How many calories burned from strength training?
Options
Replies
-
I think the problem with calorie burn calculation from lifting is that intensity can vary by HUGE amounts.
When I do squats or deadlifts, 5 sets of between 3 and 5 reps so heavy that my head is spinning and I'm sweating profusely takes the same amount of TIME as 5 sets of 10 to 12 preacher curls or skull crushers... but there is no way whatsoever that I burned even similar calories. I also strongly suspect that the EPOC after the big compounds lasts quite a lot longer than isolation exercises. It's also not all about heart rate... Effort is a better indicator IMHO.
That said, I just log it under the cardio heading "weight training" because it probably averages out overall. (I suspect it's slightly low for my personal preference for lifting as heavy as I can before my form breaks down)3 -
It's so hard to tell with strength training if for no other reason than there are so many variables. I do like most folks here - plug in the calories from "strength training" under the MFP cardio section. I do usually change my calorie burn to be a good bit less than it says though.1
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »simon_pickard wrote: »There are some Apple Watch apps that measure strength training well via heart rate. It's way less than you'd think.
I burn about 250-300cals for a hard hours workout (active cals).
Then again most cardio workouts are reported incorrectly anyhow. Most show resting cals + active cals which is wrong. 800cals active from a cardio workout is VERY tough to do in an hour.
I find the exact opposite to be true. My fitbit usually gives me about 100 cals every 10min of strength training which is high. My smart watch will give me even higher numbers, for 50 min workout I burn like 560 to 600 cals. I just assume those numbers need to be halved, and then I don't care. Because I aim for my MFP calorie goal of deficit at lightly active and basically ignore my weight lifting calories. I do like tracking them tho, I like to review my heart rate spikes and compare different workouts to see whats up.
Which Fitbit do you have? Are you using an integrated setting on it for weightlifting or are you just letting it read your heart rate?
@heybales can you add some insight here? I was pretty sure that Fitbit had updated their watches to use METs for strength training, not heartrates, and that's my experience with my Charge2.
It's been infrequently enough I can't even remember which models are doing what now.
Because I did have someone given their detailed numbers like you did - and it did NOT appear to be using the MET method, though they could select Weights as the workout. It was well above, so still HR-based. But I can't recall the model.
But as mutantspicy mentions - perhaps it was a firmware update issue that would take care of it.
I did have someone else with Charge2 confirm what you saw, MET based for lifting. So perhaps it was first model with newer firmware.
What's newer than Charge2 at this point?
And original Charge allowed picking a specific workout too, right?
Seems that could have a firmware update to use same method then.
TBH, I have't kept up with the newer models because I'm happy with my Charge2, but I know they've come out with newer stuff.0 -
Thanks for everybody's input, I was not expecting a lot of calories, because I do cardio everyday. Initially, I was just wondering if there was way to measure calories burned during strength training. If it's 200 I'm happy. I'll burn more calories doing cardio. Overall strength training is good for me. Loving it.2
-
I use my Fitbit charge 2 for lifting. I ordered the versa a couple weeks ago, fitbits newer model which is a smart watch and it will be here Thursday. Anyhow, I'm 5'7", 164 pounds right now and today was interval upper body weights. 30 min and Fitbit gives me 120 calories for that on the weights setting. I'll be curious to compare the versa to the charge 2. For 30 min on the arc trainer, using the elliptical setting because it's the only thing close to the arc trainer, it gave me 207. Seems reasonable to me.0
-
jseams1234 wrote: »Very little: https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Calories-burned-in-30-minutes-of-leisure-and-routine-activities.htm
30-minute strength training session burns an average of 90 calories (180 calories per hour) for a 125-pound person, 112 calories (224 calories per hour) for a 155-pound person and 133 calories (266 calories per hour) for a 185-pound person.
A study in 2014 by ASU tried to show that the calorie burn was higher - they used exercises like crunches, pushups and pullups in their study. However, nobody does these for 5 minutes straight let alone 30 minutes or an hour. These, along with most strength training lifts are done for only a few seconds at a time with much longer rests between those sets. It's like a football game... where the actual game might run over 3 hours the actual ball is only in play for about 10 of those minutes.
That study is right on track with the numbers my Apple Watch 3 has been giving me: about 100 calories for a half hour while weighing in the 155-160 range.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »simon_pickard wrote: »There are some Apple Watch apps that measure strength training well via heart rate. It's way less than you'd think.
I burn about 250-300cals for a hard hours workout (active cals).
Then again most cardio workouts are reported incorrectly anyhow. Most show resting cals + active cals which is wrong. 800cals active from a cardio workout is VERY tough to do in an hour.
I find the exact opposite to be true. My fitbit usually gives me about 100 cals every 10min of strength training which is high. My smart watch will give me even higher numbers, for 50 min workout I burn like 560 to 600 cals. I just assume those numbers need to be halved, and then I don't care. Because I aim for my MFP calorie goal of deficit at lightly active and basically ignore my weight lifting calories. I do like tracking them tho, I like to review my heart rate spikes and compare different workouts to see whats up.
Which Fitbit do you have? Are you using an integrated setting on it for weightlifting or are you just letting it read your heart rate?
@heybales can you add some insight here? I was pretty sure that Fitbit had updated their watches to use METs for strength training, not heartrates, and that's my experience with my Charge2.
It's been infrequently enough I can't even remember which models are doing what now.
Because I did have someone given their detailed numbers like you did - and it did NOT appear to be using the MET method, though they could select Weights as the workout. It was well above, so still HR-based. But I can't recall the model.
But as mutantspicy mentions - perhaps it was a firmware update issue that would take care of it.
I did have someone else with Charge2 confirm what you saw, MET based for lifting. So perhaps it was first model with newer firmware.
What's newer than Charge2 at this point?
And original Charge allowed picking a specific workout too, right?
Seems that could have a firmware update to use same method then.
My Blaze is newer than a charge 2 and the firmware is up to date. After doing more reading. When you set the trackers to weights, they use heart rate spikes to determine when you are lifting and when you are resting. They do use MET score as well but also use the motion detectors. Also track HR thoughout the session. So its a complicated algorithm. Either way I plan to put the fit bit on my right arm and my smart watch on the left for my leg session tonight. I fully expect to get at least 300 cals out of the fitbit and about 450 out of the smart watch.1 -
So, I worked my numbers through the link @jseams1234 posted above.
I weigh ~100lbs and it gives me 216 cals for 90 min. MFP gives me 208 cals. I round it to 200.
I have been in maintenance for 8 years, run my real life numbers a couple of times a year, so know 200 is a correct number for me.
I did note that the link gave me a slightly higher (~40 cals) cardio burn than what MFP ever gave me. Not a problem at this point in time but, while I was losing, with my tight margins, that would have been a disaster.
Cheers, h.3 -
jseams1234 wrote: »Very little: https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Calories-burned-in-30-minutes-of-leisure-and-routine-activities.htm
30-minute strength training session burns an average of 90 calories (180 calories per hour) for a 125-pound person, 112 calories (224 calories per hour) for a 155-pound person and 133 calories (266 calories per hour) for a 185-pound person.
A study in 2014 by ASU tried to show that the calorie burn was higher - they used exercises like crunches, pushups and pullups in their study. However, nobody does these for 5 minutes straight let alone 30 minutes or an hour. These, along with most strength training lifts are done for only a few seconds at a time with much longer rests between those sets. It's like a football game... where the actual game might run over 3 hours the actual ball is only in play for about 10 of those minutes.
That's right around what I'm getting from my Fitbit.1 -
I just use the "weight training" option in MFP. It gives me about 200 calories for an hour. I train for powerlifting (so generally intense lifting with "longer" rest periods).
I've successfully bulked/cut just using the MFP estimate.3 -
"I find the exact opposite to be true. My fitbit usually gives me about 100 cals every 10min of strength training which is high. My smart watch will give me even higher numbers, for 50 min workout I burn like 560 to 600 cals. I just assume those numbers need to be halved, and then I don't care. Because I aim for my MFP calorie goal of deficit at lightly active and basically ignore my weight lifting calories. I do like tracking them tho, I like to review my heart rate spikes and compare different workouts to see whats up."
What "smartwatch" and what exercise did you ask it to track?
1 -
The only sure fire way to get close (it'll never be perfect) is tracking heart rate.
That's why some of these Apple Watch apps track really well. It's all about tracking your heart rate over time.6 -
simon_pickard wrote: »
"I find the exact opposite to be true. My fitbit usually gives me about 100 cals every 10min of strength training which is high. My smart watch will give me even higher numbers, for 50 min workout I burn like 560 to 600 cals. I just assume those numbers need to be halved, and then I don't care. Because I aim for my MFP calorie goal of deficit at lightly active and basically ignore my weight lifting calories. I do like tracking them tho, I like to review my heart rate spikes and compare different workouts to see whats up."
What "smartwatch" and what exercise did you ask it to track?
Gear S3/UA Record app - Upper Body Strength. Today I selected Legs. I think just figured out what is going on.
So today I did 45min leg workout, Squats, Lunges, More lunges, Step ups, Sumos, RDL's, Bulgarian Split Squats, hip thrusts.
UA Record with Gear S3 = 533kCals. I also wore my fitbit blaze = 475kCals.
UA Record is set to legs which is a strength setting. Fitbit is set to weights. According to both my heart rate was in the cardio zone for 70% of the workout and 11% in the fat burn zone. Peak of 153bpm, avg 120 bpm.
If I look at the chart provided by the Harvard study and extrapolate the data for a vigorous weight lifting session.
My body weight at 192lbs and 45mins that says my calories spent should have been 415 kCal as opposed to generic weight lifting, what MFP essentially uses, which would be half of that.
Obviously, that would be a lot closer to what many of you are reporting. However, many of you are in a gym doing big barbell lifts with lots of rest. I'm working out at home with dumbells, and dumbells are expensive so I make up for weight with volume lots and lots of reps. My biggest weights today were 2x70lb dumbells. So 140 lb total on squat. So that's starting to make things make more sense to me. I've been really puzzled by the numbers I'm getting compared to what others are saying.
So even though both are still higher than the projected number from the Harvard study, the fitbit is indeed a lot closer which also falls in line with what many of you are saying. I think what they must be doing is using HR data and accelerometer data to come up with MET correction factor from the base generic score.
Also thanks to @jseams1234 for the link. And everyone for the conversation. This has been bugging my OCD virgo brain for awhile. I think I finally maybe onto something. I should go to my gym at work and do a big bro lift session and see if I get more normal numbers, that would be the true test.
0 -
I allocate only 120 cals/hr to weight lifting activity (which is far less than MFP does) and, when adding up the time, I only include the time actually lifting (inclding restcbet sets) but not the time setting up and/"or resting between different lifts.
Generally, I only do 3 different lifts of 3x12 sets per session and rest 5 mins bet sets, because I lift relatively heavy and am older requiring more rest bet sets. E
Even so, the time actually lifting is only about 15 mins total; 5 mins max actually lifting plus a total of 10 mins rest bet sets.
So, the total time involved lifting is 45 mins for which I only allocate 90 cals. If you tske less rest between sets and do fewer reps, the time and cal allocation eould be even lower.
Not many cals to make any difference in terms of cals burned but logging them helps me keep track of the activity and the low cal allocation prevents me from overeating.
0 -
My weight lifting literally falls into my lightly active activity level. I'm not elite but if I'm squatting 8 reps, it's usually 4-5 sets around 180-190lbs. Then I'll bench in the same % of my 1rm, and then run a full 45 min-hour long upper or lower body building program. It can take me two hours. I don't think of the calories at all. I doubt they're even 200.0
-
mutantspicy wrote: »simon_pickard wrote: »
"I find the exact opposite to be true. My fitbit usually gives me about 100 cals every 10min of strength training which is high. My smart watch will give me even higher numbers, for 50 min workout I burn like 560 to 600 cals. I just assume those numbers need to be halved, and then I don't care. Because I aim for my MFP calorie goal of deficit at lightly active and basically ignore my weight lifting calories. I do like tracking them tho, I like to review my heart rate spikes and compare different workouts to see whats up."
What "smartwatch" and what exercise did you ask it to track?
Gear S3/UA Record app - Upper Body Strength. Today I selected Legs. I think just figured out what is going on.
So today I did 45min leg workout, Squats, Lunges, More lunges, Step ups, Sumos, RDL's, Bulgarian Split Squats, hip thrusts.
UA Record with Gear S3 = 533kCals. I also wore my fitbit blaze = 475kCals.
UA Record is set to legs which is a strength setting. Fitbit is set to weights. According to both my heart rate was in the cardio zone for 70% of the workout and 11% in the fat burn zone. Peak of 153bpm, avg 120 bpm.
If I look at the chart provided by the Harvard study and extrapolate the data for a vigorous weight lifting session.
My body weight at 192lbs and 45mins that says my calories spent should have been 415 kCal as opposed to generic weight lifting, what MFP essentially uses, which would be half of that.
Obviously, that would be a lot closer to what many of you are reporting. However, many of you are in a gym doing big barbell lifts with lots of rest. I'm working out at home with dumbells, and dumbells are expensive so I make up for weight with volume lots and lots of reps. My biggest weights today were 2x70lb dumbells. So 140 lb total on squat. So that's starting to make things make more sense to me. I've been really puzzled by the numbers I'm getting compared to what others are saying.
So even though both are still higher than the projected number from the Harvard study, the fitbit is indeed a lot closer which also falls in line with what many of you are saying. I think what they must be doing is using HR data and accelerometer data to come up with MET correction factor from the base generic score.
Also thanks to @jseams1234 for the link. And everyone for the conversation. This has been bugging my OCD virgo brain for awhile. I think I finally maybe onto something. I should go to my gym at work and do a big bro lift session and see if I get more normal numbers, that would be the true test.
Just keep in mind the difference between active and active + resting cals.
Fitbits combine where as Apple Watch reports only active cals you've burnt over what you would have at rest anyhow.
I see this mistake all the time. People recording 800cals for a cardio workout but not understanding that 300-350 of those would have been burnt sat on their *kitten* anyhow.
1 -
simon_pickard wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »simon_pickard wrote: »
"I find the exact opposite to be true. My fitbit usually gives me about 100 cals every 10min of strength training which is high. My smart watch will give me even higher numbers, for 50 min workout I burn like 560 to 600 cals. I just assume those numbers need to be halved, and then I don't care. Because I aim for my MFP calorie goal of deficit at lightly active and basically ignore my weight lifting calories. I do like tracking them tho, I like to review my heart rate spikes and compare different workouts to see whats up."
What "smartwatch" and what exercise did you ask it to track?
Gear S3/UA Record app - Upper Body Strength. Today I selected Legs. I think just figured out what is going on.
So today I did 45min leg workout, Squats, Lunges, More lunges, Step ups, Sumos, RDL's, Bulgarian Split Squats, hip thrusts.
UA Record with Gear S3 = 533kCals. I also wore my fitbit blaze = 475kCals.
UA Record is set to legs which is a strength setting. Fitbit is set to weights. According to both my heart rate was in the cardio zone for 70% of the workout and 11% in the fat burn zone. Peak of 153bpm, avg 120 bpm.
If I look at the chart provided by the Harvard study and extrapolate the data for a vigorous weight lifting session.
My body weight at 192lbs and 45mins that says my calories spent should have been 415 kCal as opposed to generic weight lifting, what MFP essentially uses, which would be half of that.
Obviously, that would be a lot closer to what many of you are reporting. However, many of you are in a gym doing big barbell lifts with lots of rest. I'm working out at home with dumbells, and dumbells are expensive so I make up for weight with volume lots and lots of reps. My biggest weights today were 2x70lb dumbells. So 140 lb total on squat. So that's starting to make things make more sense to me. I've been really puzzled by the numbers I'm getting compared to what others are saying.
So even though both are still higher than the projected number from the Harvard study, the fitbit is indeed a lot closer which also falls in line with what many of you are saying. I think what they must be doing is using HR data and accelerometer data to come up with MET correction factor from the base generic score.
Also thanks to @jseams1234 for the link. And everyone for the conversation. This has been bugging my OCD virgo brain for awhile. I think I finally maybe onto something. I should go to my gym at work and do a big bro lift session and see if I get more normal numbers, that would be the true test.
Just keep in mind the difference between active and active + resting cals.
Fitbits combine where as Apple Watch reports only active cals you've burnt over what you would have at rest anyhow.
I see this mistake all the time. People recording 800cals for a cardio workout but not understanding that 300-350 of those would have been burnt sat on their *kitten* anyhow.
That's kinda the point, to fit in everything I'm trying to do in 45 min session, I'm not sitting very much. 60 sec rest max. In fact, my weight lifting sessions look like cardio sessions based on my HRM numbers. This is exactly why my kCal results are skewed. I'm not going change my diet based on this info. My diet currently works. Its just nice to know why I'm getting such crazy results. Also, I'm not sure what you are talking about with cardio. Most cardio is steady state or intervals of some kind. There's not a lot of breaks maybe 2 - 60 sec rest in a 30min session. I'm not sure what kind of cardio has you sitting around for 50% of the routine. That's a weak program.1 -
[/quote]
Just keep in mind the difference between active and active + resting cals.
Fitbits combine where as Apple Watch reports only active cals you've burnt over what you would have at rest anyhow.
I see this mistake all the time. People recording 800cals for a cardio workout but not understanding that 300-350 of those would have been burnt sat on their *kitten* anyhow.
[/quote]
That's kinda the point, to fit in everything I'm trying to do in 45 min session, I'm not sitting very much. 60 sec rest max. In fact, my weight lifting sessions look like cardio sessions based on my HRM numbers. This is exactly why my kCal results are skewed. I'm not going change my diet based on this info. My diet currently works. Its just nice to know why I'm getting such crazy results. Also, I'm not sure what you are talking about with cardio. Most cardio is steady state or intervals of some kind. There's not a lot of breaks maybe 2 - 60 sec rest in a 30min session. I'm not sure what kind of cardio has you sitting around for 50% of the routine. That's a weak program. [/quote]
That's not what I meant by resting cals.
Resting cals are what you would burn laying in bed doing nothing.
A lot of fitness trackers include this as part of your workout making the number look bigger than what has actually been "burnt".
That's why the Apple watch model works so well. It just gives you active cals, so anything you've burnt over your resting.
I used to have a fitbit and it was quite a shock when I went to the Apple Watch and my workouts went from 500cal's for a heavy weight session to 230cals.
Basically if you're adding resting + active (which is what I think fitbit still reports) to MFP you're way over what you should be (as you're reporting as well).
If you're adding just active cals (i.e. anything you've done extra). It should tally up pretty closely.
0 -
simon_pickard wrote: »
That's not what I meant by resting cals.
Resting cals are what you would burn laying in bed doing nothing.
A lot of fitness trackers include this as part of your workout making the number look bigger than what has actually been "burnt".
That's why the Apple watch model works so well. It just gives you active cals, so anything you've burnt over your resting.
I used to have a fitbit and it was quite a shock when I went to the Apple Watch and my workouts went from 500cal's for a heavy weight session to 230cals.
Basically if you're adding resting + active (which is what I think fitbit still reports) to MFP you're way over what you should be (as you're reporting as well).
If you're adding just active cals (i.e. anything you've done extra). It should tally up pretty closely.
OK now I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying its adding BMR calories to your activities. I'm not sure that's accurate. I think that's the case for overall daily calorie burn, but not for specifically tracked activities. Those are calculated from some algorithm using MET scores, HRM adjustments and motion detections. Others may know more than me. Can anyone confirm this? But even if it were true, I would simply need to subtract about 60 cals off my total. But certainly not 50% like you're suggesting.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions