Why is strength training not considered calorie burning.
player30
Posts: 65 Member
I know I burn some when I am strength thraining. I do 40 minutes aerobic before and 20 minutes after. But it seems to me there should be some calorie allocation for strength training. Thanks
0
Replies
-
If you search for "strength training" under cardio, it should come up. Obviously, it doesn't burn as much as, say, running five miles, but it does burn some. Unfortunately, what you burn depends heavily on the intensity of your workout so the number MFP gives you is just a rough estimate. But it's definitely better than nothing.0
-
It should be, wearing my HRM I burn more calories strength training than cardio... It is all cardio!0
-
HRMs aren't designed to measure calories during strength training, so shouldn't really be considered accurate for that. They're best for measuring calorie burns during steady state cardio.It should be, wearing my HRM I burn more calories strength training than cardio... It is all cardio!
OP - strength training certainly burns calories, but it's difficult to estimate exactly how many. As ladyace0007 said, you can get a rough guide by searching the "cadio" section in the MFP database, as counter-intuitive as it seems.0 -
A quick bit of estimation is .00032 calories per pound per foot.
Of course, that's the actual energy required to lift the weight. Your body is terribly inefficient and will burn more calories than that in order to apply the .00032 calories per foot pound.
For example, squatting in a power rack will burn many more calories than squatting the same weight on a smith machine. And both of those will burn more calories than pressing the same weight on a leg sled.
So multiply .00032 by whatever efficiency factor you're comfortable with. But be prepared. It's a far smaller amount than you might hope for. Lifting weights is about changing your body and improving your health, not building a calorie deficit.0 -
Strength training burns more calories over time, and it is the best thing for your metabolism. Cardio is absolutely important, but you need more time strength training than cardio.0
-
Meaning why doesn't MFP calculate calories when you log strength training? It is because there are WAY to many variables when strength training to calculate caloric consumption. My advice would be to get a good HRM and let it track your caloric consumption based on you.0
-
My advice would be to get a good HRM and let it track your caloric consumption based on you.
HRMs don't track calories. They track heart rate, and then guess at calories.0 -
I know I burn some when I am strength thraining. I do 40 minutes aerobic before and 20 minutes after. But it seems to me there should be some calorie allocation for strength training. Thanks
I don't get this MFP obsession with calories burnt through exercise either weights or cardio, why does anybody care? it baffles me0 -
Because the calorie goal MFP gives you doesn't include that kind of exercise, so if you're following the MFP method, you need to have an idea of how much you're burning through exercise so that you can eat back those calories and get back to the original recommended calorie deficit.I know I burn some when I am strength thraining. I do 40 minutes aerobic before and 20 minutes after. But it seems to me there should be some calorie allocation for strength training. Thanks
I don't get this MFP obsession with calories burnt through exercise either weights or cardio, why does anybody care? it baffles me
A lot of people use the TDEE method instead, which accounts for all activity to start with, and so don't worry so much about how many calories they burn through exercise because they eat the same amount every day regardless.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I do some cardio first to warm up then do a weight routine with my HRM on all the way through. My heart rate is elevated during the weight workout as well so I just note the overall burn. I then ignore the cool down on the basis that I would be burning calories even if I wasn't doing a workout0
-
HRMs aren't designed to measure calories during strength training, so shouldn't really be considered accurate for that. They're best for measuring calorie burns during steady state cardio.It should be, wearing my HRM I burn more calories strength training than cardio... It is all cardio!
OP - strength training certainly burns calories, but it's difficult to estimate exactly how many. As ladyace0007 said, you can get a rough guide by searching the "cadio" section in the MFP database, as counter-intuitive as it seems.
depends what hrm you have some hrm's are designed with strength training in mind, polars ft 80 for instance, no device can 100% accurately measure calorie burn, but i've found the calorie burns calculated by the many hrm's i've used for any exercise to be good enough to keep reasonable track. provided the information you input to them is accurate,i.e v02 max,maximum heart rate,weight,sex, age etc.0 -
HRMs aren't designed to measure calories during strength training, so shouldn't really be considered accurate for that. They're best for measuring calorie burns during steady state cardio.It should be, wearing my HRM I burn more calories strength training than cardio... It is all cardio!
OP - strength training certainly burns calories, but it's difficult to estimate exactly how many. As ladyace0007 said, you can get a rough guide by searching the "cadio" section in the MFP database, as counter-intuitive as it seems.
depends what hrm you have some hrm's are designed with strength training in mind, polars ft 80 for instance, no device can 100% accurately measure calorie burn, but i've found the calorie burns calculated by the many hrm's i've used for any exercise to be good enough to keep reasonable track. provided the information you input to them is accurate,i.e v02 max,maximum heart rate,weight,sex, age etc.
For some reason, people feel compelled to believe that little number on their wrist, despite all evidence to the contrary. It's an interesting example of the power of auto-suggestion. When strength training, the HRM calorie number is meaningless (even the FT80, which is not designed to track calories). The physiology of the human body dictates that it cannot be otherwise.0 -
MFP's entire method gives people an unreasonable faith in numbers. People think they KNOW their BMR, their TDEE, their exact intake. I saw a post the other day where someone said, "I know my BMR is 1324.96." Point nine six!I know I burn some when I am strength thraining. I do 40 minutes aerobic before and 20 minutes after. But it seems to me there should be some calorie allocation for strength training. Thanks
I don't get this MFP obsession with calories burnt through exercise either weights or cardio, why does anybody care? it baffles me0 -
HRM's don't accurately read strength training burnt calories.It should be, wearing my HRM I burn more calories strength training than cardio... It is all cardio!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
HRM's don't accurately read strength training burnt calories.It should be, wearing my HRM I burn more calories strength training than cardio... It is all cardio!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
While I understand and accept that, surely the estimates would be low rather than high if working from your stats and heart rate?0 -
Oh lord. Like you can have *a* BMR, and it doesn't fluctuate slightly on a daily basis! Just like you can say "I weigh X pounds" at any point when you're not actually standing on a scale. It would be weird if our bodies were that precise; I don't think the species could have survived that long if we required such precise homeostasis!
MFP's entire method gives people an unreasonable faith in numbers. People think they KNOW their BMR, their TDEE, their exact intake. I saw a post the other day where someone said, "I know my BMR is 1324.96." Point nine six!I know I burn some when I am strength thraining. I do 40 minutes aerobic before and 20 minutes after. But it seems to me there should be some calorie allocation for strength training. Thanks
I don't get this MFP obsession with calories burnt through exercise either weights or cardio, why does anybody care? it baffles me0 -
Why would that be the case? The calories burned displayed on a HRM are assuming a steady state cardio metabolism. When lifting, your body is using different metabolic pathways than this, and the calories burned are not reflected by the mathematical model that HRM manufacturers program into their devices.
HRM's don't accurately read strength training burnt calories.It should be, wearing my HRM I burn more calories strength training than cardio... It is all cardio!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
While I understand and accept that, surely the estimates would be low rather than high if working from your stats and heart rate?0 -
If you search for "strength training" under cardio, it should come up. Obviously, it doesn't burn as much as, say, running five miles, but it does burn some. Unfortunately, what you burn depends heavily on the intensity of your workout so the number MFP gives you is just a rough estimate. But it's definitely better than nothing.
OP--this^^...next caller....0 -
The American College of Sports Medicine and the "British Journal of Medicine" have put Polar's heart rate monitors to the test over the years. In these studies, the measurement of calories expended has a non-significant margin of error, meaning the difference between the control and the Polar monitor is not enough to skew your results. These studies revealed that entering your actual VO2 max and maximum heart rather than having it calculated by the formula, yields only a 12 percent overestimate of calorie expenditure versus a 33 percent overestimate. On average, Polar's heart rate monitors are 75 percent accurate.
like I said not 100% accurate,but certainly close enough for me.0 -
Since it's reading heart rate, that would entirely depend on how intense the session is. From my experience, most of the time it overestimates.
HRM's don't accurately read strength training burnt calories.It should be, wearing my HRM I burn more calories strength training than cardio... It is all cardio!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
While I understand and accept that, surely the estimates would be low rather than high if working from your stats and heart rate?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
The American College of Sports Medicine and the "British Journal of Medicine" have put Polar's heart rate monitors to the test over the years. In these studies, the measurement of calories expended has a non-significant margin of error, meaning the difference between the control and the Polar monitor is not enough to skew your results. These studies revealed that entering your actual VO2 max and maximum heart rather than having it calculated by the formula, yields only a 12 percent overestimate of calorie expenditure versus a 33 percent overestimate. On average, Polar's heart rate monitors are 75 percent accurate.
like I said not 100% accurate,but certainly close enough for me.
There has not been extensive research on Polar HRM calorie estimates--for most exerciser researchers it is not a serious topic. The studies have been done with fairly small sample sizes. The studies have shown that, whatever the average accuracy, there is a rather large standard of error. This is to be expected, given the normal variation in HR response to exercise in the population. Accuracy can be improved by programming actual HRmax and VO2max into the HRM. However, the most common Polar models used--the FT4 and FT7 models--do not allow manual input of these variables.
And, lastly, these studies looked only at Polar HRM performance under carefully controlled conditions of select steady-state cardio exercises. They do not address interval training, circuit training, anaerobic training, resistance exercise, cardiovascular drift, thermal responses,etc. All of these can reduce the accuracy of Polar HRM calorie estimates even further.0 -
If you search for "strength training" under cardio, it should come up.
Yep. This is what I use. It's a reasonable calculation. The research on HRM has demonstrated that they are wildly inaccurate for non-steady state workouts so unless you're doing HIIT or something along those lines, you're not really going to get accurate readings for lifting.I don't get this MFP obsession with calories burnt through exercise either weights or cardio, why does anybody care? it baffles me
For those not using TDEE, it's important to get a rough idea of what is being burned through exercise, especially for those of us who eat back those calories. There doesn't seem to be anything baffling about that.
The problem is there doesn't seem to be an accurate way to count these calories so what is the point, i exercise to get fitter and that should really be the goal anyhow so how many calories i burn is not relevant as it will not alter my workout in the slightest, i just push myself as much as possible
If i lose weight or gain weight i adjust my food intake accordingly
Some people really do like to complicate things0 -
The problem is there doesn't seem to be an accurate way to count these calories so what is the point, i exercise to get fitter and that should really be the goal anyhow so how many calories i burn is not relevant as it will not alter my workout in the slightest, i just push myself as much as possible
If i lose weight or gain weight i adjust my food intake accordingly
Some people really do like to complicate things
You know what - I reckon you're right.0 -
I just signed up for this site, and some of this bothers me. The notion that I should be primarily interested in the calories I burn during exercise-- cardio or lifting-- is already an incomplete model at best-- as though the moment I step off the treadmill, I'm back to idle. All of this meticulous analysis of my calorie deficit is therefore a lark. And the suggestion that strength training isn't effective for cutting fat is actually just scary.
The food diary seems great. I'll be taking the associated analytics with a grain of salt or 20.0 -
I wear a heart rate monitor and log my strength classes as cardio and put in those calories0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions