Should you include calories burned during weight training?

numinousnymph

I got a Polar heart-rate monitor a couple of weeks ago, and wore it during all of my gym workout, which consists of weight training and cardio. I did my weight training first, and saw that I had burned about 80 calories. I wondered then, if my goal was to burn 300 calories... if weight training is part of my gym workout and it is using calories, does that mean that I'd have to do less cardio to get to 300 calories? (Hope that makes sense?) i used to never think about the calories weight training burns, but now that I do, it doesn't seem to make sense not to count those calories. What do you all think?

martinel2099

The answer is "it's complicated" to be honest lol.

Some people don't eat back their exercise calories because they are already accounting for it in their daily calorie goals. Do what works best for you here.

Makes total sense, if you want to burn 300 calories today, and you burned 80 doing weights then that only leaves 220 to go. Like I said, depends if you want to eat back your exercise calories or not.

I personally eat mine back for now but may transition into not in the future.

missADS1981

Yes. Anytime your are expending/burning calories you should track. I can burn up to 400 calories in one hour of heavy leg day training. it all depends on your goals.

I dont eat back calories i burn.

Ely82010

HRM is only accurate for steady cardio not for strength training.

skyeny

I burn 400+calories during 1 hr weight training, usually my Polar reads around 500 (I do -100 calories/hr to adjust for burned calories at rest) I log them, but I don't eat back everything.

waldo56

I use the calisthenics entries, easy for warmup type stuff, high effort for the main workout, they seem to be a quite good estimate.

HRM's aren't meant to estimate strength training cals. If they are even in the ballpark is luck more than anything.

Hornsby

Just echoing the HRM commment. They do not work for strength training estimates. They aren't designed for that.

numinousnymph

i thought HRMs estimate your calories burned no matter what activity you're doing. if you strength train, and work hard enough to feel slightly breathless and get your heart pounding, why would the HRM not be accurate reflecting the physical activity that resulted from that increase in heart rate?

CallMeCupcakeDammit

HRM is only accurate for steady cardio not for strength training.

This, and they're not even "accurate" for steady state, just a close estimate. I just got a new hard drive and lost all my links, but I'll see if I can find something that explains it and I'll be back.

CallMeCupcakeDammit

Here you go

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories

numinousnymph

wow, thank you for that... i guess i'll go back to only using the HRM for cardio. even though part of my cardio workout is interval training and i think i saw that they said the HRM is less accurate for interval training as well... >.<

Ely82010

HRM is only accurate for steady cardio not for strength training.

This, and they're not even "accurate" for steady state, just a close estimate. I just got a new hard drive and lost all my links, but I'll see if I can find something that explains it and I'll be back.
[/quote

Correct, and that is why I don't use a HRM. I take what ever the cardio machines at the gym give me, and what ever MFP says that I burn during strength training. I only eat part of my exercises calories. But that is what works for me.

JoRocka

HRM is only accurate for steady cardio not for strength training.

This, and they're not even "accurate" for steady state, just a close estimate. I just got a new hard drive and lost all my links, but I'll see if I can find something that explains it and I'll be back.

Correct, and that is why I don't use a HRM. I take what ever the cardio machines at the gym give me, and what ever MFP says that I burn during strength training. I only eat part of my exercises calories. But that is what works for me.

that's because it's using an algorithum that's corrolating heart rate to calories burned.

And let's be realistic- just because your heart beat is up- doesn't mean you're burning calories... so it's a good guess- the nice thing about the HRM for stead state cardio is that it gives you consistency.

I've never used one- i'm considering it- but it's kind of a big fat meh to me- I need more sewing stuff before I need a new gadget.

But to answer you OP_ as someone already said- it kind of depends.

If you eat back exercise calories- then yes- you would count lifting burns.

If you do TDEE and incorporate your workouts to your daily goal- then no. You do not.

CallMeCupcakeDammit

In line with what JoRocka said about your heartbeat being up, but not burning calories, I burned over 700 calories the first time I went snowboarding. A lot of that higher heart rate came from being in fear for my life flying down an ice covered mountain, so I couldn't count all that.

Ely82010

In line with what JoRocka said about your heartbeat being up, but not burning calories, I burned over 700 calories the first time I went snowboarding. A lot of that higher heart rate came from being in fear for my life flying down an ice covered mountain, so I couldn't count all that.

Sorry, but I disagree with you. You should have counted those calories ten times over; you deserved them just for doing snowboarding.:bigsmile:

soozy84

I count them and it seems to be working out for me (at the moment anyway).

parkscs

HRM is only accurate for steady cardio not for strength training.

This, and they're not even "accurate" for steady state, just a close estimate. I just got a new hard drive and lost all my links, but I'll see if I can find something that explains it and I'll be back.
[/quote

Correct, and that is why I don't use a HRM. I take what ever the cardio machines at the gym give me, and what ever MFP says that I burn during strength training. I only eat part of my exercises calories. But that is what works for me.

While HRM's aren't infallible, they're still the best option you have for estimating your caloric burn from steady state cardio. Even if the estimate is off by 5-10%, usually that's a pretty trivial amount, and you have to remember that your own estimates for your caloric intake are merely estimates as well. For that matter, your TDEE/caloric target is simply an estimate as well and can be off by quite a bit, depending on the person. If you think your HRM's estimate isn't accurate enough, the estimate on the cardio machine and MFP are almost certainly less accurate estimates.

CallMeCupcakeDammit

In line with what JoRocka said about your heartbeat being up, but not burning calories, I burned over 700 calories the first time I went snowboarding. A lot of that higher heart rate came from being in fear for my life flying down an ice covered mountain, so I couldn't count all that.

Sorry, but I disagree with you. You should have counted those calories ten times over; you deserved them just for doing snowboarding.:bigsmile:

If I remember correctly, I did properly celebrate the fact that I didn't die. :drinker:

CallMeCupcakeDammit

HRM is only accurate for steady cardio not for strength training.

This, and they're not even "accurate" for steady state, just a close estimate. I just got a new hard drive and lost all my links, but I'll see if I can find something that explains it and I'll be back.
[/quote

Correct, and that is why I don't use a HRM. I take what ever the cardio machines at the gym give me, and what ever MFP says that I burn during strength training. I only eat part of my exercises calories. But that is what works for me.

While HRM's aren't infallible, they're still the best option you have for estimating your caloric burn from steady state cardio. Even if the estimate is off by 5-10%, usually that's a pretty trivial amount, and you have to remember that your own estimates for your caloric intake are merely estimates as well. For that matter, your TDEE/caloric target is simply an estimate as well and can be off by quite a bit, depending on the person. If you think your HRM's estimate isn't accurate enough, the estimate on the cardio machine and MFP are almost certainly less accurate estimates.

I've never actually researched it to any extent, but I've been told that the machines assume you're a male, because they don't give you the gender option when you enter your information. If someone (let's say me) is on the machine next to you wearing a hrm, it's also going to skew your results. Even though my hrm is coded not to interfere with someone else's hrm, it does interfere with the machine readings. I warn people before they get on the machine next to mine, in case they're planning to go by the machine's calorie burn. MFP always gives me a higher number than my hrm. It's very rarely close.

h7463

There is something to read: http://www.polar.com/us-en/about_polar/news/polar_new_training_computers

Instead of dismissing HRMs, why not try to actually use them for more than counting a few measly calories. IMO, honestly, if people have to worry about counting +/- 100 calories a day, the most logical idea would be to take up the training a few notches, or reevaluate the nutrition plan.
I've been using my HRMs successfully for all sorts of training, and trust me, if you're lifting for an hour in heart rate zones 3,4, and 5, you will be burning calories...and then some more after that...no matter how accurate... I did today, and 2 hours after the fact, my muscles are still radiating heat....
Of course, the simple HRMs might not have all the features, and granted, if the fitness goal revolves around staying off the couch for more than an hour, the expense of $300 might not be worth it...BUT contrary to the popular opinion of this thread, HRMs are not useless beyond cardio, you just have to know how USE them.... Just my humble opinion...