Weight Lifting...why so few calories?
Replies
-
Heart rate monitors do not accurate produce burned calories from weight lifting. Heart rate monitors monitor heart rate. The monitors convert heart rate to calories burned using specific equations. These equations are only valid for continuous steady state cardio vascular activities. They are not valid for weight lifting or even HIIT. Furthermore, having a high heart rate alone does not burn calories. For example if you are sitting on your butt watching a scary movie you might have a high heart rate but you certainly aren't burning any more calories than you would be if you were watching something boring. It's the actual activity that burns the calories. The activity also raises your heart rate. So in some circumstances high heart rate can be correlated with calories burned but not in all of them. When you lift weights your heart rate remains high during your rests even if you are sitting on your butt. The heart rate monitor doesn't know you are sitting on your butt and still thinks you are moving enough to produce that heart rater so the calories burned it produces will be inaccurate.
This is not true. Calories burned are a direct correlation of your heart rate. So in your example of a scary movie raising your heart rate, you actually WOULD burn more calories then watching say a documentary that kept your heart rate lower. We are splitting hairs however as the difference between the two would be very minimal. Your calorie burn is related to oxygen intake and carbon dioxide exhaust. The faster your heart beats, the faster that process occurs therefore increasing your calorie burn.0 -
lol at people thinking weightlifting burns a lot of calories.
LOL at people who think it doesn't.
If you are lifting at or near maximum ability, using short rest times, etc., then not only are you burning calories at a furious rate, you are also creating a ton of "afterburn" work for your body to do in repairing that microdamage to your muscles.
Remember that "calories burned" is simply another way to say "work performed" - Calories is just the way we measure that work. Do you seriously believe that lifting heavy weights doesn't count as "work" and doesn't require tremendous expenditures of energy?
If you think that an intense weight-lifting session doesn't burn a lot of calories, then you simply don't understand the concept.0 -
This is not true. Calories burned are a direct correlation of your heart rate. So in your example of a scary movie raising your heart rate, you actually WOULD burn more calories then watching say a documentary that kept your heart rate lower. We are splitting hairs however as the difference between the two would be very minimal. Your calorie burn is related to oxygen intake and carbon dioxide exhaust. The faster your heart beats, the faster that process occurs therefore increasing your calorie burn.
Actually you are completely incorrect. Calories burned is a direct correlation to the amount of work (using the word in its scientific meaning) being performed by your muscles. *BY DEFINITION*
Heart rate monitors can approximate that amount for steady state cardio. However, even the manufacturers of HRMs will tell you that they are wildly inaccurate in calorie counting for interval activities like HIIT or weight lifting. Trying to use an HRM to estimate calories burned for anything OTHER than steady state cardio (which is all they were and are designed to be used for) is a fool's game.0 -
This is not true. Calories burned are a direct correlation of your heart rate. So in your example of a scary movie raising your heart rate, you actually WOULD burn more calories then watching say a documentary that kept your heart rate lower. We are splitting hairs however as the difference between the two would be very minimal. Your calorie burn is related to oxygen intake and carbon dioxide exhaust. The faster your heart beats, the faster that process occurs therefore increasing your calorie burn.
Actually you are completely incorrect. Calories burned is a direct correlation to the amount of work (using the word in its scientific meaning) being performed by your muscles. *BY DEFINITION*
Heart rate monitors can approximate that amount for steady state cardio. However, even the manufacturers of HRMs will tell you that they are wildly inaccurate for interval activities like HIIT or weight lifting. Trying to use an HRM to estimate calories burned for anything OTHER than steady state cardio is a fool's game.
I don't really like to get into back and forth on here, but no.
Caloric expenditure occurs when you inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
So to estimate how many calories you burn you have to know how much oxygen you go through. Oxygen intake is loosely (and that is the part I agree with you on with HRMs not being exact) correlate with heart rate, so if you can monitor your heart rate, you are essentially monitoring oxygen intake/usage. VO2Max is something most HRMs take into consideration which measures how many milliliters of oxygen per minutes your body is taking in and transferring into the blood. So by tracking your Heart Rate, it can loosely track your VO2Max which is why you can track calorie expenditure watching that horror film regardless if you are sitting around or doing squats. Clearly doing the squats will increase your oxygen intake, therefore raising your heart rate and burning more calories.0 -
This is not true. Calories burned are a direct correlation of your heart rate. So in your example of a scary movie raising your heart rate, you actually WOULD burn more calories then watching say a documentary that kept your heart rate lower. We are splitting hairs however as the difference between the two would be very minimal. Your calorie burn is related to oxygen intake and carbon dioxide exhaust. The faster your heart beats, the faster that process occurs therefore increasing your calorie burn.
Actually you are completely incorrect. Calories burned is a direct correlation to the amount of work (using the word in its scientific meaning) being performed by your muscles. *BY DEFINITION*
Heart rate monitors can approximate that amount for steady state cardio. However, even the manufacturers of HRMs will tell you that they are wildly inaccurate for interval activities like HIIT or weight lifting. Trying to use an HRM to estimate calories burned for anything OTHER than steady state cardio is a fool's game.
I don't really like to get into back and forth on here, but no.
Caloric expenditure occurs when you inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
So to estimate how many calories you burn you have to know how much oxygen you go through. Oxygen intake is loosely (and that is the part I agree with you on with HRMs not being exact) correlate with heart rate, so if you can monitor your heart rate, you are essentially monitoring oxygen intake/usage. VO2Max is something most HRMs take into consideration which measures how many milliliters of oxygen per minutes your body is taking in and transferring into the blood. So by tracking your Heart Rate, it can loosely track your VO2Max which is why you can track calorie expenditure watching that horror film regardless if you are sitting around or doing squats. Clearly doing the squats will increase your oxygen intake, therefore raising your heart rate and burning more calories.
I'm willing to learn so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
However it makes more sense that burning calories (energy) occurs by doing work as the previous poster explained it, by the activity itself. Sure, I've heard of VO2Max and was under the impression that it was just the most accurate way to monitor the burned calories as the amount of burned calories directly corresponds to the amount of oxygen and carbon monoxide measured. It just doesn't make any sense to me that simply converting oxygen to carbon monoxide is the actual mechanism that burns the calories.
I'd very much appreciate any good articles you can provide on the subject.0 -
This is not true. Calories burned are a direct correlation of your heart rate. So in your example of a scary movie raising your heart rate, you actually WOULD burn more calories then watching say a documentary that kept your heart rate lower. We are splitting hairs however as the difference between the two would be very minimal. Your calorie burn is related to oxygen intake and carbon dioxide exhaust. The faster your heart beats, the faster that process occurs therefore increasing your calorie burn.
Actually you are completely incorrect. Calories burned is a direct correlation to the amount of work (using the word in its scientific meaning) being performed by your muscles. *BY DEFINITION*
Heart rate monitors can approximate that amount for steady state cardio. However, even the manufacturers of HRMs will tell you that they are wildly inaccurate for interval activities like HIIT or weight lifting. Trying to use an HRM to estimate calories burned for anything OTHER than steady state cardio is a fool's game.
I don't really like to get into back and forth on here, but no.
Caloric expenditure occurs when you inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
So to estimate how many calories you burn you have to know how much oxygen you go through. Oxygen intake is loosely (and that is the part I agree with you on with HRMs not being exact) correlate with heart rate, so if you can monitor your heart rate, you are essentially monitoring oxygen intake/usage. VO2Max is something most HRMs take into consideration which measures how many milliliters of oxygen per minutes your body is taking in and transferring into the blood. So by tracking your Heart Rate, it can loosely track your VO2Max which is why you can track calorie expenditure watching that horror film regardless if you are sitting around or doing squats. Clearly doing the squats will increase your oxygen intake, therefore raising your heart rate and burning more calories.
so if you're holding your breath you can't burn calories?0 -
I don't really like to get into back and forth on here, but no.
Caloric expenditure occurs when you inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
Actually, you're wrong. Calorie expenditure occurs when work is performed. Period. The breathing process can approximate that for steady state cardio, but one does not depend on the other. To prove it to you: Hold your breath and walk three steps. You burned calories taking those three steps, but you didn't breathe. If your proposition were true, simply breathing in and out over and over again would burn calories while holding your breath and exercising wouldn't. That obviously is a ludicrous proposition on its face.So to estimate how many calories you burn you have to know how much oxygen you go through. Oxygen intake is loosely (and that is the part I agree with you on with HRMs not being exact) correlate with heart rate, so if you can monitor your heart rate, you are essentially monitoring oxygen intake/usage. VO2Max is something most HRMs take into consideration which measures how many milliliters of oxygen per minutes your body is taking in and transferring into the blood. So by tracking your Heart Rate, it can loosely track your VO2Max which is why you can track calorie expenditure watching that horror film regardless if you are sitting around or doing squats. Clearly doing the squats will increase your oxygen intake, therefore raising your heart rate and burning more calories.
If it were that simple, then researchers wouldn't still be stumped as to how to accurately track calories burned while weight lifting. They could simply slip a mask on an athlete while they were exercising, monitor VO2 throughout the workout and Voila! they'd know exactly how many calories were burned.
That clearly isn't the case since the top researchers in the field will tell you that: a) that doesn't work, and b) they still don't have a way to accurately measure calorie burn during weightlifting. I would presume that you don't claim greater knowledge than people holding doctorates who have spent their lives dedicated to figuring this out, right?0 -
This is not true. Calories burned are a direct correlation of your heart rate. So in your example of a scary movie raising your heart rate, you actually WOULD burn more calories then watching say a documentary that kept your heart rate lower. We are splitting hairs however as the difference between the two would be very minimal. Your calorie burn is related to oxygen intake and carbon dioxide exhaust. The faster your heart beats, the faster that process occurs therefore increasing your calorie burn.
Actually you are completely incorrect. Calories burned is a direct correlation to the amount of work (using the word in its scientific meaning) being performed by your muscles. *BY DEFINITION*
Heart rate monitors can approximate that amount for steady state cardio. However, even the manufacturers of HRMs will tell you that they are wildly inaccurate for interval activities like HIIT or weight lifting. Trying to use an HRM to estimate calories burned for anything OTHER than steady state cardio is a fool's game.
I don't really like to get into back and forth on here, but no.
Caloric expenditure occurs when you inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
So to estimate how many calories you burn you have to know how much oxygen you go through. Oxygen intake is loosely (and that is the part I agree with you on with HRMs not being exact) correlate with heart rate, so if you can monitor your heart rate, you are essentially monitoring oxygen intake/usage. VO2Max is something most HRMs take into consideration which measures how many milliliters of oxygen per minutes your body is taking in and transferring into the blood. So by tracking your Heart Rate, it can loosely track your VO2Max which is why you can track calorie expenditure watching that horror film regardless if you are sitting around or doing squats. Clearly doing the squats will increase your oxygen intake, therefore raising your heart rate and burning more calories.
Oxygen uptake and breathing are not the same thing.
And while doing squats does increase heart rate, it does not increase oxygen uptake to the same degree that increasing heart rate via an activity like running does.
Heart rate is closely related to oxygen uptake only under limited circumstances--steady-state aerobic activity. In all other conditions, heart rate (and thus HRMs) are not reliable indicators.
The research shows this. Clearly.0 -
post deleted out of failure to communicate in words the ramblings happening in my head. carry on0
-
This is not true. Calories burned are a direct correlation of your heart rate. So in your example of a scary movie raising your heart rate, you actually WOULD burn more calories then watching say a documentary that kept your heart rate lower. We are splitting hairs however as the difference between the two would be very minimal. Your calorie burn is related to oxygen intake and carbon dioxide exhaust. The faster your heart beats, the faster that process occurs therefore increasing your calorie burn.
Actually you are completely incorrect. Calories burned is a direct correlation to the amount of work (using the word in its scientific meaning) being performed by your muscles. *BY DEFINITION*
Heart rate monitors can approximate that amount for steady state cardio. However, even the manufacturers of HRMs will tell you that they are wildly inaccurate for interval activities like HIIT or weight lifting. Trying to use an HRM to estimate calories burned for anything OTHER than steady state cardio is a fool's game.
I don't really like to get into back and forth on here, but no.
Caloric expenditure occurs when you inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
So to estimate how many calories you burn you have to know how much oxygen you go through. Oxygen intake is loosely (and that is the part I agree with you on with HRMs not being exact) correlate with heart rate, so if you can monitor your heart rate, you are essentially monitoring oxygen intake/usage. VO2Max is something most HRMs take into consideration which measures how many milliliters of oxygen per minutes your body is taking in and transferring into the blood. So by tracking your Heart Rate, it can loosely track your VO2Max which is why you can track calorie expenditure watching that horror film regardless if you are sitting around or doing squats. Clearly doing the squats will increase your oxygen intake, therefore raising your heart rate and burning more calories.
so if you're holding your breath you can't burn calories?
Assuming you were able to hold your breath forever? yes that would be true...but you would eventually release your breath...if you didn't, you would be dead and there would be no calorie burn as there would no longer be oxygen exchange.
Several replies have occurred while I was at lunch and again, I'm not here to debate.
If you don't believe me, read up on it. I never said I'm smarter than scientists who hold doctorates. As a matter of fact, the places I learned this from were those scientists.
The bottom line is that higher heart rate will burn more calories. Don't believe me? take 2 people running at the same speed for the same distance. Both are the same sex, height and weight but one is extremely out of shape while the other is a marathon runner. Because the runner is conditioned and able to run at that output with less effort, he takes in less oxygen, produces less carbon dioxide and therefore has a lower heart rate burning less calories than the out of shape person who is sucking wind and has a very high heart rate.
In a way, some of the things we are saying are very similar, but the fact you mention no scientist is able to identify calorie burn while lifting is silly to me. Is it easier to track constant state cardio? absolutely....is it impossible to track weight lifting calorie burn? not at all0 -
Here is an article that talks about weight lifting and weight loss.Studies have demonstrated that after a weight training workout, the metabolism can be boosted for up to 36 hours post-workout, meaning rather than burning say 60 calories an hour while sitting and watching TV, you're burning 70. While you may think, 'Big deal - 10 extra calories', when you multiply this by 36 hours, you can see what a huge difference that makes in your daily calorie expenditure over that day and a half.One issue you're more than likely thinking about is the different calorie burns during the actual workout - that's got to count for something, right?
That is correct. If you do a longer cardio session, you could burn somewhere in the neighbourhood of 500-800 calories, depending on the exact length and intensity level. That is a fairly decent number and will definitely help with your fat loss goals.
Since you must burn off 3500 calories in order to lose one pound of body fat, if you do enough of these cardio sessions, and make sure you're not eating these calories back, weight loss will take place.
But, keep in mind here again that you are going to have to keep doing those long cardio sessions. Time will likely become a big factor with this one, as well as boredom could start to play a role over time as well.
While the weight training session may not burn as many calories minute per minute during the actual workout (although that too can depend on how intense the weight lifting is), the overall calorie burning benefits you receive from it typically outweigh that of cardio.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/fat_loss_training_wars.htm
It recommends both cardio and weight training (as many trainers do) but also says you can lose your weight with only weight training. Obviously a more well rounded approach is good, but the point is made. From personal experience this is right on as it applies to me. I also like the fact that when you put on muscle your BMR will be higher than if you do not have it and you can eat more.0 -
It's not cardio...0
-
lol at people thinking weightlifting burns a lot of calories.
If it makes you feel good to make fun of those that are just learning, then you have issues.
to those who actually helped answer my question and offered some advise and took the time to explain to me, i truly appreciate it...but to you sir, go blow a goat.
I wasn't even talking about those just learning, i'm loling at people who thing weightlifting burns a lot of calories [because of perceived effort].
But really, I don't care, I laugh at most people on this site for thinking weight loss is rocket science.
be prepared for the rustling of jimmies0 -
I'm sure others will beat me to the punch, but this is utterly ridiculous. I wish weight lifting burned more calories than Cardio but it simply does not. I do it for other benefits, but when I lift I know I am not getting much in terms of calorie burn.Lifting uses a lot more calories than cardio. Add a barbell to the numbers below, and it's kinda ridiculous how underestimated lifting is.http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/01/do-we-systematically-underestimate.html
For Mr. Average Joe with a body weight of 80kg, this would mean that his 30 minutes body weight workout doesn't consume 288kcal, but 576kcal and thus way more than 30min of jogging, which should cost him ~400kcal.
Bottom line: I guess I don't have to tell you that these results are very important. Not for you, obviously, because you as a SuppVersity reader know about the fallacy of working out to burn energy, but for all those Average Joes and specifically Janes out there who still believe that you'd lose weight by simply burning all the junk you eat off in the gym.
Cardio "addicts" would yet not be the only ones for whom these results - if they turn out to be substantial - would have huge consequences. The average "expert" on the panels we owe the wise dietary and exercise guidelines to, would probably also have to revise his opinion on the primary of "cardio" exercise for its "superior ability to help shed weight"... unfortunately, my gut tells me that I am the only one who even noticed the (future) publication of this paper in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning.
I suggest finding out your TDEE, and adjusting your daily total intake off that. If you want to log your cardio exercises, and get comments from friends, just put them as 1 calorie burned.0 -
The weightlifting calorie burns in MFP are wrong. Pure and simple.
It's a difficult thing to actually measure without a HRM, and even then varies a lot depending on types of exercise done, rep ranges, etc.
This is why the TDEE method is useful0 -
I'm sure others will beat me to the punch, but this is utterly ridiculous. I wish weight lifting burned more calories than Cardio but it simply does not. I do it for other benefits, but when I lift I know I am not getting much in terms of calorie burn.
And this is an argument you can see a dozen times a day on body building forms. People on both sides rarely will bend to the other point because both are incredibly effective. I lose more weight when I lift so I like it. Maybe it just means I try harder when I lift, though it feels to me like I put everything into the cardio I do. Really I think the answer is to do both for all the benefits they bring. Losing weight will certainly happen if you have your intake under control.0 -
The weightlifting calorie burns in MFP are wrong. Pure and simple.
It's a difficult thing to actually measure without a HRM, and even then varies a lot depending on types of exercise done, rep ranges, etc.
This is why the TDEE method is useful
^THIS - HRM is the only way to know. Plus...as it probably has been said (at work no time to read all the crap) if your building muscle, your body will burn more calories in the run. FACT0 -
idk, I stopped using my HRM, I use the burns here. but whatever...Forever bulk0
-
The weightlifting calorie burns in MFP are wrong. Pure and simple.
It's a difficult thing to actually measure without a HRM, and even then varies a lot depending on types of exercise done, rep ranges, etc.
This is why the TDEE method is useful
^THIS - HRM is the only way to know. Plus...as it probably has been said (at work no time to read all the crap) if your building muscle, your body will burn more calories in the run. FACT
Nope, HRMs are not accurate for weight lifting. This has been covered over and over again.0 -
However, weight lifting involves a whole lot of variables: how much weight you're lifting,
This one matters for caloric expenditure.how long you're resting,
This one doesn't matter for caloric expenditure.the current strength of your muscles in relation to that weight,
This one doesn't matter for caloric expenditure.which muscles specifically are being used,
This one doesn't matter for caloric expenditure.are you lifting with explosive or slow movements,
This one does matter - the slower you go, the more you burn.are you concentrating on slow eccentric movements, etc.
Doesn't matter for caloric expenditure.
All those factors will affect how much weight you can move, and for how many reps. But for any individual rep most of them just don't matter. There's no great mystery here - weightlifting is just exerting a specific force across a specific distance - physics tells us the energy cost with considerable precision.
Like the FunnyPants guy posted earlier- it's really not rocket science.0 -
The weightlifting calorie burns in MFP are wrong. Pure and simple.
It's a difficult thing to actually measure without a HRM, and even then varies a lot depending on types of exercise done, rep ranges, etc.
This is why the TDEE method is useful
^THIS - HRM is the only way to know.
Absolute nonsense.
HRMs are a DISASTER at estimating calorie burns for activities like weightlifting. This is well covered territory, there are literally hundreds of MFP threads explaining why.0 -
This is not true. Calories burned are a direct correlation of your heart rate. So in your example of a scary movie raising your heart rate, you actually WOULD burn more calories then watching say a documentary that kept your heart rate lower. We are splitting hairs however as the difference between the two would be very minimal. Your calorie burn is related to oxygen intake and carbon dioxide exhaust. The faster your heart beats, the faster that process occurs therefore increasing your calorie burn.
Actually you are completely incorrect. Calories burned is a direct correlation to the amount of work (using the word in its scientific meaning) being performed by your muscles. *BY DEFINITION*
Heart rate monitors can approximate that amount for steady state cardio. However, even the manufacturers of HRMs will tell you that they are wildly inaccurate for interval activities like HIIT or weight lifting. Trying to use an HRM to estimate calories burned for anything OTHER than steady state cardio is a fool's game.
I don't really like to get into back and forth on here, but no.
Caloric expenditure occurs when you inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
So to estimate how many calories you burn you have to know how much oxygen you go through. Oxygen intake is loosely (and that is the part I agree with you on with HRMs not being exact) correlate with heart rate, so if you can monitor your heart rate, you are essentially monitoring oxygen intake/usage. VO2Max is something most HRMs take into consideration which measures how many milliliters of oxygen per minutes your body is taking in and transferring into the blood. So by tracking your Heart Rate, it can loosely track your VO2Max which is why you can track calorie expenditure watching that horror film regardless if you are sitting around or doing squats. Clearly doing the squats will increase your oxygen intake, therefore raising your heart rate and burning more calories.
so if you're holding your breath you can't burn calories?
Assuming you were able to hold your breath forever? yes that would be true...but you would eventually release your breath...if you didn't, you would be dead and there would be no calorie burn as there would no longer be oxygen exchange.
Several replies have occurred while I was at lunch and again, I'm not here to debate. If you don't believe me, read up on it. I never said I'm smarter than scientists who hold doctorates. As a matter of fact, the places I learned this from were those scientists.
The bottom line is that higher heart rate will burn more calories. Don't believe me? take 2 people running at the same speed for the same distance. Both are the same sex, height and weight but one is extremely out of shape while the other is a marathon runner. Because the runner is conditioned and able to run at that output with less effort, he takes in less oxygen, produces less carbon dioxide and therefore has a lower heart rate burning less calories than the out of shape person who is sucking wind and has a very high heart rate.
In a way, some of the things we are saying are very similar, but the fact you mention no scientist is able to identify calorie burn while lifting is silly to me. Is it easier to track constant state cardio? absolutely....is it impossible to track weight lifting calorie burn? not at all
Good try-- but still no.0 -
use a polar HRM watch. then you will know
on a good leg day i can burn up to 500 calories wihtout any cardio machines at all 0 -
Here's how i would look at weight lifting if I were you.
1. You can lose weight on diet alone. You really can. You could not work out a single day and sit in your computer chair playing daiblo for hours but if you eat at a calorie deficit you will still lose weight
2. Just sitting on your butt playing diablo isn't a good day if that's all you do. Your body need exercise to be healthy and if you are eating at a calorie deficit you will lose muscle if you don't use it. Muscle is an expensive commodity for your body to maintain, it'll ditch it if you don't use it. You can even improve stength even though you won't notice significant muscle gains.
3. After you get to your goal weight, keep lifting heavy and increase your food intake, start building that muscle mass. That dream body you want isn't just hiding under the fat, you have to work hard to build that dream body. That applies to men or women.0 -
This is not true. Calories burned are a direct correlation of your heart rate. So in your example of a scary movie raising your heart rate, you actually WOULD burn more calories then watching say a documentary that kept your heart rate lower. We are splitting hairs however as the difference between the two would be very minimal. Your calorie burn is related to oxygen intake and carbon dioxide exhaust. The faster your heart beats, the faster that process occurs therefore increasing your calorie burn.
Actually you are completely incorrect. Calories burned is a direct correlation to the amount of work (using the word in its scientific meaning) being performed by your muscles. *BY DEFINITION*
Heart rate monitors can approximate that amount for steady state cardio. However, even the manufacturers of HRMs will tell you that they are wildly inaccurate for interval activities like HIIT or weight lifting. Trying to use an HRM to estimate calories burned for anything OTHER than steady state cardio is a fool's game.
I don't really like to get into back and forth on here, but no.
Caloric expenditure occurs when you inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
So to estimate how many calories you burn you have to know how much oxygen you go through. Oxygen intake is loosely (and that is the part I agree with you on with HRMs not being exact) correlate with heart rate, so if you can monitor your heart rate, you are essentially monitoring oxygen intake/usage. VO2Max is something most HRMs take into consideration which measures how many milliliters of oxygen per minutes your body is taking in and transferring into the blood. So by tracking your Heart Rate, it can loosely track your VO2Max which is why you can track calorie expenditure watching that horror film regardless if you are sitting around or doing squats. Clearly doing the squats will increase your oxygen intake, therefore raising your heart rate and burning more calories.
so if you're holding your breath you can't burn calories?
Assuming you were able to hold your breath forever? yes that would be true...but you would eventually release your breath...if you didn't, you would be dead and there would be no calorie burn as there would no longer be oxygen exchange.
Several replies have occurred while I was at lunch and again, I'm not here to debate. If you don't believe me, read up on it. I never said I'm smarter than scientists who hold doctorates. As a matter of fact, the places I learned this from were those scientists.
The bottom line is that higher heart rate will burn more calories. Don't believe me? take 2 people running at the same speed for the same distance. Both are the same sex, height and weight but one is extremely out of shape while the other is a marathon runner. Because the runner is conditioned and able to run at that output with less effort, he takes in less oxygen, produces less carbon dioxide and therefore has a lower heart rate burning less calories than the out of shape person who is sucking wind and has a very high heart rate.
In a way, some of the things we are saying are very similar, but the fact you mention no scientist is able to identify calorie burn while lifting is silly to me. Is it easier to track constant state cardio? absolutely....is it impossible to track weight lifting calorie burn? not at all
Good try-- but still no.
There's more things to consider than just heart weight. I weigh 250 lbs and I'm 5'8, when compared to a smaller person, let's say someone who weights 140 and is only 5'4. If we run together at the same speed, I am burning more calories per second maintaining that speed then the person that only weighs 140. Why is it? There's a lot more of me to move and there's this thing called gravity.
Let's talk heart rate now. Let's say I'm running with a man that's my age and height and we're both on the same elliptical. We both are shooting for the same target heart rate, which is based on age and gender, let's say 155. I weigh 250 he weights 150. We both are working at the same target heart rate, who's going to burn more?0 -
I can tell at least some lifting burns calories because if I do a strong compound lift workout I get hungry. I can tell it's doing SOMETHING after I stop because I maintain increased vascularity and my limb diameter actually goes up. The body is doing SOMETHING to cause those responses. It is definitely doing more than the nil-ish burn MFP says. I can also infer that it does SOMETHING to your daily requirements because I know huge bodybuilders that eat thousands of extra calories and don't do significant cardio and they aren't getting fatter.0
-
weight lifting doesn't burn all that many calories...it is really not the purpose of resistance training. You do resistance training so that you look awesome when you've shed the fat...it is a long term investment in your overall body composition (among other things).
This.
Sometimes it's easy to get caught up in the game that is MFP. Burning calories becomes like earning points in a video game. But you've got to take a step back and realize that the end goal is not to win the MFP game but to actual improve your health and you appearance. Weight lifting does that even if it doesn't contribute much to the game.
Thank you for saying this! I am finding myself becoming that calorie obsessed person and I need to cool it. I don't want this attempt to end up like all of the others where I'm fixated on every calorie I burn. I haven't started weight lifting yet, but this is something I definitely want to start.0 -
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say most people here dont TRAIN like a bodybuilder[powerlifter,strongman,athlete], but since they feel tired and sweaty ect think they are burning a lot more than they actually are.
When I do 6 sets of squats leading up to a 5x3 of my working set around 90% of my 1rm, obviously I am burning some calories.0 -
wait- are you meaning to say people think that being sweaty = a good workout??
say it isn't so!!!!0 -
This content has been removed.
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
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions