MFP calorie burns from strength training way too low?

waldo56

They're way inaccurate. You're probably better off trying to figure out your TDEE from a calculator like this which allows you to input specific kinds of training:

http://www.doyoueven.com/tdee/

For me (female/126 lbs/5'1/age 24), a 90 minute training session burns somewhere between 400-800 cals depending on what I'm doing that day. This means I maintain on about 2500-2800 cals, so it's no surprise you're not seeing gains on 3250.

Wow...I'm male, age 28 and 5'9...that's 8 inches taller. So you have to eat over 2800 to gain weight?

I was seeing gains just fine on my old, less intense lifting program, but when I started this one, it just halted. And it's been over a month now.

Your reply was eye-opening. I am going to call it a 400-cal burn per hour and see what happens.

I don't use TDEE. I would, but my activity varies so greatly from day-to-day and week-to-week (yard work, etc.) that it would be a mess. The TDEE calculators all seem to underestimate caloric needs compared to MFP, too.

Thanks for the advice!

I have to eat near 4K cals to gain @ 6'1" 200ish

Underestimating exercise cals does you no favors when your goal is gaining weight. It is a habit that people get into when "losing weight" that you have to break when gaining is your goal.

Annie_01

MFP's "strength training" entry is laughable, useful only for old ladies lifting pink dumbbells doing only isolation exercises.

The "circuit training" and/or "high effort calisthenics" are a much better approximation of calories burned while real strength training, which gives a value about 2/3-3/4 of what you'd get if you jogged for the same time period.

I actually don't think it matters much what form you are doing; recovery is more or less constant, set output is dependent on % recovered, whether you are doing heavy doubles, higher rep work, or anything in between.

Uber intense circuit work with heavy glycogen depletion (should feel the burn to the max) a la some Crossfit type stuff burns up the cals even faster than jogging does.

Hey...watch it...my dumbbells aren't pink! The rest of it applies though.

:-)

jimmmer

There is no good way to measure calories burnt strength training.

Well, the best way is to look at your scale.
If it's going down, you need to eat more .

+1

I don't know why people make it so complicated. Aim to add so much mass a week - if you're not adding it: eat more! If you're adding too much: eat slightly less.

mikeabboud

. If anyone has a magic formula, please share!!

TDEE
if your losing weight when you want to be gaining eat more. if your gaining weight and you want to be losing, eat less. No fancy machine is needed just an estimate and a couple of weeks to see if the estimate was accurate. this It really is simpler. I don’t know why people bother with anything else.

edit-for spelling

BusyRaeNOTBusty

Eat more. Add 200 calories a day each week until you start gaining what you want.

hellraisedfire

I think it's way low too (at least according to my HRM). before I understood anything about lifting or working out, I used to go off MFP's calorie thing. I always avoided lifting because it "didn't burn anything".

dswolverine

In for answers... I don't do strong lifts but I do a pretty intense weight training regimen for 30 mins....the calories seem too low to me

Hornsby

I think it's way low too (at least according to my HRM). before I understood anything about lifting or working out, I used to go off MFP's calorie thing. I always avoided lifting because it "didn't burn anything".

Yet still, HRMs are not accurate for weight training.

jimmmer

If you lift and you lift regularly (which you should, if you're doing it properly) then the only answer to go the TDEE route.

And, as others have said, how you pick that TDEE (online calculator, formula of choice, 15xbw in lbs, etc) is only a starting point.

You then run with that number for 2 weeks. Adjust based on real-world results. If you need to eat more: eat more! Then repeat until you feel the need to cut again.

milileitner

They're way inaccurate. You're probably better off trying to figure out your TDEE from a calculator like this which allows you to input specific kinds of training:

http://www.doyoueven.com/tdee/

For me (female/126 lbs/5'1/age 24), a 90 minute training session burns somewhere between 400-800 cals depending on what I'm doing that day. This means I maintain on about 2500-2800 cals, so it's no surprise you're not seeing gains on 3250.

Wow...I'm male, age 28 and 5'9...that's 8 inches taller. So you have to eat over 2800 to gain weight?

I was seeing gains just fine on my old, less intense lifting program, but when I started this one, it just halted. And it's been over a month now.

Your reply was eye-opening. I am going to call it a 400-cal burn per hour and see what happens.

I don't use TDEE. I would, but my activity varies so greatly from day-to-day and week-to-week (yard work, etc.) that it would be a mess. The TDEE calculators all seem to underestimate caloric needs compared to MFP, too.

Thanks for the advice!

Yeah. I gained 18kg (40lbs) over the past 2 or so years and if I ate less than 3000 I didn't gain.

Seriously I would just pick a number (maybe trying 3500 for now) and eat the same amount every day. Watch the scale and adjust accordingly. It takes out a ton of variables.

JoRocka

MFP's "strength training" entry is laughable, useful only for old ladies lifting pink dumbbells doing only isolation exercises.

The "circuit training" and/or "high effort calisthenics" are a much better approximation of calories burned while real strength training, which gives a value about 2/3-3/4 of what you'd get if you jogged for the same time period.

I actually don't think it matters much what form you are doing; recovery is more or less constant, set output is dependent on % recovered, whether you are doing heavy doubles, higher rep work, or anything in between.

Uber intense circuit work with heavy glycogen depletion (should feel the burn to the max) a la some Crossfit type stuff burns up the cals even faster than jogging does.

This is what I do- per Waldo's recommendation from several months ago- I'm gaining on it just fine.

I tend to be modest in my approach knowing my rests can be longer on heavy lift days- so even if I'm technically there for 2 hrs- I round down to say 75 minutes- If my rest times are shorter- I enter closer to my actual time there.

I also only usually eat back 60-80% of the calories- eating back all of them seems to be too high for me.

I'm also (as a 5'8" female) ball-parking 2500 plus or minus calories- my goal is 2000-2100 and with eat back it's 2500-3000 depending on how much I did that day. (4 hrs of dance plus 75 minutes of lifting is usually what contributes to my 'high' number)

I don't use TDEE. I would, but my activity varies so greatly from day-to-day and week-to-week (yard work, etc.) that it would be a mess

I use it- but I figure out what my sedentary TDEE is... and then I add workouts- and eat back calories. I'm bulking just fine on it- but I have the same issue- varied workouts- just saying moderately active doesn't work for me.

But adding it in as needed seems to be working fine.

Remember it's very trial and error- and it is not fixed- as you gain weight- you'll need to eat more- as you lose weight- you need to eat less. It's a range of numbers- not a specific hard and fast fixed point.

data3567

I log my workouts with Endomondo (they include average and max heartrate) for a workout. Endomondo then pushes my workouts to MFP.

Wiltord1982

I did my usual 60-min lifting routine a few times with my HRM (Garmin Forerunner 405 CX) and it always came up between 340 and 380 calories burnt. So, I just use 350 calories to track my calorie intake. Then, I plan aa 500 calories surplus and bingo. One pound gained per week since January.

LuisB3

General consensus on the boards is that heart rate monitors do a poor job at guesstimating calorie burn on weight training, compared to the steady-state aerobic activity for which they're generally better suited. Weight training doesn't, typically, burn a whole lot of calories.

That said, if you're on a bulk to begin with, increasing your surplus by a bit if you're not seeing the gains you expected may be appropriate.

Not sure where you're getting this info but I can definitely say it is different for everyone. I have been using a heart rate monitor for about 1 year now and have seen gains and even loss body fat because I was able to more accurately calculate the calories I burn for weightlifting sessions. I range from 600-1100 calories burned for 50-120 minutes of work. I am averaging about 10 calories per minute during a normal workout. So weight training CAN in fact burn a whole lot of calories. Its the intensity, weight used and amount of rest that determines the effectiveness of a work out. At least for me!

lilawolf

I lose more than I "should" do StrongLifts. Assuming that you do SL (and any other exercise) the same number of times each week, I would just bump your every day deficit until you are gaining again. Probably bump 100 cal/day every week until you hit your gain goal. Good luck!

Sarah4fitness

General consensus on the boards is that heart rate monitors do a poor job at guesstimating calorie burn on weight training, compared to the steady-state aerobic activity for which they're generally better suited. Weight training doesn't, typically, burn a whole lot of calories.

That said, if you're on a bulk to begin with, increasing your surplus by a bit if you're not seeing the gains you expected may be appropriate.

Disagree.

I burn more on heavy leg day in an hour than I do from an hour of steady-state cardio, by double.

TheEffort

BUMP.

heybales

General consensus on the boards is that heart rate monitors do a poor job at guesstimating calorie burn on weight training, compared to the steady-state aerobic activity for which they're generally better suited. Weight training doesn't, typically, burn a whole lot of calories.

That said, if you're on a bulk to begin with, increasing your surplus by a bit if you're not seeing the gains you expected may be appropriate.

Disagree.

I burn more on heavy leg day in an hour than I do from an hour of steady-state cardio, by double.

According to the HRM, right?

So the HRM saw your HR spike super high and be elevated from using such big muscles during the workout, so it calculated big calorie burn, compared to much smaller average HR on your steady-state days.

The issue is the relationship between HR and calories burned is TOTALLY related to the aerobic function and amount of oxygen needed for that aerobic level, and your HR to supply that oxygen.

But lifting, if done right, is anaerobic.

The formula's for calculating calories also needs steady-state HR, same for 2-4 minutes.

Lifting is opposite of steady-state.

So yes, the formula's are wrong for lifting, and yes, it can inflate a lifting session as higher than a cardio session since the HR could be higher on average.

But no, it didn't actually burn as much.

I think the problem in this whole topic has been the separation for logging what was burned DURING the workout - and the fact a good lifting session burns more AFTER the workout than other exercise would, except for intervals. Which is just like lifting frankly. All out push, rest, repeat.

For those that found the HRM and results and eating level to seem to bear out - that's great. Except you can't do the math like that because there is a lot more to your TDEE than just exercise and BMR, impossible to prove out accuracy of HRM with results.

But an inflated calorie burn for just DURING the workout could indeed incorporate what the body burns extra during the repair and rebuilding process in the next 24-36 hrs.

But if you are going to pick a number out of the sky and hope it's right, might as well use the database entry for strength training.

Which actually is based on MET's found during studies of weight lifting and whole-room indirect calorimetry.

Obviously it's a big average of the tested movements, and if you don't match what was tested, it doesn't apply.

Hornsby

I disagree with the notion that strength training doesn't burn many calories. It definitely does, but a HRM isn't going to accurately record the calories regardless. If you are using one during strength training, and it's working, I would just say that it's just coincidental that the estimations are correct.

fozzie500

is your heart rate not intrinsically linked with intensity though?
when i do weights,my heart rate goes through the roof,same as when i do high intensity cardio,
i get that you can't measure the number of colories burnt during the repair process of muscles,
but to me my hrm gives me a calories burnt reading that i beleive to be accurate,
if i feel i have been training at maximum intensity it is usually bourne out by what my hrm says, i. e been working in the top 70-80% of my heart rate. i have 2 hrm's that allows me to input my vo2 max,age sex height weight etc, and one of them guides me when to begin my next set. and is designed for strength training, and my results are right in the ball park of where i'm supposed to be.