Strength Training

kermiehiho

I noticed that logging cardio will result in increased allowance of calorie, protein, etc. count on this thing, but logging strength training does not. Does anyone know if strength training does indeed burn calories and call for increased protein intake? I'd imagine one should consume more protein to help rebuild the muscles being worked out, but I'm no doctor or personal trainer.

spritie

Strength training does generally create a greater need for protein. While this isn't done by MFP a good guide for protein intake is actually grams/kg body weight (Australian so only know the metric version sorry). Generally for sedentary people around the 0.8g-1g/kgbw is sufficient, for active individuals who do moderate exercise 1.2g-1.4g/kgbw is good (that would be most people on here). For highly active individuals 1.6g/kgbw can be consumed.

I know this goes against what some body building sites state, however too much protein is impossible for the body to process and can damage your kidneys. Adequate fluid intake is also needed.

So if your getting around the 1.2-1.6g.kgbw - regardless of the type of exercise your doing you should be fine regardless of if its cardio or strength training.

Mojo_34

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist.htm

SHBoss1673

I agree with a lot of what spritie says, those numbers are a pretty decent general guide.

As to whether you burn calories with weight training, sure you do, a lot actually depending on the muscle group, the type of weight training, length, and difficulty. One of the main reasons it's so hard to track anaerobic exercise is the oxygen debt incurred during the activity. Essentially anything that forces the body to significantly repair or grow afterward incurs oxygen debt, I.E. the body works harder than usual for a length of time after the activity to fix the issue. Some call this EPOC (Exercise Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption). It essentially means you will have an increased metabolic rate for hours and sometimes days after the routine.

While this is GREAT as far as burning calories goes, it can make it rather difficult to estimate how many extra calories you burn. You really can't use your HRM for this, unless you want to keep it on all day.

found a pretty good article about this actually.

http://www.askmen.com/sports/bodybuilding_150/198_fitness_tip.html

christinacherrelle

I had the same question and was told that in general strength training does not burn a TON of calories, especially if you're not doing cardio circuits in between, however will help you to continue burning throughout the day which is a major plus. So I like to think of cardio as an instant calorie burn and weights more gradual. Plus, we all know the more lean muscle mass we have the more calories we burn at rest.

SHBoss1673

I had the same question and was told that in general strength training does not burn a TON of calories, especially if you're not doing cardio circuits in between, however will help you to continue burning throughout the day which is a major plus. So I like to think of cardio as an instant calorie burn and weights more gradual. Plus, we all know the more lean muscle mass we have the more calories we burn at rest.

Depending on the muscle groups, and intensity, strength training can have a combined total calorie burn that's actually far higher than cardio of the same amount of time. Granted, the calorie burn DURING the exercise is far lower for weight training, but taking into account all the subsequent activities a muscle performs, it can and many times is, a higher calorie burn.

safiresp04

If you want to know how many calories you're burning (roughly) on MFP, add strength training or weight lifting under the cardio section in the exercise tab. MFP doesn't give calories for the amount of weight or sets you do under strength training. I think it's there just to track your progress.

OpaJohn

Strength training generally burns more calories than cardio alone. The two types of exercises combine to give give a "full body" workout. Carido is best for your internal organs and strength training is best for the muscle and skeleton system.

Azdak

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist.htm

There is one quote from the article that I am still trying to get my head around:

You've probably already noticed that after a heavy set on the weights your heart rate is up a lot higher, particularly if it's a lower-body exercise. This increased heart rate is what helps generate EPOC, so the longer the period of time it is elevated, the greater the number of calories that will be burned.

I am still not convinced that heart rate is a consistent marker in this case. I can do near-maximal upper-body lifts (bench press, shoulder press, lat pulldown) and my HR rarely goes above 105. Even when doing more aggressive combo moves--fast squats into a shoulder press, jump lunges, tabata-style intervals, I do not go higher than the low 120s. (vs mid-130s for a more challenging cardio workout). Maybe I am the outlier.

It's not that I disagree with the overall model that is emerging--the type of workouts described in the article--I just think that the underlying physiological mechanism has yet to be fully defined.

Someone posted a Men''s Health article that was just published on the same topic (Here is the topic thread: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/76742-hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training?page=2#posts-1053450 -- the article is one of the last couple of comments).

One quote in the story was meant to be kind of snarky, but it was actually true:

The unfortunate reality is that science is slow. “If we waited around for studies to tell us what works best for fat loss, we’d go out of business,” says Rachel Cosgrove, C.S.C.S., who co- owns Results Fitness in Santa Clarita, California, with her husband, Alwyn.

Yep, that darn science--always getting in the way. My point is that is pretty much how it goes. Someone tries a new idea or concept, it gains some following, and the researchers follow up and test the hypothesis or do research to more fully explain why the idea does or doesn't work.

What often happens is the the research shows that while the original idea may have validity, the original explanation does not. The classic example of this is the term "oxygen debt". This was coined in the early 20th century to describe the observed phenomenon of elevated post-exercise oxygen consumption. The idea was that, in the beginning of exercise an "oxygen debt" was incurred as anaerobic processes sustained the body's movements until the aerobic system could fully kick in. After exercise, that "debt" had to be repaid, largely to convert lactic acid back into glycogen. For 50-60 years, this "process" was described in great detail and in fact was still being discussed in some of the older ex phys textbooks we used in graduate school in the early 1980s.

Finally, radioactive tracer studies published in the early 1980s invalidated the concept of "oxygen debt". EPOC exists, but the underlying explanation for the mechanism -- the "oxygen debt" theory-- was shown to be false, as was just about every theory about lactic acid.

I think we may still be in that same period involving these types of exercise programs. There is evidence that they work, and people are trying to come up with theories that "make sense", but I think the underlying physiology has yet to be fully explored. I've see the informercials from the P90X guy, and I have watched some lectures by the Crossfit guy (Rippetoe?) and they just don't ring true--the body is not that simple. Strength training is more difficult to quantify that aerobic exercise because there are more variables and the physiologic responses -- esp hormonal--are much more specific to the type of training being used.

As usual, I stray from practical application (who cares how it works, as long as it works) to pedagogy.

SHBoss1673

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist.htm

There is one quote from the article that I am still trying to get my head around:

You've probably already noticed that after a heavy set on the weights your heart rate is up a lot higher, particularly if it's a lower-body exercise. This increased heart rate is what helps generate EPOC, so the longer the period of time it is elevated, the greater the number of calories that will be burned.

I am still not convinced that heart rate is a consistent marker in this case. I can do near-maximal upper-body lifts (bench press, shoulder press, lat pulldown) and my HR rarely goes above 105. Even when doing more aggressive combo moves--fast squats into a shoulder press, jump lunges, tabata-style intervals, I do not go higher than the low 120s. (vs mid-130s for a more challenging cardio workout). Maybe I am the outlier.

It's not that I disagree with the overall model that is emerging--the type of workouts described in the article--I just think that the underlying physiological mechanism has yet to be fully defined.

Someone posted a Men''s Health article that was just published on the same topic (Here is the topic thread: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/76742-hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training?page=2#posts-1053450 -- the article is one of the last couple of comments).

One quote in the story was meant to be kind of snarky, but it was actually true:

The unfortunate reality is that science is slow. “If we waited around for studies to tell us what works best for fat loss, we’d go out of business,” says Rachel Cosgrove, C.S.C.S., who co- owns Results Fitness in Santa Clarita, California, with her husband, Alwyn.

Yep, that darn science--always getting in the way. My point is that is pretty much how it goes. Someone tries a new idea or concept, it gains some following, and the researchers follow up and test the hypothesis or do research to more fully explain why the idea does or doesn't work.

What often happens is the the research shows that while the original idea may have validity, the original explanation does not. The classic example of this is the term "oxygen debt". This was coined in the early 20th century to describe the observed phenomenon of elevated post-exercise oxygen consumption. The idea was that, in the beginning of exercise an "oxygen debt" was incurred as anaerobic processes sustained the body's movements until the aerobic system could fully kick in. After exercise, that "debt" had to be repaid, largely to convert lactic acid back into glycogen. For 50-60 years, this "process" was described in great detail and in fact was still being discussed in some of the older ex phys textbooks we used in graduate school in the early 1980s.

Finally, radioactive tracer studies published in the early 1980s invalidated the concept of "oxygen debt". EPOC exists, but the underlying explanation for the mechanism -- the "oxygen debt" theory-- was shown to be false, as was just about every theory about lactic acid.

I think we may still be in that same period involving these types of exercise programs. There is evidence that they work, and people are trying to come up with theories that "make sense", but I think the underlying physiology has yet to be fully explored. I've see the informercials from the P90X guy, and I have watched some lectures by the Crossfit guy (Rippetoe?) and they just don't ring true--the body is not that simple. Strength training is more difficult to quantify that aerobic exercise because there are more variables and the physiologic responses -- esp hormonal--are much more specific to the type of training being used.

As usual, I stray from practical application (who cares how it works, as long as it works) to pedagogy.

this is pretty hard to follow Azdak, but from what I can get, you are skeptical of EPOC?

Most of the studies I have read give positive results on EPOC and it's post exercise caloric burn. Namely Dr. Tabata's study results of the late 90's

other research done on this was done as well, here are some resources:

---

Direct and indirect calorimetry of lactate oxidation: implications for whole-body
energy expenditure.
-Scott CB, Kemp RB. Department of Sports Medicine, University of Southern Main Published 2005

---

Effect of an acute period of resistance exercise on excess post-exercise oxygen consumption: implications for body mass management. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Mar

---

Effect of acute resistance exercise on postexercise oxygen consumption and resting metabolic rate in young women
-International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 10 (1), 71-8

All of these studies seem to back up the theory of EPOC. That along with my own (admittedly pretty inconclusive as I am one single person and not really any kind of a valid study) work with Anaerobic training has lead me to believe in this type of exercise as a calorie burn.

Maybe I'm just mis-interpreting your statements, or maybe this was exactly what you were looking for, more recent studies done by reputable sources. I don't know, as I said, it was hard to follow.

Azdak

No, not at all questioning the concept of EPOC. Actually, EPOC is the term that was "coined" to replace the outdated term "oxygen debt".

I was just questioning the use of heart rate as a marker of either the existence or extent of EPOC. I quoted the part of the article you cited as saying that increased heart rate "helps generate EPOC". Being the stickler for accuracy that I am, I just found that statement to be odd.

SHBoss1673

No, not at all questioning the concept of EPOC. Actually, EPOC is the term that was "coined" to replace the outdated term "oxygen debt".

I was just questioning the use of heart rate as a marker of either the existence or extent of EPOC. I quoted the part of the article you cited as saying that increased heart rate "helps generate EPOC". Being the stickler for accuracy that I am, I just found that statement to be odd.

OHHhhhhh, I see now. OK, cool, I have no problem with that. I'm not married to the term oxygen debt. EPOC sounds cooler anyway.

I understand your points about maximal heart rate, and I have thoughts on that, but I'm not sure that this forum is the place to discuss them as I doubt many people would care (and even though it doesn't show sometimes, I really don't like hijacking threads ). I'm more than happy to discuss them with you though, if you want to start another post or email me. I've done quite a bit of study on EPOC and may have some perspective to add that you might not have thought about... maybe.

kermiehiho

If you want to know how many calories you're burning (roughly) on MFP, add strength training or weight lifting under the cardio section in the exercise tab. MFP doesn't give calories for the amount of weight or sets you do under strength training. I think it's there just to track your progress.

Thanks, I didn't know there was that listed as a cardio activity. I will start adding that.
I don't quite understand the kg/bw thing...So if I'm around 95 lbs (I think that's like 45 kgs?), and I guess moderately active (brisk walk around 30 minutes a day), how much protein does that mean I should get a day? What happens if I don't get enough protein?