Resistance training calories

2»

Replies

  • Whydahdad71
    Whydahdad71 Posts: 319 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    I'm wondering if you could actually log that routine into the exercise database where the calories would actually count.

    Because in the cardio database you have either the line items with calorie burns that everyone is talking about that are correct actually.

    And you have the strength workout logging that has no calories associated with it.

    Those are the only 2 items that end up in the Exercise Diary.

    And with only calories from the cardio database (Strength Training, Circuit training, ect) adding to daily total - whatever that Add a workout it won't really affect your eating goal since it can't be logged.

    Are you using the app or website? I have the options of strength training, cardio or Create work out on my cell phone app. I used to create a workout then it has me put in each exercise. Then when I save the routine it lists time and calories. I am a paid member too (not sure if that effects it or not)
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,439 Member
    It must be a premium feature. I don't have that.

    You on Apple or Android platform?
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited June 2020
    It must be a premium feature. I don't have that.

    You on Apple or Android platform?

    I'm on the free version of the Android app and I can see the feature he's referring to when I attempt to manually log an exercise (never saw it before because I usually don't log workouts manually). I see three options: I can do strength, cardio, or build my own routine.

    Once I choose the option to build my own routine, I can search for exercises in the database and then add them. I just have to enter the reps and estimated time. It then gives me total calories estimated for the session and I have the option to save it to repeat later.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,672 Member
    edited June 2020
    OK, now that you've been specific, I understand what you're looking at.

    It's the (quite new) "Workout Routines" option in the phone app (I'm on Android). It's sort of separate from the exercise component of the diary.

    I went through the process of creating the small strength workout I've been doing lately. It says it will take me 46 minutes, and burn 264 calories. It takes me about 2/3 that time (I'm impatient), and the standard MFP "cardio" estimate for strength training would give me more like 88 calories based on that duration. I have no idea where it got the 264, which I agree seems very high.

    It looks like I have no way to override the calorie estimate when I build the routine (or maybe I just don't understand how to use it, because it's new). I can edit the duration, and that affects the calorie estimate. (Which does seem odd, to me. I get how a METS-based estimate that asssumes standard rests might be workable, but I don't really understand this . . . but I'm no expert. If the difference were the BMR difference for the time change, it might make sense, but it isn't. Switching from 46 to 30 minutes changes the estimate from 264 to 177.)

    From within "Workout Routines" it will let me log that routine to my diary, which does indeed log those calories.

    Yes, this all seems goofy, and (on a METS basis) it seems like an overestimate.
  • Whydahdad71
    Whydahdad71 Posts: 319 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    OK, now that you've been specific, I understand what you're looking at.

    It's the (quite new) "Workout Routines" option in the phone app (I'm on Android). It's sort of separate from the exercise component of the diary.

    I went through the process of creating the small strength workout I've been doing lately. It says it will take me 46 minutes, and burn 264 calories. It takes me about 2/3 that time (I'm impatient), and the standard MFP "cardio" estimate for strength training would give me more like 88 calories based on that duration. I have no idea where it got the 264, which I agree seems very high.

    It looks like I have no way to override the calorie estimate when I build the routine (or maybe I just don't understand how to use it, because it's new). I can edit the duration, and that affects the calorie estimate. (Which does seem odd, to me. I get how a METS-based estimate that assumes standard rests might be workable, but I don't really understand this . . . but I'm no expert. If the difference were the BMR difference for the time change, it might make sense, but it isn't. Switching from 46 to 30 minutes changes the estimate from 264 to 177.)

    From within "Workout Routines" it will let me log that routine to my diary, which does indeed log those calories.

    Yes, this all seems goofy, and (on a METS basis) it seems like an overestimate.

    I am had you saw that and I am not crazy 😅
    I did get jumped on by a few in here though...
  • Whydahdad71
    Whydahdad71 Posts: 319 Member
    It must be a premium feature. I don't have that.

    You on Apple or Android platform?

    I am on Android
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Well, so much for MFP's own FAQ on why they don't provide calorie counts for specific lifts.

    Not only go against their own reasoning - but blow right by it.

    I guess the standard advice though to log Strength Training from the cardio database stands as a reliable method with the small calorie burn that is realistic.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    OK, now that you've been specific, I understand what you're looking at.

    It's the (quite new) "Workout Routines" option in the phone app (I'm on Android). It's sort of separate from the exercise component of the diary.

    I went through the process of creating the small strength workout I've been doing lately. It says it will take me 46 minutes, and burn 264 calories. It takes me about 2/3 that time (I'm impatient), and the standard MFP "cardio" estimate for strength training would give me more like 88 calories based on that duration. I have no idea where it got the 264, which I agree seems very high.

    It looks like I have no way to override the calorie estimate when I build the routine (or maybe I just don't understand how to use it, because it's new). I can edit the duration, and that affects the calorie estimate. (Which does seem odd, to me. I get how a METS-based estimate that assumes standard rests might be workable, but I don't really understand this . . . but I'm no expert. If the difference were the BMR difference for the time change, it might make sense, but it isn't. Switching from 46 to 30 minutes changes the estimate from 264 to 177.)

    From within "Workout Routines" it will let me log that routine to my diary, which does indeed log those calories.

    Yes, this all seems goofy, and (on a METS basis) it seems like an overestimate.

    I am had you saw that and I am not crazy 😅
    I did get jumped on by a few in here though...

    Maybe if you had been more specific with more detail from the beginning, you wouldn't have gotten the pushback.
  • Whydahdad71
    Whydahdad71 Posts: 319 Member
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    OK, now that you've been specific, I understand what you're looking at.

    It's the (quite new) "Workout Routines" option in the phone app (I'm on Android). It's sort of separate from the exercise component of the diary.

    I went through the process of creating the small strength workout I've been doing lately. It says it will take me 46 minutes, and burn 264 calories. It takes me about 2/3 that time (I'm impatient), and the standard MFP "cardio" estimate for strength training would give me more like 88 calories based on that duration. I have no idea where it got the 264, which I agree seems very high.

    It looks like I have no way to override the calorie estimate when I build the routine (or maybe I just don't understand how to use it, because it's new). I can edit the duration, and that affects the calorie estimate. (Which does seem odd, to me. I get how a METS-based estimate that assumes standard rests might be workable, but I don't really understand this . . . but I'm no expert. If the difference were the BMR difference for the time change, it might make sense, but it isn't. Switching from 46 to 30 minutes changes the estimate from 264 to 177.)

    From within "Workout Routines" it will let me log that routine to my diary, which does indeed log those calories.

    Yes, this all seems goofy, and (on a METS basis) it seems like an overestimate.

    I am had you saw that and I am not crazy 😅
    I did get jumped on by a few in here though...

    Maybe if you had been more specific with more detail from the beginning, you wouldn't have gotten the pushback.

    Yup...
  • Whydahdad71
    Whydahdad71 Posts: 319 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    Well, so much for MFP's own FAQ on why they don't provide calorie counts for specific lifts.

    Not only go against their own reasoning - but blow right by it.

    I guess the standard advice though to log Strength Training from the cardio database stands as a reliable method with the small calorie burn that is realistic.

    I will look into logging that way because the other way just doesn't cut it.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,672 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    Well, so much for MFP's own FAQ on why they don't provide calorie counts for specific lifts.

    Not only go against their own reasoning - but blow right by it.

    I guess the standard advice though to log Strength Training from the cardio database stands as a reliable method with the small calorie burn that is realistic.

    I will look into logging that way because the other way just doesn't cut it.

    Especially if it's impossible to override the silly-seeming calorie estimate it's giving, when doing it that way. (NB: I'm not saying it is for sure impossible, because I only ran through this quickly once . . . but it wasn't obvious how it could be changed, except by changing the time duration. Once I've overridden the duration, even adding more exercises to the routine doesn't add to the duration, or the calories - not even if I change the override switch.)

    I wonder what basis they're using to come up with these estimates in the first place? Implication of on-screen text is that it's duration based, but it doesn't look like it's normal strength-training METS. Weird.
  • Whydahdad71
    Whydahdad71 Posts: 319 Member
    It is extremely odd no doubt
This discussion has been closed.