Weight Training

ar1ms

How does weight training help with weight loss? It doesn't burn that many calories so I'm confused.

SJCon

It is the after burn to recover from the muscle stress. Also maintaining muscle burns a lot of calories while fat does not.

_granola

Weight training makes you strong and helps maintain the muscle you already have while dieting. It's also fun as hell.

chris2365

And a toned body just looks better. You need not worry about bulking up, you'd have to do massive amounts of training a week (and have the correct genetics) to do that.

True, weight training doesn't burn as many calories as some things when you're doing it, but a body that has more muscle burns more calories a day. That means that all things being equal, a woman who's a size 12 but has muscle can eat a fair amount more per day than a woman who's a size 12 but doesn't have much muscle.

There's functional fitness too as well as the psycholoical effects of getting stronger - you just feel more confident, you can do more.

DeathKitty23

the more muscle you have the more calories your body will burn in a rested state
I think it's somethign like 50 cals per pound of muscle or something lol

Beeps2011

I think weight-training contributes to a change in your body SHAPE....not quite the same thing as weight-loss. Weight-loss is only about having a deficit in your calories (meaning: you are burning more energy than you are ingesting).

mmapags

Weight training is one of the best fat burning activities you can do. The burn during is not the primary benefit but the demand for calories based on EPOC (the metabolic afterburn effect) and for tissue recovery and repair is significant!
An interesting article from nerdfitness that goes into some detail on the fat burning characteristics of various form of exercise
including weight training. http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/

And some additional info on resistance training combined with endurance training for fat loss.
http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/WT&End.html

mmapags

the more muscle you have the more calories your body will burn in a rested state
I think it's somethign like 50 cals per pound of muscle or something lol

It's actually somewhere between 6 and 11 calories per pound of lean muscle mass based on recent research. Good but not a primary benefit.

SJCon

the more muscle you have the more calories your body will burn in a rested state
I think it's somethign like 50 cals per pound of muscle or something lol

40 to 120 depending on muscle and person is a reasonable estimate from a few years ago. Another reason the calorie in out thing is not a very precise accounting problem LOL

ixap

It helps to preserve your existing muscle while you are dieting to lose fat.
If you only diet, you risk losing a lot of muscle along with the fat.

This is what happened to me when I lost my pregnancy weight. I got down to my old weight but was a full dress/pants size bigger, and had jiggly arms/ tummy/ thighs, because I was at a higher percentage of body fat than previously.

After adding weight training, I was able to drop a few pounds and a size, and then I dropped another entire size WITHOUT losing any pounds (by losing mostly fat and then gaining a little muscle). And no more jiggling.

Jynus

it does not help with weight loss.

It helps with fat loss...

weight is not the same thing as fat.

monty619

How does weight training help with weight loss? It doesn't burn that many calories so I'm confused.

lemme just set the facts strait with one statement..

if aesthetics is the goal resistance training is far more important than cardiovascular exercise.

DIET is above anything else if you are worried about weight loss.. but if you wanna look good you need to lift weights to give your body shape.

monty619

it does not help with weight loss.

It helps with fat loss...

weight is not the same thing as fat.

dumb statement.

conkle23

Monty is correct though

I believe its 80% Diet, and 20% Exercise.

Everyone is different, and everyone's body is different.

You do not have to life, you can do all cardio. But you will not give your body that fit, lean shape that some people do want.

FoodandFitness

In my opinion, the hierarchy of exercises for fat loss are:

1. Preserves lean mass, increases metabolism, burns calories: weight lifting, sprints, heavy stuff will accomplish all 3.
2. Increases metabolism, burns calories: aerobics and "cardio" which burn calories and increases metabolism with post exercise o2 consumption
3. Burns calories- active lifestyle, walking, gardening, etc.

Weightlifting is really one of the best things you can do for your body. A serious weight training session actually does burn a lot of calories. You will sculpt your body, get strong, improve your posture, increase your bone density, and just be cool because of it. Lift weights. You won't regret it.

mmapags

the more muscle you have the more calories your body will burn in a rested state
I think it's somethign like 50 cals per pound of muscle or something lol

40 to 120 depending on muscle and person is a reasonable estimate from a few years ago. Another reason the calorie in out thing is not a very precise accounting problem LOL

Not sure where you are coming up with this but see the link to a Livestrong article that references Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance"; William McArdle; 2001 He is one of the originators of the Katch McArdle BMI index and connsidered authoritative. He says 6.5 calories per hour.

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/310070-how-many-calories-does-a-pound-of-muscle-burn-per-day/#ixzz28Qd2lo8Y

ArroganceInStep

It doesn't







It helps you look better after you've lost weight

kiachu

Of course it helps. Your using energy. But that depends on your intensity.

waldo56

It doesn't burn that many calories so I'm confused.

This is flat out false. Anyone that has ever tried to put on muscle mass knows that for the most part people grossly underestimate the calorie burn of strength training.

Yes you don't spend long doing it, most of the time is rest. However the chemical reaction that creates the usable energy from fuel is 18x less efficient at producing energy than it is when doing cardio exercise (this is basic science, look it up). Plus the small bursts of when you go, you use quite a bit more energy than a comparable time doing cardio, assuming you are actually using difficult weights.

Someone above said EPOC. That is incorrect, EPOC is oxygen demand making up an oxygen deficit, as what happens with high intensity cardo intervals. In general it is a short lived and small phenomenon, bordering on irrelevant. However the calorie cost of recovery from all the muscle damage is significant (though likely highly partitioned to protein, hence the need for elevated protein), bordering on a 10-15% raise in your measurable resting metabolism every day your body is recovering (my personal data indicates this, others have validated this with their own info).

Just because MFP's strength training # is laughable doesn't mean it is in reality. The circuit training or high effort calisthenics entries are much better estmates of the real strength training calorie burn than the strength training one. And ditch your HRM, it is designed to measure the calorie burn of steady state aerobic exercise, they do a poor job of measuring periodic anaerobic exercise burn (miss low).

And science doesn't have much to say about this either. Its just as impossible to measure in a lab. About the only way to measure it is indirectly. Eat maintenence for a while and strength train, measure how much weight you're losing and calculate the calorie burn from that. Given how long that method takes and the virtual impossibility of getting good data from the average population (the average population is not accuracy and data obsessed), that's more a dieter/bodybuilder with a great personal dataset thing than a research thing.

ArroganceInStep

It doesn't burn that many calories so I'm confused.

This is flat out false. Anyone that has ever tried to put on muscle mass knows that for the most part people grossly underestimate the calorie burn of strength training.

Yes you don't spend long doing it, most of the time is rest. However the chemical reaction that creates the usable energy from fuel is 18x less efficient at producing energy than it is when doing cardio exercise (this is basic science, look it up). Plus the small bursts of when you go, you use quite a bit more energy than a comparable time doing cardio, assuming you are actually using difficult weights.

Someone above said EPOC. That is incorrect, EPOC is oxygen demand making up an oxygen deficit, as what happens with high intensity cardo intervals. In general it is a short lived and small phenomenon, bordering on irrelevant. However the calorie cost of recovery from all the muscle damage is significant (though likely highly partitioned to protein, hence the need for elevated protein), bordering on a 10-15% raise in your measurable resting metabolism every day your body is recovering (my personal data indicates this, others have validated this with their own info).

Just because MFP's strength training # is laughable doesn't mean it is in reality. The circuit training or high effort calisthenics entries are much better estmates of the real strength training calorie burn than the strength training one. And ditch your HRM, it is designed to measure the calorie burn of steady state aerobic exercise, they do a poor job of measuring periodic anaerobic exercise burn (miss low).

And science doesn't have much to say about this either. Its just as impossible to measure in a lab. About the only way to measure it is indirectly. Eat maintenence for a while and strength train, measure how much weight you're losing and calculate the calorie burn from that. Given how long that method takes and the virtual impossibility of getting good data from the average population (the average population is not accuracy and data obsessed), that's more a dieter/bodybuilder with a great personal dataset thing than a research thing.

Although the calorie burn from weight training is not insignificant, I don't think calorie burn from exercise really matters that much when compared with diet.

waldo56

Although the calorie burn from weight training is not insignificant, I don't think calorie burn from exercise really matters that much when compared with diet.

This is highly dependant on how much you exercise and how much weight you have to lose.

100 lbs to go and 20 minutes of walking and it doesn't matter.

5 lbs to go and 2 hours of moderate-high intensity exercise, and it matters A LOT. Ignore your exercise calories or miss very low and you're going to plateau and/or lose muscle mass.

SJCon

the more muscle you have the more calories your body will burn in a rested state
I think it's somethign like 50 cals per pound of muscle or something lol

40 to 120 depending on muscle and person is a reasonable estimate from a few years ago. Another reason the calorie in out thing is not a very precise accounting problem LOL

Not sure where you are coming up with this but see the link to a Livestrong article that references Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance"; William McArdle; 2001 He is one of the originators of the Katch McArdle BMI index and connsidered authoritative. He says 6.5 calories per hour.

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/310070-how-many-calories-does-a-pound-of-muscle-burn-per-day/#ixzz28Qd2lo8Y

Sorry did not realize we were talking about an hour my number is for a day and I am senior so I may not remeber right but think fat was around 6 cal burn per day. Sorry If i misunderstood the 50 calorie context.

ArroganceInStep

Although the calorie burn from weight training is not insignificant, I don't think calorie burn from exercise really matters that much when compared with diet.

This is highly dependant on how much you exercise and how much weight you have to lose.

100 lbs to go and 20 minutes of walking and it doesn't matter.

5 lbs to go and 2 hours of moderate-high intensity exercise, and it matters A LOT. Ignore your exercise calories or miss very low and you're going to plateau and/or lose muscle mass.

My point is that, although you are right, the issue of precision often outweighs the difference. You burned 300 calories lifting weights? Chances are the nutrition post for that subway sub was off by a lot because the server put a little more meat on it than the average and those are just averages anyway. People are FAR more likely to overestimate calorie expenditure and underestimate calorie intake than to get it right. With that taken into consideration, unless you are vigorously training for multiple hours a day on a very regular basis (and at that point just up your activity level in the TDEE calculation), I don't think it plays as large of a role.

It's a matter of preference at the end of the day. Whatever works. Either way resistance training is good for you.

mmapags

It doesn't burn that many calories so I'm confused.

This is flat out false. Anyone that has ever tried to put on muscle mass knows that for the most part people grossly underestimate the calorie burn of strength training.

Yes you don't spend long doing it, most of the time is rest. However the chemical reaction that creates the usable energy from fuel is 18x less efficient at producing energy than it is when doing cardio exercise (this is basic science, look it up). Plus the small bursts of when you go, you use quite a bit more energy than a comparable time doing cardio, assuming you are actually using difficult weights.

Someone above said EPOC. That is incorrect, EPOC is oxygen demand making up an oxygen deficit, as what happens with high intensity cardo intervals. In general it is a short lived and small phenomenon, bordering on irrelevant. However the calorie cost of recovery from all the muscle damage is significant (though likely highly partitioned to protein, hence the need for elevated protein), bordering on a 10-15% raise in your measurable resting metabolism every day your body is recovering (my personal data indicates this, others have validated this with their own info).

Just because MFP's strength training # is laughable doesn't mean it is in reality. The circuit training or high effort calisthenics entries are much better estmates of the real strength training calorie burn than the strength training one. And ditch your HRM, it is designed to measure the calorie burn of steady state aerobic exercise, they do a poor job of measuring periodic anaerobic exercise burn (miss low).

And science doesn't have much to say about this either. Its just as impossible to measure in a lab. About the only way to measure it is indirectly. Eat maintenence for a while and strength train, measure how much weight you're losing and calculate the calorie burn from that. Given how long that method takes and the virtual impossibility of getting good data from the average population (the average population is not accuracy and data obsessed), that's more a dieter/bodybuilder with a great personal dataset thing than a research thing.

Awesome post waldo! I was the one who mentioned EPOC I think and thanks for the perspective on that. I always thought it odd when someone like say, Lyle McDonald, would refer to EPOC in regard to weight training. It did seem like a term more geared for cardio.

mmapags

Although the calorie burn from weight training is not insignificant, I don't think calorie burn from exercise really matters that much when compared with diet.

This is highly dependant on how much you exercise and how much weight you have to lose.

100 lbs to go and 20 minutes of walking and it doesn't matter.

5 lbs to go and 2 hours of moderate-high intensity exercise, and it matters A LOT. Ignore your exercise calories or miss very low and you're going to plateau and/or lose muscle mass.

My point is that, although you are right, the issue of precision often outweighs the difference. You burned 300 calories lifting weights? Chances are the nutrition post for that subway sub was off by a lot because the server put a little more meat on it than the average and those are just averages anyway. People are FAR more likely to overestimate calorie expenditure and underestimate calorie intake than to get it right. With that taken into consideration, unless you are vigorously training for multiple hours a day on a very regular basis (and at that point just up your activity level in the TDEE calculation), I don't think it plays as large of a role.

It's a matter of preference at the end of the day. Whatever works. Either way resistance training is good for you.

So how do you factor in increased calorie demand for recovery. And strength training intensity? Believe me, I get where you are coming from. There is little defintive data showing the overall calorie cost of strength training over a week. I wish there was. I know it is just anecdotal but my personal experience jives with what waldo said.

Big_Daddy6

Lifting heavy crap DOES burn alot of calories. I burn from 500-1200 5 days a week with weight lifting according to my HRM but it has to be intense. If it's light weight and easy it will not burn alot.

mmapags

Sorry did not realize we were talking about an hour my number is for a day and I am senior so I may not remeber right but think fat was around 6 cal burn per day. Sorry If i misunderstood the 50 calorie context.

It was never defined as a day or an hour and I was going with the default in the memory bank. I am also a senior at 61 but, even though the memory back isn't as good as it used to be, denial of age impaiment still is working just fine!!