possible.

The thing is, it isn't us "thinking" that it isn't accurate. It is science. You can literally email the company of your HR monitor and they will tell you the same thing. The monitor uses an algorithm and/or formula that is based on steady state cardio. Not doing steady state cardio is directly changing some of the formula. If I say 10 + 0 = 10 and 0 is equal to steady state cardio, and then change the formula to 10 + 1 =10, the formula becomes wrong and inaccurate. It's basically the same thing. The margin of error varies based on how close to "0" you are. If you are getting the right numbers, it's coincidence. That's a fact.

itsthehumidity

Lifting weights doesn't burn all that many calories. I don't adjust for it. My semi-educated guess for myself, though, is that it burns about 200 calories per hour. Instead of focusing on that, I recommend you look at it this way:

If a calorie deficit is what you want, eating fewer calories is easiest (this is where MFP shines).
If burning calories is what you want, cardio is most effective.
If gaining muscle (or maintaining it/minimizing loss during a cut) is what you want, then you need to lift weights.

Many of us lift weights no matter what, eat at a surplus when we want to bulk, and combine eating at a deficit with cardio when seeking to cut. Cardio can also be done during a bulk of course, for cardiovascular fitness purposes, but you'd want to make sure you eat back those calories.

krause1cj

I think you guys are misunderstanding my point here. I get that HR calculations aren't very accurate for weightlifting. And I only actually lift twice a week, and one of those days is circuit training style, super short breaks, high reps. All other days I do p90x3. So essentially, I'm almost always doing a form of circuit training workout.

My ppint is that I've been logging calories and using a HR formula to estimate my calories burned daily for over half a year. I've only ever set my calorie goals to lose or maintain weight. If HR calculator's were as inaccurate as all of you seem to think for circuit style exercises, I should have been hampered in my goals.

But I never was. When I set my calorie goal to lose 2lbs a week, I did, despite eating back all the calories the HR formula said I burned after each daily workout.

The only explanation is that I've conistently undershot my calorie goals for an entire year (and that would also mean that the MFP settings were off, because I used their estimations to set my goals) or HR calculations aren't as inaccurate when it comes to circuit training exercises like p90x3.

And I've actually read a few articles that seem their back this up.

Either that, or my body is magic. Because I'm not making this stuff up. I'm just interested in trying to track my goals as accurately as possible.

Hornsby

Or it's a coincidence. It seems you have your mind made up. Keep doing what you are doing as you say it's working.

krause1cj

Hornsby wrote: »

Or it's a coincidence. It seems you have your mind made up. Keep doing what you are doing as you say it's working.

Nah, I'm just trying to figure out my own results. And a coincidence over 6 months is a little silly. Had this been a two week thing, sure, but I've been doing this consistently for a year.

MeanderingMammal

Turn yourself in to your nearest medical research facility for testing. You're exceptional...

krause1cj

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

Turn yourself in to your nearest medical research facility for testing. You're exceptional...

Nah, I think it's just pretty clear that circuit training style exercises, which are highly cardiovascular, and would have a higher oxygen/HR relationship that make the calculations more accurate. I'm assuming that most of the people here who seem skeptical when I being up p90x3 haven't actually done the program, and probably don't understand just how much cardio the program utilizes even on their "strength" days.

And after reading more, multiple articles have mentioned that circuit training is more accurate with HR calculations because it is such a high cardio experience.

MeanderingMammal

krause1cj wrote: »

I'm assuming that most of the people here who seem skeptical when I being up p90x3 haven't actually done the program, and probably don't understand just how much cardio the program utilizes even on their "strength" days.

So on a fitness site several people are demonstrating knowledge of exercise physiology and fitness technology, and you're choosing to believe that none of them know what circuit training is.

Interesting.

And after reading more, multiple articles have mentioned that circuit training is more accurate with HR calculations because it is such a high cardio experience.

Be interesting to read those.

Do they define what's meant by more accurate? I wouldn't disagree, bad is better than really bad...

krause1cj

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

krause1cj wrote: »

I'm assuming that most of the people here who seem skeptical when I being up p90x3 haven't actually done the program, and probably don't understand just how much cardio the program utilizes even on their "strength" days.

So on a fitness site several people are demonstrating knowledge of exercise physiology and fitness technology, and you're choosing to believe that none of them know what circuit training is.

Interesting.

And after reading more, multiple articles have mentioned that circuit training is more accurate with HR calculations because it is such a high cardio experience.

Be interesting to read those.

Do they define what's meant by more accurate? I wouldn't disagree, bad is better than really bad...

Nope, I'm saying that people are underestinting the amount of cardio engagement certain ecerise programs offer. Which is certianly understandable, especially if they've never done that program before.

Let's look at it logically. At its base level, cardio exercise is any exercise that raises the HR to at least 50% of its maximum level and stays at that level or more during the duration of the exercise. Doesn't matter if that's jogging, biking, whatever. If that is achieved during a interval workout, circuit workout, the HR formula will probably be pretty accurate.

P90x3 definitely hits that category for me. Right off the bat, you get at least 3 exercises that are straight cardio workouts, different forms of plyo or shadow boxing, where you never stop moving for longer than 30 seconds, and on the "strengh" days, you often don't get any breaks at all. On those days my HR never dips lower than 140, and often spikes as high as 180. But I stay above 50% of my max HR the entire workout. And that is on days that aren't cardio focused.

And that's why it makes sense that it hasn't hampered my goals for going on a year now. Because, again, it's just silly to try and claim that there's no correlation when I've been meticulously keeping track of my calories every day for a year now. If the HR calculations were truly incredibly far off for P90x3, then it should have severely hampered by goals to lose and later maintain weight.

And it hasnt. And to be clear, this isn't me exercising and eating extra calories once or eveb three times a week. I exercise a minimum of 6 days a week, usually seven. So obviously it's not too inaccurate when it comes to p90x3 or it would have been reflected in my goals.

Either that, or MFP had chronically set me lower calories goals than was appropriate.

Hornsby

If you can make 3+3=10 then more power to you. I'm out on this thread. Good luck on your goals and hopefully your HR technique continues to work for you.