leg day = 1000+ calories burned??
mpizzle421
Posts: 80 Member
So I put the polar ft7 I purchased to use and found that leg day, consisting of:
5 minutes warmup cardio
Leg curls
Squats
Stiff legged deadlift
Leg extension
Seated calf raises
20 minutes walking cooldown
burned 1000+ calories in about 90 minutes.
Admittedly my heart rate got to pumping 180+ bpm (darned squats), and I averaged 130-150 while wokring out.
Typically I would have guessed 350 max for a weight day.
Should this value be believed?
Also, how the heck do you make sure a weight session (especially leg day) doesn't turn into a cardio session?
5 minutes warmup cardio
Leg curls
Squats
Stiff legged deadlift
Leg extension
Seated calf raises
20 minutes walking cooldown
burned 1000+ calories in about 90 minutes.
Admittedly my heart rate got to pumping 180+ bpm (darned squats), and I averaged 130-150 while wokring out.
Typically I would have guessed 350 max for a weight day.
Should this value be believed?
Also, how the heck do you make sure a weight session (especially leg day) doesn't turn into a cardio session?
0
Replies
-
HRM's are made for steady state cardio. As you've found out they greatly exaggerate burn for other things.0
-
It is definitely possible for 90 minutes, but not probable, it depends on the weights you are pushing, the time between each set and knowing these monitors do over estimate, especially if your heart rate takes a while to catch up (the faster/more in shape you are, the "less calories you burn" according to the monitor). When you are doing weights, most time spent is not actively pushing the weight, so I would use a general "weight training calculation" times time to add these calories.
And about your last question I'm not sure exactly what you mean...if you are doing excessive reps because the weight is easy for you and making it a "cardio session" then increase the weights?0 -
Also, how the heck do you make sure a weight session (especially leg day) doesn't turn into a cardio session?
Heavy weights, low reps.0 -
this is false. your heart rate may be lower, but calorie expenditure is the same in shape or not.(the faster/more in shape you are, the "less calories you burn" according to the monitor).0 -
It is definitely possible for 90 minutes, but not probable, it depends on the weights you are pushing, the time between each set and knowing these monitors do over estimate, especially if your heart rate takes a while to catch up (the faster/more in shape you are, the "less calories you burn" according to the monitor). When you are doing weights, most time spent is not actively pushing the weight, so I would use a general "weight training calculation" times time to add these calories.
And about your last question I'm not sure exactly what you mean...if you are doing excessive reps because the weight is easy for you and making it a "cardio session" then increase the weights?
Couldn't have said it better myself!!0 -
For my HRM, I change the actual 'max heart rate' to be closer to my real #. 220-your age which it uses can be ~20% off (it can be spot on too, but still). One should never observe anything close to your max unless you are running for your life. The # of calories the HRM calculates is an estimate based on the correlation between VO2 max and max heart rate vs observed heart rate. That is, the closer you are to your max, then the closer you are to VO2 max. That combined with weight, height finish out their estimate.
Your actual calorie expenditure occurs while you are doing WORK. Do some work and then stop and you will still see your HRM showing that you are burning calories for a while. HRM are bad at estimations of calories used during on/off intervals, like weights. Turn it on only for the actual lifting part, and off when you finish a set (or have someone else do it so you don't get lazy), and you'll get a better estimate.0 -
this is false. your heart rate may be lower, but calorie expenditure is the same in shape or not.(the faster/more in shape you are, the "less calories you burn" according to the monitor).
No its true, its a relative statement of what the monitor shows you, if you re-read. Said maybe more clearly, the ACTUAL calories burned do not change, but if you are out of shape, your heart rate will stay higher for longer and the monitor will record "more" calorie burn, and as you get in shape and your heart rate does not stay up as long, doing the same weight, it will record "less" calories burnt. What you ACTUALLY burned during the exercise does not really change (unless its a body weight exercise, and of course you do technically get more efficient as you exercise more, but that's negligible and not what I was saying).0 -
Your original guess of 350 is probably pretty reasonable. HRM will show ridiculously inflated numbers for lifting, mine gives me 1100-1400 for 90 minutes for example ( I log 450 ).0
-
It is definitely possible for 90 minutes, but not probable, it depends on the weights you are pushing, the time between each set and knowing these monitors do over estimate, especially if your heart rate takes a while to catch up (the faster/more in shape you are, the "less calories you burn" according to the monitor). When you are doing weights, most time spent is not actively pushing the weight, so I would use a general "weight training calculation" times time to add these calories.
When it comes to exercises like squats most of my time is actually spent trying to catch my breath after a set. I'm still working toward a baseline fitness level - having such a sedentary lifestyle previously. I'm also realistically @ 267 about 70+ lbs overweight (carrying about 90lbs of fat based on bf% tests).
I guess my understanding of why heart rate = a more accurate calculation of calories burned is confused. I thought I understood that the rate your heart was beating was a direct indication of exertion which in turn is a direct indication of calories being burned through the activity. Meaning the 90 seconds between sets while my heart was still racing was similar to walking or eliptical where my heart is beating at about the same pace?And about your last question I'm not sure exactly what you mean...if you are doing excessive reps because the weight is easy for you and making it a "cardio session" then increase the weights?
I'm actually not doing anything excessively. I'm squatting about 110lbs x 10 reps x 3 sets. However, as said above I'm struggling to keep my heartrate in the 70%-80% range. When I actually finish a set it's pushing up to max (based on 220-age and the fact that it doesn't feel like it can beat much harder without me falling over). I'm sure it's something I'll start getting used to.0 -
I consider weight training to be about 200/hr when I'm factoring them in to what I eat. I have to run for 90 minutes at about a 9 minute mile to burn 1000 calories. But then I'm a 5'7" girl.0
-
I guess my understanding of why heart rate = a more accurate calculation of calories burned is confused. I thought I understood that the rate your heart was beating was a direct indication of exertion which in turn is a direct indication of calories being burned through the activity. Meaning the 90 seconds between sets while my heart was still racing was similar to walking or eliptical where my heart is beating at about the same pace?
Your heart beating fast isn't burning calories. Your body moving is. So when you're resting between sets, just having an elevated HR isn't continuing your burn like it is for cardio. So that's why the formula doesn't work for weight training; they're not even necessarily accurate for interval cardio training. You can get some idea of a burn for any cardio session, though, but the higher and lower the peaks and rest, the less accurate.
Yes, your burn will be higher if you're 275 lbs. But I still don't think you're burning 1000 calories lifting.0 -
No way you burned that much. I have to run 9-10 min miles for about 10 miles to burn that many cals.0
-
I guess my understanding of why heart rate = a more accurate calculation of calories burned is confused.
Oh, that part is easy to explain - HRMs have taken on a mythological status here at MFP.
The Koolaid is Strong with This Gadget.
The reality is that the link between heart rate and calorie burn is quite loose, and for many activities, more or less disconnected. For some times of activity, namely those done for a reasonably long period of time for a reasonably consistent level of exertion, the correlation is decent *if* the device is calibrated for the exercisers fitness level. And that requires more than just entering an age or max heart rate.
I use mine for pacing my effort level during extended cardio exercise - which is what the devices are actually designed to do. 0 -
This is why I use a BodyMedia unit to track my burns instead of a heart rate monitor... It just seems way more accurate in the long run, and is more versatile.0
-
BodyMedia is just as inaccurate.0
-
90 minutes of steady state cardio could equate to 1000 Calories burned.
90 minutes lifting most certainly does not.
HRMs are notoriously inaccurate when it comes to Calories burned lifting.0 -
This.This is why I use a BodyMedia unit to track my burns instead of a heart rate monitor... It just seems way more accurate in the long run, and is more versatile.
Mine is accurate.0 -
This.This is why I use a BodyMedia unit to track my burns instead of a heart rate monitor... It just seems way more accurate in the long run, and is more versatile.
Mine is accurate.
How do you know? What benchmark are you measuring against? Have you had your calorie burns measured in a lab environment?0 -
I thought I understood that the rate your heart was beating was a direct indication of exertion which in turn is a direct indication of calories being burned through the activity. Meaning the 90 seconds between sets while my heart was still racing was similar to walking or eliptical where my heart is beating at about the same pace?
Heart rate is not a direct measure of calorie burn. Not by a long shot. If you suddenly remember that you didn't pay this month's credit card bill and will get hit with some interest charges, your heart rate shoots up. Your energy consumption does not.
There's a relationship between heart rate and energy consumption, but only for certain things. Sustained steady-state cardio is one of them. They are related by cardiovascular efficiency as measured by VO2max, or the maximum rate at which your body can use oxygen. The kicker is that VO2max is different for everyone, and changes as you improve fitness.
Long story short, HRMs guesstimate what your VO2max might be, and assume that any increase in heart rate is due to steady-state aerobic activity such as running or cycling. The HRM's estimate of calorie burn will be wrong if:
1) The HRM's estimate of your VO2max is wrong
2) Your heart rate is increased for some reason other than steady-state aerobic activity0 -
When I do legs I burn them out..8-10 exercises with moderate to very heavy weights at 4 sets of 12-15 and my workout last somewhat near 2+ hours...The lowest my heart rate goes is 150 ( I have an alarm to go off when it drops so I can push myself) and max's out at 190. In between my sets I do football drills on the boxes at 18 inches to keep my heart rate up and my HRM goes to nearly 900. But if it's a light leg day at a 75 min work out it's right around 500 calories and that's with me taking 100 off.0
-
When I do legs I burn them out..8-9 exercises with moderate to very heavy weights at 4 sets of 12-15 and my workout last somewhat near 2 hours...The lowest my heart rate goes is 150 ( I have an alarm to go off when it drops so I can push myself) and max's out at 190. In between my sets I do football drills on the boxes at 18 inches to keep my heart rate up and my HRM goes to nearly 900. But if it's a light leg day at a 75 min work out it's right around 500 calories and that's with me taking 100 off.
Offtopic, but I'm not really a fan of this sort of weird mixed-training that's partly strength and partly cardio. I guess it's appropriate if you're training for power endurance, but if you are you have to understand you're giving up strength and muscle gains for it.0 -
For all that people say that HRM aren't accurate for calorie burns, I've been tracking calories in and out with an HRM and a FitBit alongside MFP and I average only around a 2.5% error ratio (calculated by calories in/out compared to weight lost over time).0
-
If I'm eating within the calories the device says I'm burning and losing at a rate consistent with the deficit the device says I have, then surely its not inaccurate?
This.This is why I use a BodyMedia unit to track my burns instead of a heart rate monitor... It just seems way more accurate in the long run, and is more versatile.
Mine is accurate.
How do you know? What benchmark are you measuring against? Have you had your calorie burns measured in a lab environment?0 -
When I do legs I burn them out..8-9 exercises with moderate to very heavy weights at 4 sets of 12-15 and my workout last somewhat near 2 hours...The lowest my heart rate goes is 150 ( I have an alarm to go off when it drops so I can push myself) and max's out at 190. In between my sets I do football drills on the boxes at 18 inches to keep my heart rate up and my HRM goes to nearly 900. But if it's a light leg day at a 75 min work out it's right around 500 calories and that's with me taking 100 off.
Offtopic, but I'm not really a fan of this sort of weird mixed-training that's partly strength and partly cardio. I guess it's appropriate if you're training for power endurance, but if you are you have to understand you're giving up strength and muscle gains for it.
I only train that way to maximize my time with the gym day care and the fact that I hate the feeling of being on a hampster wheel (treadmill) and do to out raining weather this is the best solution for me.0 -
When I do legs I burn them out..8-9 exercises with moderate to very heavy weights at 4 sets of 12-15 and my workout last somewhat near 2 hours...The lowest my heart rate goes is 150 ( I have an alarm to go off when it drops so I can push myself) and max's out at 190. In between my sets I do football drills on the boxes at 18 inches to keep my heart rate up and my HRM goes to nearly 900. But if it's a light leg day at a 75 min work out it's right around 500 calories and that's with me taking 100 off.
Offtopic, but I'm not really a fan of this sort of weird mixed-training that's partly strength and partly cardio. I guess it's appropriate if you're training for power endurance, but if you are you have to understand you're giving up strength and muscle gains for it.
I only train that way to maximize my time with the gym day care and the fact that I hate the feeling of being on a hampster wheel (treadmill) and do to out raining weather this is the best solution for me.
I think that if you can spend 2 hours in the gym working on your legs, then you're not maximizing your time in the gym. Like I said, it depends on your goals I suppose. But you can totally destroy your legs in a serious strength workout in well under an hour.0 -
If I'm eating within the calories the device says I'm burning and losing at a rate consistent with the deficit the device says I have, then surely its not inaccurate?
This.This is why I use a BodyMedia unit to track my burns instead of a heart rate monitor... It just seems way more accurate in the long run, and is more versatile.
Mine is accurate.
How do you know? What benchmark are you measuring against? Have you had your calorie burns measured in a lab environment?
Reasonable approach. Actual vs predicted results is the best the average person at home can do, and a pretty good measure of accuracy (assuming everything else is well controlled).
I asked because for many it seems 'accurate' is synonymous with 'a number I like' or 'a number that fits with my personal biases'.0 -
For all that people say that HRM aren't accurate for calorie burns, I've been tracking calories in and out with an HRM and a FitBit alongside MFP and I average only around a 2.5% error ratio (calculated by calories in/out compared to weight lost over time).
There are people whose bodies and lifestyle match the math assumptions pretty well. In my case, the error is around 15%, as calculated from actual results/logs. And the error is going down as my fitness level increases, which is to be expected (I was in bad shape before).0 -
When I do legs I burn them out..8-9 exercises with moderate to very heavy weights at 4 sets of 12-15 and my workout last somewhat near 2 hours...The lowest my heart rate goes is 150 ( I have an alarm to go off when it drops so I can push myself) and max's out at 190. In between my sets I do football drills on the boxes at 18 inches to keep my heart rate up and my HRM goes to nearly 900. But if it's a light leg day at a 75 min work out it's right around 500 calories and that's with me taking 100 off.
Offtopic, but I'm not really a fan of this sort of weird mixed-training that's partly strength and partly cardio. I guess it's appropriate if you're training for power endurance, but if you are you have to understand you're giving up strength and muscle gains for it.
I only train that way to maximize my time with the gym day care and the fact that I hate the feeling of being on a hampster wheel (treadmill) and do to out raining weather this is the best solution for me.
I think that if you can spend 2 hours in the gym working on your legs, then you're not maximizing your time in the gym. Like I said, it depends on your goals I suppose. But you can totally destroy your legs in a serious strength workout in well under an hour.
I feel as for me I am gaining in many areas... I started back squating at 95 lbs and I'm up to 175 (squat rack not smith) and my goal is 225 by January. That's just one...I have diff goals with diff exercises. So for my personal goals it take me this long to get them all done the right way with my box drills in between.0 -
BodyMedia is just as inaccurate.
And yet, I keep getting it to tell me I burn a ton of cals when I run a 5k, but nothing like that many when I am lifting. I can actually see that the spike and drop are perfectly line up with when I started running and when I stopped, and even see the much shorter spikes when I lift and when I wait the 1 minute till I start the next set. I can even see the difference between the day I was really working hard, and 3 days later which is not as good as I seem to have messed up my right arm.
Have you ever worked out while using a BodyMedia sensor?0 -
If I'm eating within the calories the device says I'm burning and losing at a rate consistent with the deficit the device says I have, then surely its not inaccurate?
This.This is why I use a BodyMedia unit to track my burns instead of a heart rate monitor... It just seems way more accurate in the long run, and is more versatile.
Mine is accurate.
How do you know? What benchmark are you measuring against? Have you had your calorie burns measured in a lab environment?
The readings from mine showed me that I was still undereating and I was really skeptical at first... But I figured what the hell, and I upped my intake, and lo and behold, I started dropping pounds like crazy (~6lbs a week)
I think people just don't understand how the mechanism works, or how to use the data that it gives you. At least it's a device intended for all hours of the day, unlike HRMs and FitBit. Clinical studies show it to be the most accurate aside from lab testing, which is why I went with it in the first place.
I have never, ever regretted getting my BM Fit and I will use it till it dies then probably get another one lol0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions