Weight training and calorie burning

nicci288693

Is there a way to tell how many calories are burned while strength training?

CyberTone

You can log the amount of time for "strength training" under the Cardiovascular section to get an estimate for Calories burned. You can use the Strength Training section to log sets, reps, and weights, but that section does not account for the amount of time or Calories burned.

menen28

U can purchase polar heart rate sensor and watch tells u the colories and intensity u want

sijomial

menen28 wrote: »

U can purchase polar heart rate sensor and watch tells u the colories and intensity u want

No - heart rate monitors just count heart beats, they cannot count calories.
The energy expended in weight training is virtually nothing to do with heart rate.

For many people they aren't even that good at calorie estimates for cardio let alone something totally unsuitable such as weight training.

nicci288693

So there's really no way of telling?

MeanderingMammal

nicci288693 wrote: »

So there's really no way of telling?

Not really, is not a huge amount. Personally I'll account for a couple of hundred per hour, if I bother at all.

sijomial

nicci288693 wrote: »

So there's really no way of telling?

There's a way of estimating as Cybertone indicated.
The actual calorie expenditure isn't possible to measure outside of a sports science lab.
It's not a lot of calories anyway and a rough estimate is fine.

nicci288693

K. Thanks.

CharlieBeansmomTracey

I would log it as say maybe 150 per hr. just as an low estimate. its better to underestimate than overestimate.

Lnchace

If you work out with "Fitness Blender.com" Daniel and Kelli have literally hundreds of different workouts - Strength and Cardio - they provide an estimate of calories burned during each workout. A range - like 120 to 200 - based on the level of effort you expend. I always try to err on the low side, so I'm not over estimating, and i love the workouts. Free. I don't have to go anywhere. I can work out in my pajamas. No one is looking at me. GREAT!

sijomial

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

I would log it as say maybe 150 per hr. just as an low estimate. its better to underestimate than overestimate.

No it isn't - the idea of estimating is to try and be as accurate as possible.

Faster weight loss isn't inherently better unless you are morbidly obese and have an imperative to lose weight quickly.

CharlieBeansmomTracey

sijomial wrote: »

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

I would log it as say maybe 150 per hr. just as an low estimate. its better to underestimate than overestimate.

No it isn't - the idea of estimating is to try and be as accurate as possible.

Faster weight loss isn't inherently better unless you are morbidly obese and have an imperative to lose weight quickly.

my point is its better to underestimate exercise calories than overestimating especially if you are eating them back. I know faster weight loss isnt better. but its still an estimate right? its better than eating back more exercise calories than you burned and possibly being over you TDEE, but that may happen if you have a lower deficit(say250 calories). weight lifting isnt going to burn a whole lot as it is. even when I was obese I probably didnt burn more than 250 calories in an hr if that.

many people dont even count their weight lifting into their calories.I agree you need to fuel your body but when everything is an estimate its hard to do.I noticed that logging it under the strength training part is for me notoriously higher than I would have figured.so that is why I stopped logging it when I did it.(gotta get back to it). on the days I lifted I made sure to get enough calories and protein in.

sijomial

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

I would log it as say maybe 150 per hr. just as an low estimate. its better to underestimate than overestimate.

No it isn't - the idea of estimating is to try and be as accurate as possible.

Faster weight loss isn't inherently better unless you are morbidly obese and have an imperative to lose weight quickly.

my point is its better to underestimate exercise calories than overestimating especially if you are eating them back. I know faster weight loss isnt better. but its still an estimate right? its better than eating back more exercise calories than you burned and possibly being over you TDEE, but that may happen if you have a lower deficit(say250 calories). weight lifting isnt going to burn a whole lot as it is. even when I was obese I probably didnt burn more than 250 calories in an hr if that.

many people dont even count their weight lifting into their calories.I agree you need to fuel your body but when everything is an estimate its hard to do.I noticed that logging it under the strength training part is for me notoriously higher than I would have figured.so that is why I stopped logging it when I did it.(gotta get back to it). on the days I lifted I made sure to get enough calories and protein in.

Yes it's still an estimate but deliberately skewing the numbers to achieve a particular outcome isn't the way to accurately estimate. It would be like deliberately exaggerating food calories or setting an incorrect activity level. None of those thing improve accuracy.

" its better than eating back more exercise calories than you burned and possibly being over you TDEE"
But logging an hour of strength training (200 - 250 range most likely, I get 229), even with the unusual low rate of loss example you picked. CANNOT wipe out that deficit unless you believe the actual burn to be zero.

There are some dreadful exercise estimates in the database but this isn't one of then.