Strength Training Calories

futurerunner

Why doesn't the calorie counter count weight lifting calories that are burned? It only counts the cardio. Doesn't weight lifting burn just as much calories as cardio?

skinnytayy

Weight lifting = strength training which builds up muscle rather than burn fat. I'm sure it probably does burn some calories though. You should get a Heart rate monitor that has a calorie burner on it. Cardio exercises the heart and burns fat. In my opinion, its best to do a moderate amount of cardio and a small amount of strength training until you reach your ideal weight that way you aren't building muscle that's hidden behind fat OR turning all the fat into muscle which depending on how much fat you have could look a bit crazy lol.

jcubesmommy

I don't know "why" but I do know that you can put your strength training under the cardio and it gives you the calories.

FlashBang

I am not sure but, I think, it is because it is a very complicated calculation with too many variables to generalize into a calculator. You can find some calculators online but I doubt they would even be in the ball park. Even an HRM measurement is unreliable even if under reported for strength training. The benefit of strength training is not while you are doing it anyway, it is all about the fitness and metabolism gains. Muscle burns calories in your sleep. Measure it with a tape measure and the scale. Last night I flipped a tire for about 15 minutes, the HRM gave me about 87 Calories burned, it was very hard work, I am sure it was worth more than 87 Calories. The benefit from that will come later. Keep it up your doing great. I did log it as strength training, so, I can measure progress with increased speed and reps.

dmcohee

No, not really. Cardio is definitely the best for burning calories, unless it's very intense lifting. However, strength training has a lot of benefits. It will help raise your metabolism so even at a resting rate you're burning more calories. I think to get the most benefit from weight training you should work it in between circuits of cardio, that way your heart rate is still up, thus burning more calories. Also, if you type in strength training in the cardio section it will give you some calories.

canstey

Why doesn't the calorie counter count weight lifting calories that are burned? It only counts the cardio. Doesn't weight lifting burn just as much calories as cardio?

Weight lifting does not burn as many calories per hour as aerobic exercise because of weight liftings very intermittent effort of lift, rest, lift, rest. The amount of calories burned is highly variable and only a blood test to find lactate can get a reasonable approximation. Some say it increases metabolism but that is not technically accurate. LIfting weights burns energy anaerobicly from your muscle reserves. Your body cannot immediately replace the energy used during a 60 minute workout and instead replaces it over the next 24-48 hours. During that time your Total Daily Energy Expenditure is higher than simply BMR+lifestyle because of the additional load of replacing the muscle energy but it is temporary and in proportion to the amount of energy used during your workout, like reheating the water in your hot water tank after a shower.

Also trying to increase muscle to increase metabolism is very ineffective. One pound of muscle burns 6 calories per day, not the 50 bandied around the internet. So even if you were able to gain 10 lbs of additional muscle fiber, a nearly unobtainable goal even when not trying to lose weight, it would only add 60 calories a day to your BMR. You will burn far far more calories from the workouts trying to gain the muscle and then to maintain it whether you gain 10 lbs or zero pounds.

If you are concerned about either your calorie deficit is being increased too much or your workouts might suffer because you are not replacing the energy fast enough, you could eat an extra 75 calories a day to help fuel recovery and hope the workouts will cover it. Listen to your body and adjust up or down from there to cover the weightlifting. Maximizing strength/fitness requires excess calories and losing weight requires a deficit so they are competing goals. You need to pick a balance point.

liss1973

Here is what I found out about your questions and it explains it pretty well. This obviously from an article.

"You are probably burning more calories when you are actually moving a heavy weight than when you are doing aerobic exercise. But you are taking breaks, so over 30 minutes the actual number of calories burned doing strength training will be less."

Time factors into the contest another way, too: "You are limited in the amount of strength training you can do,"
The ACSM advises you weight-train no more than two to three times per week, to give the body time to repair microscopic muscle tears produced by training that are key to gaining strength. "But you can do cardiovascular exercise every day,"

"Ideally, you want a combination of moderate to vigorous aerobic exercise and moderate-intensity strength training. But if vigorous aerobic exercise and vigorous weight training went head-to-head for calories burned, vigorous aerobic exercise would win."

ShaneT99

Why doesn't the calorie counter count weight lifting calories that are burned? It only counts the cardio. Doesn't weight lifting burn just as much calories as cardio?

Too many variables. Which exercise you're doing, how much weight you're using, how many sets, how many reps, how long your rest periods are, the actual tempo of your lifts, how much effort you're putting in...those are all variables that a calorie counter has no way of accounting for so there's really no way for them to give you an accurate calorie count. My understanding is that heart rate monitors don't work particularly well for weight lifting either, so I'm not real sure about how one would go about knowing how much they actually burn while lifting weights.

Pete_Luxford

As above, but to say they don't burn much would be wrong, it is all relative. I have never had such a low %BF as when I did a fairly intense 1 hour workout a day with weights. However without proper supervision and knowledge it is pretty hard to work to a level where you are achieving those results on your own.

What I would suggest goes against what most gym instructors tell you because it is what they are taught day one of a course, is do your weights BEFORE the Cardio.

Weightlifiing is anaerobic and therefore uses the glycogen in your muscles for energy. If you then follow your weights session with Cardio, there is no glycogen so the cardio starts tapping into fat reserves more quickly.

Make sure you refuel immediately after working out as well.

ShaneT99

...its best to do a moderate amount of cardio and a small amount of strength training until you reach your ideal weight that way you aren't building muscle that's hidden behind fat OR turning all the fat into muscle which depending on how much fat you have could look a bit crazy lol.

I'd like to offer some clarity on two common misconceptions shown here if I may:

1) If simply losing weight is the goal then resistance training is not your friend. However, if losing FAT is your goal then you should put more emphasis on diet and resistance training than on cardio. The vast majority of calories burned by you per day are not done while you are exercising. They are done while you're just doing what you do. The more muscle you have on your body the more calories your body is going to burn. If your goal is to lose fat then you need to keep every little bit of muscle that you can, if not gain more. Muscle is an awesome fat burner. The more muscle you have the faster you'll burn your fat. You can certainly do all cardio and lose weight, but in the end you'll just be "skinny fat". Lift those weights and keep/build that muscle!

2) Fat does not turn into muscle nor does muscle turn into fat. Muscle is muscle and fat is fat. The only way to build muscle is with resistance training and proper nutrition. The only way to lose fat is by forcing your body to use it for energy, which means creating a calorie deficit.

Do a Google search for an article called The Hierarchy of Fat Loss by Alwyn Cosgrove. It does a great job of explaining which type of exercises are best for fat loss.

ShaneT99

Also trying to increase muscle to increase metabolism is very ineffective. One pound of muscle burns 6 calories per day, not the 50 bandied around the internet. So even if you were able to gain 10 lbs of additional muscle fiber, a nearly unobtainable goal even when not trying to lose weight, it would only add 60 calories a day to your BMR. You will burn far far more calories from the workouts trying to gain the muscle and then to maintain it whether you gain 10 lbs or zero pounds.

Where on earth did you hear this? There are FAR too many studies out there that show the key to metabolism is muscle mass. It's a proven fact that your body burns far more calories to maintain muscle mass than it does to maintain fat mass. That's exactly why someone with a LOT of muscle has to eat like a horse if they want to maintain that muscle.

canstey

Also trying to increase muscle to increase metabolism is very ineffective. One pound of muscle burns 6 calories per day, not the 50 bandied around the internet. So even if you were able to gain 10 lbs of additional muscle fiber, a nearly unobtainable goal even when not trying to lose weight, it would only add 60 calories a day to your BMR. You will burn far far more calories from the workouts trying to gain the muscle and then to maintain it whether you gain 10 lbs or zero pounds.

Where on earth did you hear this? There are FAR too many studies out there that show the key to metabolism is muscle mass. It's a proven fact that your body burns far more calories to maintain muscle mass than it does to maintain fat mass. That's exactly why someone with a LOT of muscle has to eat like a horse if they want to maintain that muscle.

Sorry I misquoted, it is 7-10 calories a day.
http://www.dailyspark.com/blog.asp?post=how_many_calories_does_muscle_really_burn_not_as_much_as_you_think

It is because you are counting it in the wrong column. Muscle takes 10 calories a day to maintain at rest (fat ~2 calories), i.e. BMR, so adding muscle to increase metabolism is almost pointless. However, exercise activities that move your body weight are proportional to weight so big, heavy, muscular guys burn more calories moving around and exercising. Also those big, muscular guys didn't get that way sitting in front of the TV. They are working out well over an hour a day and are burning lots of calories exercising. So they don't burn tons of calories simply because they have lots of muscle, they burn calories tons of calories trying to build or maintain their physique and moving a large amount of muscle mass hours a day. Simply the attempt to build a muscular body will burn far more calories than having one and sitting on you butt.

krmat

I agree completely with ShaneT99 on this one. I was an avid runner a few years ago but could never quite get to my goal weight. There were always a few extra pounds that I wish I could lose. I was diligent with my diet as well. It wasn't until I started doing more strength training that I was able to see some amazing results. Strength training has allowed me to look the best I have ever looked in years! I still do some cardio, but my workouts are more strength training now.

AEROBICVIC

Also trying to increase muscle to increase metabolism is very ineffective. One pound of muscle burns 6 calories per day, not the 50 bandied around the internet. So even if you were able to gain 10 lbs of additional muscle fiber, a nearly unobtainable goal even when not trying to lose weight, it would only add 60 calories a day to your BMR. You will burn far far more calories from the workouts trying to gain the muscle and then to maintain it whether you gain 10 lbs or zero pounds.

Where on earth did you hear this? There are FAR too many studies out there that show the key to metabolism is muscle mass. It's a proven fact that your body burns far more calories to maintain muscle mass than it does to maintain fat mass. That's exactly why someone with a LOT of muscle has to eat like a horse if they want to maintain that muscle.

so true! my husband is a prof power lifter. he weighs 275 and he has to eat around 7000-8000 calories a day to maintain his weight during competition training. if he drops below 7000 cals, he will drop weight and he doesn't want to do that since he competes in the 275 wt division. he is a drug free lifter so food his "drug", not steroids. believe me, it's hard to cook clean for him and keep it above 7000 cals a day! we have a son who plays football during his competition off season so it is double duty in our home when it comes to eating....

ShaneT99

Sorry I misquoted, it is 7-10 calories a day.
http://www.dailyspark.com/blog.asp?post=how_many_calories_does_muscle_really_burn_not_as_much_as_you_think

It is because you are counting it in the wrong column. Muscle takes 10 calories a day to maintain at rest (fat ~2 calories), i.e. BMR, so adding muscle to increase metabolism is almost pointless. However, exercise activities that move your body weight are proportional to weight so big, heavy, muscular guys burn more calories moving around and exercising. Also those big, muscular guys didn't get that way sitting in front of the TV. They are working out well over an hour a day and are burning lots of calories exercising. So they don't burn tons of calories simply because they have lots of muscle, they burn calories tons of calories trying to build or maintain their physique and moving a large amount of muscle mass hours a day. Simply the attempt to build a muscular body will burn far more calories than having one and sitting on you butt.

You sort of contradicted yourself. If muscle burns 10 calories per pound per day to maintain itself and someone has 150 pounds of muscle on their body (my LBM is about 180), then the muscle alone on that person's body burns 1500 calories a day doing absolutely NOTHING but sitting there and looking pretty. How often do your workouts burn 1500 calories? Contrast that to fat at 2 calories per day and 150 pounds of fat would burn only 300 calories. So, tell me which is better?

Certainly exercising is a good thing. No one here said it wasn't. Exercise aside though, it's a proven fact that a body with more muscle will burn more calories at rest than a body with less muscle. That's why strength training is important.

ShaneT99

so true! my husband is a prof power lifter. he weighs 275 and he has to eat around 7000-8000 calories a day to maintain his weight during competition training. if he drops below 7000 cals, he will drop weight and he doesn't want to do that since he competes in the 275 wt division. he is a drug free lifter so food his "drug", not steroids. believe me, it's hard to cook clean for him and keep it above 7000 cals a day! we have a son who plays football during his competition off season so it is double duty in our home when it comes to eating....

I'd hate to have your grocery bill!

Azdak

I am not sure but, I think, it is because it is a very complicated calculation with too many variables to generalize into a calculator. You can find some calculators online but I doubt they would even be in the ball park. Even an HRM measurement is unreliable even if under reported for strength training. The benefit of strength training is not while you are doing it anyway, it is all about the fitness and metabolism gains. Muscle burns calories in your sleep. Measure it with a tape measure and the scale. Last night I flipped a tire for about 15 minutes, the HRM gave me about 87 Calories burned, it was very hard work, I am sure it was worth more than 87 Calories. The benefit from that will come later. Keep it up your doing great. I did log it as strength training, so, I can measure progress with increased speed and reps.

You are correct, in that HR or HRM readings from strength training are useless. And the effects occur after the exercise session. And there are too many variables to generalize. I think the "muscle burns calories in your sleep" is a little overstated, but you are mostly on the right track.

Azdak

Here is what I found out about your questions and it explains it pretty well. This obviously from an article.

"You are probably burning more calories when you are actually moving a heavy weight than when you are doing aerobic exercise. But you are taking breaks, so over 30 minutes the actual number of calories burned doing strength training will be less."

Time factors into the contest another way, too: "You are limited in the amount of strength training you can do,"
The ACSM advises you weight-train no more than two to three times per week, to give the body time to repair microscopic muscle tears produced by training that are key to gaining strength. "But you can do cardiovascular exercise every day,"

"Ideally, you want a combination of moderate to vigorous aerobic exercise and moderate-intensity strength training. But if vigorous aerobic exercise and vigorous weight training went head-to-head for calories burned, vigorous aerobic exercise would win."

There is some research that suggests that even this might not be true. For some strength exercises at certain intensities, the direct calorie burn might exceed that of comparable aerobic exercise--it just can't be measured by typical means.

There are also studies which show that, a combination of aerobic and strength training exercises leads to greater weight loss than equivalent cardio-only or strength-only routines, even when there is no increase in lean body mass.

In the end, it is important to think of the overall effects of exercise/diet over a long period of time, rather than the short-term, transient effects of a single exercise session, regardless of the activity.

Azdak

As above, but to say they don't burn much would be wrong, it is all relative. I have never had such a low %BF as when I did a fairly intense 1 hour workout a day with weights. However without proper supervision and knowledge it is pretty hard to work to a level where you are achieving those results on your own.

What I would suggest goes against what most gym instructors tell you because it is what they are taught day one of a course, is do your weights BEFORE the Cardio.

Weightlifiing is anaerobic and therefore uses the glycogen in your muscles for energy. If you then follow your weights session with Cardio, there is no glycogen so the cardio starts tapping into fat reserves more quickly.

Make sure you refuel immediately after working out as well.

This just isn't true. You cannot lift enough in a typical session so that there is "no glycogen". And even if you could, two bad things would happen: 1) you couldn't do cardio for *kitten* (see: marathoners "hitting the wall") and 2) you would still need glucose for your brain and some other organs so your body would have to break down amino acids to scavenge the carbon skeletons.

Finally, the fuel substrate used during an exercise session has almost no long-term effect on stored body fat. In some cases, intense lifting can result in increased fat oxidation during a subsequent cardio workout, but, over 24 hrs, fat oxidation is no different from someone who followed a different workout pattern (the same holds true if you do a "fat burning" cardio workout). Things even out over time.

So maybe those "gym instructors" learned something on day one after all.

Azdak

Also trying to increase muscle to increase metabolism is very ineffective. One pound of muscle burns 6 calories per day, not the 50 bandied around the internet. So even if you were able to gain 10 lbs of additional muscle fiber, a nearly unobtainable goal even when not trying to lose weight, it would only add 60 calories a day to your BMR. You will burn far far more calories from the workouts trying to gain the muscle and then to maintain it whether you gain 10 lbs or zero pounds.

Where on earth did you hear this? There are FAR too many studies out there that show the key to metabolism is muscle mass. It's a proven fact that your body burns far more calories to maintain muscle mass than it does to maintain fat mass. That's exactly why someone with a LOT of muscle has to eat like a horse if they want to maintain that muscle.

so true! my husband is a prof power lifter. he weighs 275 and he has to eat around 7000-8000 calories a day to maintain his weight during competition training. if he drops below 7000 cals, he will drop weight and he doesn't want to do that since he competes in the 275 wt division. he is a drug free lifter so food his "drug", not steroids. believe me, it's hard to cook clean for him and keep it above 7000 cals a day! we have a son who plays football during his competition off season so it is double duty in our home when it comes to eating....

The key word is "competition training". Tour de France riders burn an equal amount of calories per day, if not more, during the race, and most of them weigh between 140-170 lbs, with not a whole lot of muscle.

Azdak

Sorry I misquoted, it is 7-10 calories a day.
http://www.dailyspark.com/blog.asp?post=how_many_calories_does_muscle_really_burn_not_as_much_as_you_think

It is because you are counting it in the wrong column. Muscle takes 10 calories a day to maintain at rest (fat ~2 calories), i.e. BMR, so adding muscle to increase metabolism is almost pointless. However, exercise activities that move your body weight are proportional to weight so big, heavy, muscular guys burn more calories moving around and exercising. Also those big, muscular guys didn't get that way sitting in front of the TV. They are working out well over an hour a day and are burning lots of calories exercising. So they don't burn tons of calories simply because they have lots of muscle, they burn calories tons of calories trying to build or maintain their physique and moving a large amount of muscle mass hours a day. Simply the attempt to build a muscular body will burn far more calories than having one and sitting on you butt.

You sort of contradicted yourself. If muscle burns 10 calories per pound per day to maintain itself and someone has 150 pounds of muscle on their body (my LBM is about 180), then the muscle alone on that person's body burns 1500 calories a day doing absolutely NOTHING but sitting there and looking pretty. How often do your workouts burn 1500 calories? Contrast that to fat at 2 calories per day and 150 pounds of fat would burn only 300 calories. So, tell me which is better?

Certainly exercising is a good thing. No one here said it wasn't. Exercise aside though, it's a proven fact that a body with more muscle will burn more calories at rest than a body with less muscle. That's why strength training is important.

I think your logic is off. First of all, you are trying to directly compare 150 pounds of muscle on a human body with 150 pounds of fat and claim that proves a 1200 calorie per day difference in BMR. You can't make that simplistic a comparison, because that's not how bodies are made. You would have to compare someone who has 150lbs MORE muscle mass than another person. Since even a 5ft tall female is likely to have 70lbs of muscle, you are looking at a minimum of trying to use an example of someone with a muscle mass of at least 220 pounds, which after adding the rest of the body and a typical 20% fat amount, would be pushing 350-400 lbs--hardly a representative sample. Someone with 150 lbs of fat would be in the same category--allowing for a 50% level of body fat (which is still pretty unusual). So, you are using completely atypical body types for this comparison,body types for which there are few, if any, common reference points.

A more appropriate comparison or analysis would involve a net CHANGE in muscle mass. That is the point made by the earlier poster. He used an increase of 10lbs of muscle mass. For the average exerciser that is a substantial amount of muscle increase, and will most likely not be achieved, especially in individuals who are trying to lose weight. Again, you can see those types of increases (or larger) in competitive athletes, but that's not the typical person on this forum.

Technically, I would agree that an increase in muscle mass will lead to an increase in resting metabolism. However, from a practical standpoint, most people are not going to achieve enough of an increase to make a significant difference. Because of that, I do believe that the benefits of "muscle building" in the typical workout program are vastly overstated. When I see Jillian Michaels showing an exercise of someone waving around a 5 lb dumbbell in a movement that is horizontal (so there is no resistance) and yelling "we're building muscle so we can burn more fat", I think that is a much more typical example of how this concept is being misused, than the example of the 275 lb powerlifter.

It's also helpful to point out two other points: One, research by Westcott in the 1990s showed a significant improvement in fat loss of over time with a program that consisted of a combination of strength and cardio compared to strength-only and cardio-only routines. This benefit occurred even when there was no measurable increase in lean body mass. Two: the "metabolic type" workouts that are cited as being most effective for losing body fat often use relatively low-intensity weights--i.e. 40% of 1 RM max. They consist of high-intensity movements, but they are not "muscle-building" routines at all.

I like to focus on the practical applications of these principles. That's why I disagree with taking examples from the farther ends of the spectrum--be they Olympic powerlifters or Kenyan marathoners--and trying to generalize their results/experiences to the general population.

For weight loss, strength training is important because of the dynamic metabolic response to the training stimulus rather than a possible increase in muscle mass.