Calories burned from Kettlebell workout

Gipsy_gem

Question: how many calories burned would be on average for a kettlebell workout?

Or anyway to figure it out on your own?

pierinifitness

Kettlebell training is my primary workout. I use a Garmin HR monitor and set it for cardio. Whatever Garmin spits out is good enough for me. What it does spit out seems believable based on my experience. I’m a HR monitor junkie.

KB workouts can be easy to next to impossible depending on load, rounds, number of exercises and reps making up a round, etc. so generalizations aren’t helpful.

lorrpb

You could log it as calesthentics or circuit training or strength training

dfulgoni

Like was already mentioned.... a HR monitor might be worth picking up. There are some pretty reasonably priced Bluetooth based ones out there along with many free apps to help you track/record the results.

pierinifitness

@Gipsy_gem - sharing my KB workout from today and what Garmin showed my calories burned. I’m a 64 year man with morning BW of 171.3 lbs.

Workout was: Double 20kg KB swing, clean, rack squat and overhead press) x 5 every 3:45 (started 5th round early) completed 5 rounds in 15:07.

Garmin reported 163 calories burned. For me, this was a challenging workout.

Hope this is helpful.

Azdak

pierinifitness wrote: »

@Gipsy_gem - sharing my KB workout from today and what Garmin showed my calories burned. I’m a 64 year man with morning BW of 171.3 lbs.

Workout was: Double 20kg KB swing, clean, rack squat and overhead press) x 5 every 3:45 (started 5th round early) completed 5 rounds in 15:07.

Garmin reported 163 calories burned. For me, this was a challenging workout.

Hope this is helpful.

For such a short workout, the calorie burn inaccuracy is not as big a deal (although it is exaggerated). However, your workout illustrates the inherent problems with using HRMs to track calories.

HRM calorie counts rely on the association between heart rate and oxygen uptake (VO2). Heart rate itself has nothing to do directly with calorie burn—it merely a marker for VO2.

During steady state cardio, there is a relatively consistent relationship between HR and VO2. So a HRM can estimate calorie burn with better accuracy. However, with activities such as kettlebell swings and any overhead work, HR response is exaggerated compared to VO2. So the calorie burn will be less—sometimes significantly less—than the HR would indicate.

For example, someone running 6mph with a heart rate of 150 will burn 2.5-3.5 times the number of calories in a given time period than if they achieve the same 150 heart rate while doing heavy squats. But the HRM will not know the difference, so the person doing squats would get a greatly inflated burn.

Then there is the intermittent nature of the workout. If you are doing 5 reps every 3:45, that would suggest to me that you are resting for 2:00-2:30 between sets (maybe I am misreading). During that time-esp with the overhead work—HR remains elevated, yet VO2 plummets. Once again, since the HRM doesn’t know the difference, it reads the elevated HR as continuous activity.

Again, this is only meant to be a discussion of physiology vs HR monitoring and the limitations of HRMs as calorie counters. It is not meant to comment on your workout. From a conditioning standpoint, what you described is a pretty good way to spend 15 minutes.

kymmixxx

Have u got any links about vo2/hr? I find it fascinating

pierinifitness

Appreciate your comments @Azdak, what I failed to mention is that during my recovery, I walked around the perimeter of where my KBs were (park workout.)

I agree with that which you share but what I’ve found in my weight-loss journey, mission accomplished, is that my recorded calories burned in a CICO context, reasonably aligned with the weight I lost. And, when I compare this workout to a 60-minute long run I do once a week that Garmin calcs at about 700 calories, the reading seems “good enough.” because things aren’t as precise as we might sometimes believe - ditto for counting calories even using a food scale.

So, what’s your best guess of my burn for this workout, more or less than what Garmin? Thanks.

Postscript: you are correct. That complex of 5 reps for a string of 4 movements done with a pair of 20kg KB or 88 lbs. took about one minute to complete so walking recovery - definitely needed - was balance of time 3:45.

Azdak

kymmixxx wrote: »

Have u got any links about vo2/hr? I find it fascinating

Unfortunately, not. It’s a subject that is covered very little in exercise physiology textbooks. This is my profession, and it’s an area of particular interest, so I have spent more time on it than even many other exercise physiologists. By combining basic principles of exercise physiology with what I have been able to find in research, I have a good handle on the subject—but there is no single link that explains it all.

Azdak

pierinifitness wrote: »

Appreciate your comments @Azdak, what I failed to mention is that during my recovery, I walked around the perimeter of where my KBs were (park workout.)

I agree with that which you share but what I’ve found in my weight-loss journey, mission accomplished, is that my recorded calories burned in a CICO context, reasonably aligned with the weight I lost. And, when I compare this workout to a 60-minute long run I do once a week that Garmin calcs at about 700 calories, the reading seems “good enough.” because things aren’t as precise as we might sometimes believe - ditto for counting calories even using a food scale.

So, what’s your best guess of my burn for this workout, more or less than what Garmin? Thanks.

I am estimating that you are doing a total of about 5 min of actual lifting. Even at 8 METs effort for that time (which is generous), that’s about 50-55 calories for the lifting. Another 40-45 for the walking in between, and 10 for the “afterburner”. So 90-110, maybe 120 to be generous. Again, total number difference (40-50 calories) not that significant because it’s a 15 min workout. But it is an overestimate of 35%-40%.

pierinifitness

Thanks @Azdak, I appreciate your comments.

heybales

kymmixxx wrote: »

Have u got any links about vo2/hr? I find it fascinating

This Polar funded study mentions the things Azdak is commenting on, with just a touch more in the context of already accepted information.

http://www.braydenwm.com/cal_vs_hr_ref_paper.pdf

I'll agree that it must be mainly common knowledge in the physiology research, where they want to do their study ranges in a portion that are considered valid.
Which must mean some studies very long ago must have proved out what was not valid and useful to pursue.

I'll mention another one I don't see referenced in VO2/HR info - flex-HR point - the point at which a person is likely entering the aerobic exercise area rather than daily activity. There are studies on that specifically.
But studies on the VO2/HR don't care about that low point, because if researching calorie burn they know anything even down around that area starts getting inflated calorie burn from calculations.
Same as anything getting up to the upper aerobic range before going into anaerobic area gets inaccurate. Which is where a lot of resistance workouts can go up to.

Azdak

heybales wrote: »

kymmixxx wrote: »

Have u got any links about vo2/hr? I find it fascinating

This Polar funded study mentions the things Azdak is commenting on, with just a touch more in the context of already accepted information.

http://www.braydenwm.com/cal_vs_hr_ref_paper.pdf

I'll agree that it must be mainly common knowledge in the physiology research, where they want to do their study ranges in a portion that are considered valid.
Which must mean some studies very long ago must have proved out what was not valid and useful to pursue.

I'll mention another one I don't see referenced in VO2/HR info - flex-HR point - the point at which a person is likely entering the aerobic exercise area rather than daily activity. There are studies on that specifically.
But studies on the VO2/HR don't care about that low point, because if researching calorie burn they know anything even down around that area starts getting inflated calorie burn from calculations.
Same as anything getting up to the upper aerobic range before going into anaerobic area gets inaccurate. Which is where a lot of resistance workouts can go up to.

With resistance workouts, it’s not a question of “anaerobic” per se. The HR/VO2 disconnect occurs because of reduced cardiac output due to increased peripheral resistance and increased intrathoracic pressure. The HR increase that occurs during strength training is due to a *pressure* load; during cardio, HR increases due to a *volume* load. In both cases, HR increases, but the underlying physiological mechanism is different. Think of trying to bail water out of a hole. During cardio, when you dump the full bucket, almost all of the water goes out. During strength training, it’s like you have to toss the water into a 4-inch diameter pipe. You have to bail faster and faster because only a portion of the water goes into the pipe.

pierinifitness

Found this calculator:

http://www.gymamerica.com/www/gymam/xnt/tf/pages/ExSearch.aspx?srch=Kettlebell+Two-Hand+Swing&page=2

Azdak

Here is an abstract from one of the early studies done on sustained kettlebell swinging (12 minutes). It appeared in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning in 2010.

“In recent years, kettlebells have re-emerged as a popular training modality for the conditioning of athletes. We sought to quantify the aerobic challenge of one popularly recommended kettlebell workout. Ten college-aged men (age = 20.8 +/- 1.1 years, height = 179 +/- 3 cm, body mass = 77.3 +/- 7.7 kg, Vo2max = 52.78 +/- 6.22 ml.kg.min) completed a graded exercise test to exhaustion for the determination of Vo2max. Two to 7 days later, subjects completed a kettlebell exercise routine consisting of as many 2-handed swings as could be completed in 12 minutes using a 16-kg kettlebell. During this exercise bout, subjects' expired gases were collected and analyzed for the determination of Vo2, and heart rate (HR) was continuously measured. Percent HRmax and Vo2max achieved during the kettlebell exercise were compared with each other using a paired t-test. Subjects completed 265 +/- 68 swings during the 12 minutes and achieved an average Vo2 of 34.31 +/- 5.67 ml.kg.min and an average HR of 165 +/- 13 b.min. The average %HRmax (86.8 +/- 6.0%) during kettlebell exercise was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the average Vo2max (65.3 +/- 9.8%) that was achieved. Continuous kettlebell swings can impart a metabolic challenge of sufficient intensity to increase Vo2max. Heart rate was substantially higher than Vo2 during kettlebell swings. Kettlebells provide a useful tool with which coaches may improve the cardiorespiratory fitness of their athletes. However, HRs achieved during continuous kettlebell exercise are significantly higher than actual Vo2.”

So the kettlebell was 16kg and the rate of swinging was about 22/min, sustained for 12min. Most notable: While HR response averaged almost 87% of max, VO2 was 65% of VO2max. That’s the disconnect I have been talking about. Normally, if one is working at 87% of HR max during running, for example, VO2 will be around 75% of VO2 max. That’s what the HRM assumes, which is why they overestimate non-steady-state aerobic activities, esp those that involve more upper body movements.

pierinifitness

@Azdak thanks for sharing. I was aware of that study but only in context of an article I read referencing it. Your explanation is very helpful.

One of the first heart rate monitor books I read was authored by Sally Edwards. I clearly recall her stating that upper-body HR performance and max differs from lower body and this has been my experience. In fact, it differs for all activities and case in point is burpees compared to running.

If I understand what you said, even running has a variation between HR and VO2 Max (87 percent vs. 75 percent) so wondering if the Garmin and other brands have this factored in what their monitors spew out.

Bottom line in my meathead mind, insofar as fitness and weight management (up or down) goes, things are not as precise as we can be led to believe.

Sometimes good enough is good enough.

Thanks for your follow-ip.