Calories Burned Lifting

rainbowbow

I cannot even begin to tell you how inaccurate using heart rate is for measuring calorie burns during resistance training. You are burning nowhere in the 1,000 and certainly nowhere in the 1,400 range for a lifting session. Absolutely no way, unless you are obese.

In any case, if you're convinced and can't see reason, carry on. It's your success/failure, not mine.

kami3006

krause1cj wrote: »

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.

I don't think it's silly at all. Even the worst calculators are correct for some people. But it would be wrong to assume that because it's working for you that it must work for everyone. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
Furthermore, if the calculator you're using is close to your numbers then it makes sense that if you keep inputting similar stats, you're going to get similar results whether it's for a week for for a year. Simply put, your experience is purely anecdotal. I have anecdotal evidence that shows the opposite of your experience. My best friend used his hrm for PX90 and couldn't figure out why he was gaining. His burns were very over inflated. He had to shave off about 20% in order to get back to eating at maintenance.

There are people that swear by their fitbits too but that didn't stop a class action lawsuit against the company for drastically incorrect results for many.

If it's working for you, that's great. But, I would caution folks to beware of of applying your experience to their own.

Also, regardless of the cardio expenditure, px90 is not steady state cardio. Yes, I've done the full program.

krause1cj

rainbowbow wrote: »

I cannot even begin to tell you how inaccurate using heart rate is for measuring calorie burns during resistance training. You are burning nowhere in the 1,000 and certainly nowhere in the 1,400 range for a lifting session. Absolutely no way, unless you are obese.

In any case, if you're convinced and can't see reason, carry on. It's your success/failure, not mine.

Oh, I'm by no means convinced what I'm doing is correct. However, no one has yet offered an explanation for why I've seen the results I have. You can say something is wrong, but the closest I've seen are people claiming it's a coincidence that I've still somehow managed to meet my weight loss or maintenence goals for a year despite supposedly having been conistently taking in too many calories. That's just not logical, no matter how you swing it.

Same with you're post Kami. Sure, I may not have been operating under a scientific testing panel for this past year, but I've been consistent in marking calories and eating back what my HRM says I should.

Also, I've been doing p90x3, not p90. X3 is even more cardio focused. And my ppint is (a point no one has countered yet) cardio simply comes down to a state where our heart is beating at least 50% or more of its max HRPM for an extended period. It can be biking, jump rope, running etc. If that state is reached in a p90x3 workout, a HR calorie calculator is going to work.

It's worked for me because in nearly every X3 workout I do. Now, you're right that this won't happen with everyone. I'm in pretty good shape, so I can push myself that hard for each workout, other people can't, and if they don't reach the required cardio level, the estimations won't be accurate from them.

kami3006

krause1cj wrote: »

rainbowbow wrote: »

I cannot even begin to tell you how inaccurate using heart rate is for measuring calorie burns during resistance training. You are burning nowhere in the 1,000 and certainly nowhere in the 1,400 range for a lifting session. Absolutely no way, unless you are obese.

In any case, if you're convinced and can't see reason, carry on. It's your success/failure, not mine.

Oh, I'm by no means convinced what I'm doing is correct. However, no one has yet offered an explanation for why I've seen the results I have. You can say something is wrong, but the closest I've seen are people claiming it's a coincidence that I've still somehow managed to meet my weight loss or maintenence goals for a year despite supposedly having been conistently taking in too many calories. That's just not logical, no matter how you swing it.

Same with you're post Kami. Sure, I may not have been operating under a scientific testing panel for this past year, but I've been consistent in marking calories and eating back what my HRM says I should.

Also, I've been doing p90x3, not p90. X3 is even more cardio focused. And my ppint is (a point no one has countered yet) cardio simply comes down to a state where our heart is beating at least 50% or more of its max HRPM for an extended period. It can be biking, jump rope, running etc. If that state is reached in a p90x3 workout, a HR calorie calculator is going to work.

It's worked for me because in nearly every X3 workout I do. Now, you're right that this won't happen with everyone. I'm in pretty good shape, so I can push myself that hard for each workout, other people can't, and if they don't reach the required cardio level, the estimations won't be accurate from them.

Sure over 50% is cardio but interval training, which px90 is, is not constant (read: consistent), sustained effort. There are ups and downs in heart rate and there are some, albeit short, rest periods.

And, I don't think it's illogical at all to get consistent results from using the same logarithm with similar input for any amount of time. And there's no way to prove that it's coincidental. Again there are plenty of crappy calculators that are correct for some. In the three years I've been using this site, I've seen maybe two other people say the MFP calorie burns are correct for them. Everyone else comments how off they are. When I first started I input my run and got a burn within 2 calories of my HRM. Still doesn't make it a good resource for others. I just had the right stats for it to have worked out right. Now, after three years of physical change, it's way off for me.

Nonetheless, glad it's working for you. That's what matters.

Azdak

krause1cj wrote: »

rainbowbow wrote: »

I cannot even begin to tell you how inaccurate using heart rate is for measuring calorie burns during resistance training. You are burning nowhere in the 1,000 and certainly nowhere in the 1,400 range for a lifting session. Absolutely no way, unless you are obese.

In any case, if you're convinced and can't see reason, carry on. It's your success/failure, not mine.

Oh, I'm by no means convinced what I'm doing is correct. However, no one has yet offered an explanation for why I've seen the results I have. You can say something is wrong, but the closest I've seen are people claiming it's a coincidence that I've still somehow managed to meet my weight loss or maintenence goals for a year despite supposedly having been conistently taking in too many calories. That's just not logical, no matter how you swing it.

Same with you're post Kami. Sure, I may not have been operating under a scientific testing panel for this past year, but I've been consistent in marking calories and eating back what my HRM says I should.

Also, I've been doing p90x3, not p90. X3 is even more cardio focused. And my ppint is (a point no one has countered yet) cardio simply comes down to a state where our heart is beating at least 50% or more of its max HRPM for an extended period. It can be biking, jump rope, running etc. If that state is reached in a p90x3 workout, a HR calorie calculator is going to work.

It's worked for me because in nearly every X3 workout I do. Now, you're right that this won't happen with everyone. I'm in pretty good shape, so I can push myself that hard for each workout, other people can't, and if they don't reach the required cardio level, the estimations won't be accurate from them.

The fact that it might be a "coincidence" does not automatically mean you are taking in too many calories.

There are 3 components to TDEE (for the purposes of this discussion)
BMR
NEAT
Exercise calories
(Yes, there are other definitions, but let's not nitpick here)

We are only really talking about exercise calories, which is the smallest part of the equation. One could over or under estimate workout calories and offset that by over or estimating NEAT calories. Plus you say you are only eating part of the calories back. There is an error factor when it comes to measuring intake. All of these variables can easily cause an estimate error of 100-300 calories a day.

If you are doing a consistent type of workout program (esp something like P90x where it is more difficult to change intensity), over time you will get a consistent HR response to the workout. If you are using that consistent number and adjusting activity and intake around that, then it is possible to maintain a deficit even though the exercise number is not accurate. It just so happens that the number fits into your overall lifestyle and you have learned to work around it. But, as we have been saying, the fact that the number randomly fits with your overall pattern doesn't mean it's any less of a coincidence.

I know that for an absolute fact because I know how the body responds to exercise, and I how how HRMs estimate calories.

Heart rate is only an indirect indicator of workload intensity, VO2 uptake and calorie burn. You mention that when heart rate exceeds 50% of HRmax "a HR calorie calculator is going to work". That's not even close to being true. Fatigue, temperature, illness, dehydration, cardiovascular drift, type of movement, limbs involved in the movement, body position--all of these can affect HR response to exercise.

Normal differences in HR max between individuals can result in drastically overestimated calorie burns, as can inaccurate information (esp VO2 max) in the setup of the HRM.

In one comment, I believe you mentioned some boxing moves in the P90x workout. That's a classic case. Upper-body movements elicit a higher HR for any given level of VO2 compared to lower-body movements. Any exercise interval that consists primarily of upper body movements will result in an overestimated calorie count by an HRM.

Kettle bell swings: another great example. Normally if one is running, 85% of HR max will equate to approx 72-75% of VO2 max. However during sustained (e.g. 12 min continuous) kettle bell swings, HR reaches 85+% of max, but VO2 is only around 62% of VO2 max. It "feels" harder than it actually is, and an HRM would, once again, overestimate calorie burn.

If I do a constant-workload, steady-state endurance workout, my HR will "drift" 15-20 beats higher over the course of the workout. I am not working harder, my breathing doesn't increase, I am not burning more calories (since workload hasn't changed). Yet the HRM will show a 30%-40% increase in calories burned for the second half of the workout compared to the first half. Why? Because it is a passive instrument programmed to respond reflexively to HR impulses.

If you gather enough data points on yourself, and engage in thoughtful observation, then yes it is likely possible to discern patterns that you can use in your planning. That does not mean accuracy, no more than people in the past were able to figure out how to make calendars even though they thought the sun revolved around the earth.