Loggibg my strength training workout
medhakhanna471
Posts: 46 Member
I work out 4 times a week
5 military presses
6 squats
7 rows
8 deadlifts
9 push ups
10 lunges
30 sec plank
All with barbell and weights. I repeat this circuit 5 times + 15 mins elliptical.
I don't know how to log the strength training part. I have been using cardiovascular strength training 30 min but it only shows that I burnt 94kcal. Is that right?
Also any advice on how I can improve this work out would be a bonus
5 military presses
6 squats
7 rows
8 deadlifts
9 push ups
10 lunges
30 sec plank
All with barbell and weights. I repeat this circuit 5 times + 15 mins elliptical.
I don't know how to log the strength training part. I have been using cardiovascular strength training 30 min but it only shows that I burnt 94kcal. Is that right?
Also any advice on how I can improve this work out would be a bonus
1
Replies
-
The MFP strength training calorie entry is probably as reasonable as an estimate you're going to get, and yup, unfortunately, strength training burns few calories. (Heart rate may increase, but it doesn't correlate with calorie burn **.)
That idea about added muscle burning more calories needs some caveats, too.
It's IIRC 2 calories extra per day per pound of muscle vs. pound of fat. People don't really gain massive amounts of muscle quickly - 2 pounds added per month would be pretty fast for a man, half that for a woman.
So, let's say you get rid of 24 pound of fat in a year (fairly straightforward, if you have that fat to lose), and add 24 pounds of muscle in the same year (quite difficult to achieve, even for a man under best conditions, without performance enhancing drugs). Then if you didn't change anything else about your life, you'd burn about 48 calories more daily by the end of the year vs. the start of the year. That's pretty underwhelming IMO.
Muscle and strength are good, healthy, useful things to have. People with more muscle loss live longer. They can be more active (and may even become more active without trying just because it's easier to do any/everything), which does burn more calories. Any daily-life task involving muscular effort is easier. Bones get stronger. And more.
Because muscle gain is slow and effortful, keeping as much as possible while losing weight is a really good plan. So, strength training during weight loss helps with that. (Strength increase for people new to strength training can be fairly rapid at first, from neuromuscular adaptation, basically recruiting/using existing muscle fibers more effectively/efficiently. So, that's bonus. Appearance improvements from strength training can also be quicker than mass gain, also a bonus.)
** Explanation of that here: https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-176982 -
Not what you asked, but are you saying you are doing 5x6 = 30 squats but 5x8 = 40 deadlifts ? It is a little weird ratio, why not follow an established lifting program?0
-
-
My question would be are you doing the same weight every time? You should be increasing reps or weight as the program becomes easier. If you do the same reps and same weights each time and never increase, you won’t see much in the way of results.
It also depends on the intensity of your workout to how many calories you burn during strength training. I burn much more when my husband is around to push me harder. If he’s with me, I’m drenched in sweat by the end of the workout. I still get plenty sweaty alone, but if he’s around I have a spotter so I can push harder and see if I have that one last rep in me.
Also, cardio can burn lean muscle and not fat like we would all like it to. That will slow your metabolism and your weight loss. So, even though weight training doesn’t burn as many calories as cardio, it builds muscle. Muscle burns more calories than fat. I do both and I recommend that anyone else who enjoys both do both. If you don’t like it, you won’t stick with it, so don’t do it just because you think you “should” (that goes for ANY exercise).
Here’s an article on weight lifting benefits if anyone is interested:
https://c4energy.com/blogs/training/weights-vs-cardio-calories-burned1 -
My question would be are you doing the same weight every time? You should be increasing reps or weight as the program becomes easier. If you do the same reps and same weights each time and never increase, you won’t see much in the way of results.
It also depends on the intensity of your workout to how many calories you burn during strength training. I burn much more when my husband is around to push me harder. If he’s with me, I’m drenched in sweat by the end of the workout. I still get plenty sweaty alone, but if he’s around I have a spotter so I can push harder and see if I have that one last rep in me.
Also, cardio can burn lean muscle and not fat like we would all like it to. That will slow your metabolism and your weight loss. So, even though weight training doesn’t burn as many calories as cardio, it builds muscle. Muscle burns more calories than fat. I do both and I recommend that anyone else who enjoys both do both. If you don’t like it, you won’t stick with it, so don’t do it just because you think you “should” (that goes for ANY exercise).
Here’s an article on weight lifting benefits if anyone is interested:
https://c4energy.com/blogs/training/weights-vs-cardio-calories-burned
If I get to a point that I can do more reps I increase the weight. I started with only the barbell, then added 2.5kg each side, now 5kg each side. I do the 5 rounds in 30 mins so it is quite intense. Can't have more than a min or so rest between sets. I love strength training. The only cardio I do is elliptical
By the end of strength training my thighs are usually on fire.
I will have a look at the article too1 -
medhakhanna471 wrote: »
This thread has a list of good programs, quite varied:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/p1
There are knowledgeable people participating in that thread who can help with any questions.1 -
My question would be are you doing the same weight every time? You should be increasing reps or weight as the program becomes easier. If you do the same reps and same weights each time and never increase, you won’t see much in the way of results.
It also depends on the intensity of your workout to how many calories you burn during strength training. I burn much more when my husband is around to push me harder. If he’s with me, I’m drenched in sweat by the end of the workout. I still get plenty sweaty alone, but if he’s around I have a spotter so I can push harder and see if I have that one last rep in me.
Also, cardio can burn lean muscle and not fat like we would all like it to. That will slow your metabolism and your weight loss. So, even though weight training doesn’t burn as many calories as cardio, it builds muscle. Muscle burns more calories than fat. I do both and I recommend that anyone else who enjoys both do both. If you don’t like it, you won’t stick with it, so don’t do it just because you think you “should” (that goes for ANY exercise).
Here’s an article on weight lifting benefits if anyone is interested:
https://c4energy.com/blogs/training/weights-vs-cardio-calories-burned
I won't critique that article point by point, but IMO it's very misleading in spots, at best.
In particular to the bolded:
A pound of muscle burns about 2 calories per day more than a pound of fat. A pound of muscle isn't added quickly - a pound of muscle gain in two weeks would be fast for a young male, under ideal conditions (which include a calorie surplus, not deficit). (Fortunately, strength gain is much faster, via neuromuscular adaptation, so we do get quick payoffs when beginners.)
So, it's true that muscle burns more calories than fat, but the arithmetic effect of that difference, in the realistic timeframe of weight loss, is pretty underwhelming. If a guy gains a whopping 24 pounds of muscle in a year (quite difficult), and simultaneously loses 24 pounds of fat (not all that hard), he burns a whopping 48 calories more daily at rest at the end of the year, vs. at the start.
Strength training is absolutely worth doing for lots of reasons, especially so during weight loss, but the increase in calorie burn isn't realistically one of them.
The idea that cardio inherently burns muscle is mostly nonsense, in a context where the activity level is adequately fueled (non-extreme calorie deficit), and a person doesn't exceed what's realistic for their fitness level. If cardio inherently burned muscle, Megan Musnicki, who I promise has done literally hours of "cardio" nearly every day for years, wouldn't look like this . . . but she does. Or did.
She was a US national team (Olympic) rower. I'm certain she lifts, but hours of daily cardio are regularly on the menu, as well. (Another woman I know, currently on the national team, mentioned routinely doing 80-120 minute workouts . . . and those wouldn't necessarily be just one a day, either.)
The average person doesn't risk burning muscle with their 30-60 minutes of cardio. They'll likely burn less muscle doing reasonable cardio than they would sitting on the couch, at the same calorie deficit. (It's still better to strength train, too, though - I'm not saying otherwise. Both cardio & strength are ideal, for best odds of good health. We agree on that.)
BTW: What's the difference between "lean muscle" and "fat muscle"?
2 -
pitbullpuppy wrote: »From what I understand (and have experienced) strength training doesn't burn much. The idea is that you gain muscle and muscle burns more per lb than fat. I may be mistaken but I think it's like 7 calories vs. 5 calories. So if you have 100lbs of muscle you burn 700 extra calories per day by living, whereas if you had 100lbs of fat you'd be burning 500 extra calories per day by living (TDEE stuff). Someone will correct me. lol
2 cal/lb/day fat
6 cal/lb/day muscle mass.
But, in your comparison, what's the state with no muscle and no fat?
Unrealistic.
So better to compare you lose say 50 lbs of fat (could take a year) and gain 20 lbs of muscle (could take 2 years).
100 cal lost, 120 cal gained.
You made net increase of 20 cal to your day.
Nope - that's not the huge expenditure many claim it is and numbers floating around.
But at least you were close.3 -
Also, cardio can burn lean muscle and not fat like we would all like it to. That will slow your metabolism and your weight loss.
That is about the last resort energy source for cardio if you had to just keep running from that tiger coming to get you.
But, if getting to that as energy source, you would have hit the wall of no carbs and slowed down so massively to just burn fat, the tiger got ya!
There is no scenario except a starved person with no fat where the body would breakdown muscle as fuel instead of using available fat.
And that starved person would have already lost most their muscle mass, and unlikely be able to do cardio.
Perhaps you mean something else other than what it sounds like you are saying.2 -
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/weight-loss/a19939245/habits-making-you-lose-muscle/
So, there are 6 mistakes that people make.
However, you are ABSOLUTELY going to burn both fat and muscle doing cardio. That’s why body builders are HIGHLY cautious about doing cardio because they don’t want to lose ANY muscle gains.
And while the Olympic rower pictured above has a well defined back, she certainly isn’t very muscular. And if she had done less cardio every day, maybe she would have been more muscular.
No one is saying you are going to burn all of your muscle doing cardio. It simply isn’t possible to ONLY burn fat. If you don’t have enough calories to fuel your exercise, your body will burn a combination of fat and muscle. If you are trying to lose weight and eating at a deficit, then you probably DON’T have enough calories to fuel that cardio workout.
I’m not saying don’t do cardio. I’m saying muscle DOES burn more than fat, that is a fact. More muscle will also increase your metabolism (also a fact). I’m not muscular, but I have started strength training to gain more muscle because there are clear health benefits to doing so.0 -
Here’s another good one about weight training. A lb of muscle does NOT burn only 2 calories more than fat, it’s more like 6-7 (still not huge), BUT if you hit that target weight, any muscle you have will make you look way better than a super skinny girl who just looks like she needs to eat something. 😜
https://www.verywellfit.com/how-many-calories-does-muscle-really-burn-12310740 -
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/weight-loss/a19939245/habits-making-you-lose-muscle/
So, there are 6 mistakes that people make.
However, you are ABSOLUTELY going to burn both fat and muscle doing cardio. That’s why body builders are HIGHLY cautious about doing cardio because they don’t want to lose ANY muscle gains.
And while the Olympic rower pictured above has a well defined back, she certainly isn’t very muscular. And if she had done less cardio every day, maybe she would have been more muscular.
No one is saying you are going to burn all of your muscle doing cardio. It simply isn’t possible to ONLY burn fat. If you don’t have enough calories to fuel your exercise, your body will burn a combination of fat and muscle. If you are trying to lose weight and eating at a deficit, then you probably DON’T have enough calories to fuel that cardio workout.
I’m not saying don’t do cardio. I’m saying muscle DOES burn more than fat, that is a fact. More muscle will also increase your metabolism (also a fact). I’m not muscular, but I have started strength training to gain more muscle because there are clear health benefits to doing so.
Women's Health? Wouldn't be my top choice source, but OK.
Look, much of what's in that article is talking about as dangerous is extreme dieting. (1000 calories? WTHeck?) No one here is advocating ultra-low calories. heybales is laying out the facts: Bodies don't like to go to muscle for fuel. They avoid doing that, unless one behaves rather stupidly, like eating too little.
Some of the lean mass lost during weight loss should be lost. (Lean mass is not just muscle. It includes things like blood volume. We need less when we're smaller, of a variety of types of lean mass.) Losing actual muscle is a good thing to avoid, and I think (?) we agree that mostly we avoid that by not losing weight too fast, eating enough protein, and doing strength exercise.
Where we disagree seems to be about how destructive cardio is - irrespective of what the cardio specifically is, apparently - for the average person. OP didn't even report doing any cardio, as far as I can see, so I'm not sure how we got here, except for you saying cardio was destructive, and me disagreeing . . . which is kind of weird, as you say you do do cardio.
WRT the WH article, which is their usual non-contextualized bullet-point kind of thing:
Higher protein diets burn more calories primarily because of TEF, not because people magically add lots of muscle mass simply by eating protein. Of course people ought to get adequate protein (and fats, and micros, and fiber . . . .).
The fuel substrate you burn in the moment while exercising doesn't make much difference in the proportion of body fat vs. lean mass that you lose over a period of time. We burn the highest proportion of fat while sleeping (as a percentage of the total calorie burn per time period). Does that mean we should sleep all the time, for maximum fat loss? Of course not.
As I understand it, at higher intensity in cardio, in the moment, we burn less fat as a percentage of calories, and more glycogen. We burn more total calories per minute at higher intensity, so in most cases numerically more fat calories per minute than at lower intensity (but we can't keep it up as long, because that's also how bodies work). The glycogen comes significantly from muscle stores (body stashes it there so the muscles have it ready to use), but that glycogen is not muscle tissue.
EPOC ("afterburn") is overrated. It's potentially higher for strength training than cardio, but higher as a percentage of the base calories burned during the workout, so can be numerically higher for steady state cardio at realistic session lengths/calorie burns. Either way, it's small potatoes. It's still true that strength training is worth doing.
If we're in a calorie deficit, that deficit gets made up eventually primarily from stored body fat, as long as we have body fat to lose. A bit is always from lean mass. We can make that worse by under-eating protein (and by undernutrition generally), by not challenging our muscles, by losing too fast, etc.
Yes, muscle burns more calories than fat does. Yes, more or less at the level of "metabolism" Two to four calories per day, per pound, as both heybales & I have said. Assuming he's correct (as he almost certainly is) and the difference between fat and muscle metabolic activity is 4 calories per pound per day (twice my estimate), that improbable guy adding 24 pounds of muscle while losing 24 pounds of fat - the totality of which is going to take at absolute minimum a year, and probably longer - is going to burn 96 calories per day more at the end of that time than at the beginning. It's still underwhelming, arithmetically.
You and I differ on how muscular Megan is, for a woman. She's not a bodybuilder, for sure. The sport's priority is strength to weight ratio, plus long levers (basically, being born with tall genes ). Bodybuilders may avoid cardio, but bodybuilders are not regular folks with goals of generally good body composition and well-rounded fitness. The do tend to be prejudiced, sometimes even cognitively biased, when it comes to cardio. I don't see why normal people pursuing well-rounded fitness need to buy into their world-view.
None of this stuff we're discussing has much to do with OP's question, which is about how to log strength training for calorie counting purposes, the answer to which has already been given: Log it under cardio, as strength training, and yes, it doesn't burn many calories. (And yes, it's worth doing regardless.)
And again, OP didn't even mention doing cardio, so . . . ?
Best wishes, sincerely! 0 -
Here’s another good one about weight training. A lb of muscle does NOT burn only 2 calories more than fat, it’s more like 6-7 (still not huge), BUT if you hit that target weight, any muscle you have will make you look way better than a super skinny girl who just looks like she needs to eat something. 😜
https://www.verywellfit.com/how-many-calories-does-muscle-really-burn-1231074
The article you link says the 6-7 calories muscle burns per pound is the total, and that fat burns around 1/3 as much per pound, so around 2 . . . which is pretty much what heybales said earlier, that the difference (extra) between muscle and fat is about 4 calories per pound per day.
Of course, it's better to have some muscle, and to be strong, for functional reasons, health reasons, and appearance reasons. Not that that last one (appearance) is high on my personal list of concerns, at my age and stage, but it's still true IMO.
No one here is saying strength training is not a good thing, or that OP shouldn't do it. I'm for sure not saying that. I wouldn't. It would be wrong.0 -
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/weight-loss/a19939245/habits-making-you-lose-muscle/
So, there are 6 mistakes that people make.
However, you are ABSOLUTELY going to burn both fat and muscle doing cardio. That’s why body builders are HIGHLY cautious about doing cardio because they don’t want to lose ANY muscle gains.
And while the Olympic rower pictured above has a well defined back, she certainly isn’t very muscular. And if she had done less cardio every day, maybe she would have been more muscular.
No one is saying you are going to burn all of your muscle doing cardio. It simply isn’t possible to ONLY burn fat. If you don’t have enough calories to fuel your exercise, your body will burn a combination of fat and muscle. If you are trying to lose weight and eating at a deficit, then you probably DON’T have enough calories to fuel that cardio workout.
I’m not saying don’t do cardio. I’m saying muscle DOES burn more than fat, that is a fact. More muscle will also increase your metabolism (also a fact). I’m not muscular, but I have started strength training to gain more muscle because there are clear health benefits to doing so.
Most newbies and especially overweight newbies to fitness, hate cardio because they find it harder and are looking for an excuse to avoid it. It is easier for most overweight out of shape beginners to lift some small weight than jog at a slow pace. So, they pick the blogs and rumours that emphasize the importance of strength training, and conveniently ignore the reputable sources mentioning that both cardio and strength training are needed, and that actually the most duration should be cardio.2 -
However, you are ABSOLUTELY going to burn both fat and muscle doing cardio. That’s why body builders are HIGHLY cautious about doing cardio because they don’t want to lose ANY muscle gains.
It simply isn’t possible to ONLY burn fat.
Seen track and field sprinters, shoot even the decathletes?
Somehow they've kept their muscle despite doing a bit of cardio along with their resistance training, if much is done.
I don't think you know the order of fuel sources - you should really look at a physiology book - this stuff hasn't changed in decades and decades. You are just flat out wrong.
Every hear of carbs burned during cardio?
Shoot, some people even have the fallacy you start burning carbs first - and that is wrong too.
By your statement - does that mean people doing cardio that eat protein get none of it because the body is burning that as fuel? (this should be interesting) Or only the protein from muscle is used, not ingested protein?
Body builders don't do much if any cardio during training season because it taxes their systems and can easily lead to poor performance in their workouts, and efficiency in their primary focus of strength training.
And they don't want to get anywhere near the line of not being in a calorie surplus for their muscle gain.
They already have to eat a ton of food to be in a surplus - they really don't need additional calories from cardio to have to eat to remain in surplus.
And they will do cardio many times when it's time to cut, especially for show prep. Carefully.
Not because cardio burns muscle as fuel source - but they want to keep the level of diet very reasonable.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding the fact that some muscle somewhere is being torn down and replaced daily (like many other cells) - and if you have a lack of calories and protein to bad enough degree - the body will use available required nutrients for rebuilding the most required systems of the body - and unused muscle will not be one of those. Unused muscle. Used muscle is a different story.
But studies have shown some rather steep deficits with enough protein and strength training can keep muscle mass.
Don't confuse LBM (Lean Body Mass is everything not fat) with muscle mass.
You pee 16 oz you just lost 1 lb LBM.
You sweat badly during your workout you just lost LBM.
Show prep for body builders always involves loss of LBM as they lose carbs and attached water - and then they bump that back up again right before showtime.3 -
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/weight-loss/a19939245/habits-making-you-lose-muscle/
However, you are ABSOLUTELY going to burn both fat and muscle doing cardio.
Complete and utter rubbish.
You really should educate yourself about how exercise is fuelled before projecting this ridiculous myth that should have died out decades ago.1 -
Some people don’t like facts. That is clear here lol.
It all depends on the OPs goals to how much cardio should factor into their workout. There is no black and white answer as some of you seem to think. Continue being cardio queens if that makes you happy. The OP likes strength training which is awesome. However, most women don’t which is ridiculous. Again, you do you, I’m just helping with info that includes articles unlike the others here who seem to think that because they said it, it must be true. I prefer sources. I seem to have hit a nerve with you cardio queens though.
Bye now. Good luck OP and try to stay away from the crazies 😆0 -
Some people don’t like facts. That is clear here lol.
It all depends on the OPs goals to how much cardio should factor into their workout. There is no black and white answer as some of you seem to think. Continue being cardio queens if that makes you happy. The OP likes strength training which is awesome. However, most women don’t which is ridiculous. Again, you do you, I’m just helping with info that includes articles unlike the others here who seem to think that because they said it, it must be true. I prefer sources. I seem to have hit a nerve with you cardio queens though.
Bye now. Good luck OP and try to stay away from the crazies 😆
"Cardio queens".
"Water is wet" doesn't really require references, but this will do OK as a random consumer-friendly but more technical overview of energy sources during CV exercise, not that OP is likely to care as she does not even mention cardio outside of strength training and did not ask about what you're answering **:
https://us.humankinetics.com/blogs/excerpt/the-bodys-fuel-sources
I'd appreciate it if you'd read the whole (short) thing, though, as I did with that WH trendy gee-whizification.
But I'll help you out. I'll pick out the section is the most supportive of your argument that cardio burns muscle:As for protein, our bodies don't maintain official reserves for use as fuel. Rather, protein is used to build, maintain, and repair body tissues, as well as to synthesize important enzymes and hormones. Under ordinary circumstances, protein meets only 5 percent of the body's energy needs. In some situations, however, such as when we eat too few calories daily or not enough carbohydrate, as well as during latter stages of endurance exercise, when glycogen reserves are depleted, skeletal muscle is broken down and used as fuel. This sacrifice is necessary to access certain amino acids (the building blocks of protein) that can be converted into glucose. Remember, your brain also needs a constant, steady supply of glucose to function optimally.
But also:The capacity of your body to store muscle and liver glycogen, however, is limited to approximately 1,800 to 2,000 calories worth of energy, or enough fuel for 90 to 120 minutes of continuous, vigorous activity.
Running out of glycogen is one example of underfueling exercise, something I explicitly said would cause a problem. (Quoting myself: "The idea that cardio inherently burns muscle is mostly nonsense, in a context where the activity level is adequately fueled (non-extreme calorie deficit), and a person doesn't exceed what's realistic for their fitness level.")
If a person runs out of glycogen in a CV workout, they'd know. It's not going to be asymptomatic. No one will repeat that experience, if they have any choice at all. An average generally healthy person's typical half hour to hour of cardio isn't going to do it, even in a calorie deficit.
** I answered what she actually asked, in the first paragraph of this thread, BTW. ETA: The first post I wrote also linked an actual relevant article, essentially explaining one reason why people are misled to think that strength training burns large numbers of calories, when it doesn't. Neither heart rate nor sweat correlate meaningfully with calorie expenditure.3 -
Haha, this was interesting. Considering I have arthritis and even dancing at a party is strictly forbidden, being called a cardio queen was something I was not expecting to hear ever
Not that I understand why being called a cardio/strength/dance/swim/lifting/"whatever form of exercise" queen is an insult. 2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions