Does strength exercise ever increase calories for the day?

crisanderson27

I mean I put in bicep curls (and triceps, back, chest, etc) in the exercise on this site and it didn't effect my calories. I was just wondering if the site doesn't count that as burning calories or if I'm missing something.

I don't know, but I wonder if it's got to do with the whole muscle being denser than fat issue...

You are burning fat, but you are INCREASING you muscle mass (which weighs more per cubic inch than fat), so while you maybe getting THINNER you may not be getting any LIGHTER... So calories burned would not contribute toward weight loss.... Does this make sense to anybody else? I really just made this up trying to figure it out.

No, it's simply the way MFP sets up their system. Calories burned is listed under cardio, weights and reps under strength.

Also, to correct something you mentioned (I understand you're just stumbling through...that's ok!), you're never actually going to gain muscle while eating at a calorie deficit. Yes, you can firm your existing muscle, yes, sometimes this makes it look 'bigger' (along with cellular swelling from water retention)...but you didn't actually gain anything.

mfpcopine

I've read articles that have said that the notion that strength training will turn the ordinary person's body into into a 24/7 calorie-blasting furnace is major hype. There's apparently a modest increase in calorie burning capacity that lasts for a short time after exercise.

This is NOT to say that strength training isn't important. As someone else said, cardio may give you more bang for the buck if you want to eat more.

crisanderson27

I've read articles that have said that the notion that strength training will turn the ordinary person's body into into a 24/7 calorie-blasting furnace is major hype. There's apparently a modest increase in calorie burning capacity that lasts for a short time after exercise.

This is NOT to say that strength training isn't important. As someone else said, cardio may give you more bang for the buck if you want to eat more.

The thing about it is this...cardio doesn't give the same kind of hormonal response that heavy strength training gives. Calories in vs calories out is the ONLY thing that matters for weight loss, but there's some VERY real benifits to fat loss with strength training that you just don't get with cardio.

auntiebabs

I mean I put in bicep curls (and triceps, back, chest, etc) in the exercise on this site and it didn't effect my calories. I was just wondering if the site doesn't count that as burning calories or if I'm missing something.

I don't know, but I wonder if it's got to do with the whole muscle being denser than fat issue...

You are burning fat, but you are INCREASING you muscle mass (which weighs more per cubic inch than fat), so while you maybe getting THINNER you may not be getting any LIGHTER... So calories burned would not contribute toward weight loss.... Does this make sense to anybody else? I really just made this up trying to figure it out.

No, it's simply the way MFP sets up their system. Calories burned is listed under cardio, weights and reps under strength.

Also, to correct something you mentioned (I understand you're just stumbling through...that's ok!), you're never actually going to gain muscle while eating at a calorie deficit. Yes, you can firm your existing muscle, yes, sometimes this makes it look 'bigger' (along with cellular swelling from water retention)...but you didn't actually gain anything.

Thanks,
I gotta a question re:

you're never actually going to gain muscle while eating at a calorie deficit.

What if I'm not eating at a deficit? I hit my weight goal and am eating at maintenance and trying to firm up a bit.

I'm just trying to figure things out from my past experience.
When ever I came off of a sedentary spell and threw myself into activity. (winter --> summer)
I wasn't intentionally dieting...
I'd always gain 5 lbs in the first few weeks, then lose 5 lbs in the few weeks after that. I always sort of assume it was muscle increase, followed by fat decrease. I'd end up the same weight, but be a more compact me.

crisanderson27

I mean I put in bicep curls (and triceps, back, chest, etc) in the exercise on this site and it didn't effect my calories. I was just wondering if the site doesn't count that as burning calories or if I'm missing something.

I don't know, but I wonder if it's got to do with the whole muscle being denser than fat issue...

You are burning fat, but you are INCREASING you muscle mass (which weighs more per cubic inch than fat), so while you maybe getting THINNER you may not be getting any LIGHTER... So calories burned would not contribute toward weight loss.... Does this make sense to anybody else? I really just made this up trying to figure it out.

No, it's simply the way MFP sets up their system. Calories burned is listed under cardio, weights and reps under strength.

Also, to correct something you mentioned (I understand you're just stumbling through...that's ok!), you're never actually going to gain muscle while eating at a calorie deficit. Yes, you can firm your existing muscle, yes, sometimes this makes it look 'bigger' (along with cellular swelling from water retention)...but you didn't actually gain anything.

Thanks,
I gotta a question re:

you're never actually going to gain muscle while eating at a calorie deficit.

What if I'm not eating at a deficit? I hit my weight goal and am eating at maintenance and trying to firm up a bit.

I'm just trying to figure things out from my past experience.
When ever I came off of a sedentary spell and threw myself into activity. (winter --> summer)
I wasn't intentionally dieting...
I'd always gain 5 lbs in the first few weeks, then lose 5 lbs in the few weeks after that. I always sort of assume it was muscle increase, followed by fat decrease. I'd end up the same weight, but be a more compact me.

Maintenance is still going to act like a deficit unless your calculations are way off and you're overfeeding.

That weght you gain in the first few weeks is just your body holding onto water to repair/destress the muscles. Picture your muscles swelling with water (like a dry sponge when you get it wet) on a cellular level, and you'll get the idea. Often this is why girls think they've gained muscle too, those mucles can look visibly bigger.

tmpayton

i've had the same ???

mdcjmom

Strength training you have to add under cardio too. Also if you have an hrm monitor it is best to use that when you are doing your stregth training to get an accurate calorie burn.

auntiebabs

I mean I put in bicep curls (and triceps, back, chest, etc) in the exercise on this site and it didn't effect my calories. I was just wondering if the site doesn't count that as burning calories or if I'm missing something.

I don't know, but I wonder if it's got to do with the whole muscle being denser than fat issue...

You are burning fat, but you are INCREASING you muscle mass (which weighs more per cubic inch than fat), so while you maybe getting THINNER you may not be getting any LIGHTER... So calories burned would not contribute toward weight loss.... Does this make sense to anybody else? I really just made this up trying to figure it out.

No, it's simply the way MFP sets up their system. Calories burned is listed under cardio, weights and reps under strength.

Also, to correct something you mentioned (I understand you're just stumbling through...that's ok!), you're never actually going to gain muscle while eating at a calorie deficit. Yes, you can firm your existing muscle, yes, sometimes this makes it look 'bigger' (along with cellular swelling from water retention)...but you didn't actually gain anything.

Thanks,
I gotta a question re:

you're never actually going to gain muscle while eating at a calorie deficit.

What if I'm not eating at a deficit? I hit my weight goal and am eating at maintenance and trying to firm up a bit.

I'm just trying to figure things out from my past experience.
When ever I came off of a sedentary spell and threw myself into activity. (winter --> summer)
I wasn't intentionally dieting...
I'd always gain 5 lbs in the first few weeks, then lose 5 lbs in the few weeks after that. I always sort of assume it was muscle increase, followed by fat decrease. I'd end up the same weight, but be a more compact me.

Maintenance is still going to act like a deficit unless your calculations are way off and you're overfeeding.

That weght you gain in the first few weeks is just your body holding onto water to repair/destress the muscles. Picture your muscles swelling with water (like a dry sponge when you get it wet) on a cellular level, and you'll get the idea. Often this is why girls think they've gained muscle too, those mucles can look visibly bigger.

Thanks