LIAR!

RUNNINxRIOT

So I've been using my Wahoo Fitness HR monitor during workouts. I think it's pretty good when I go out for a run. A 40 minute run should burn around 500 to 600 cals if it's fairly intense at points, and that's what the Wahoo reflects....

I also use it for weight training. Now, when I'm lifting weights for 45 minutes to an hour, it'll say that I'm burning like 500 calories. Granted, the weights are heavy and my HR goes up; but there is a lot of resting time in between (sometimes up to 4 minutes between sets). How is it possible that I could be burning that much when I'm not moving? Is the HR monitor inaccurate, or do people indeed burn lots of calories when lifting? I've always heard that you don't really burn calories when just strength training (no blended cardio), so who's the liar here? My HR monitor? -Or everyone I've read or listened to?

jezama77

I have seen many people post that HRM are only to be used to determine calorie burn for cardio...

Viva81Diva

I've been using my HRM for the past week, and noticed that is seems to be fairly accurate whether I am doing cardio or wt. Last week, I only burned a little over 115 calories with 15 minutes of TapouT ab exercises. Tonight, right after doing about 45 minutes of TapouT Cardio (which burned about 500), I did the same ab workout dvd and it read that I burned over 300. That's pretty accurate, given that my heart rate has been staying elevated for almost 10 minutes after working out to TxT. If you find that it is accurate during the cardio, and even while at rest (or sitting), then it is fairly accurate during a weight training session.

Mads1997

HRMs do not work for strength training. They are only intended for use to measure cardio.

Viva81Diva

Personally, I don't see how it would be inaccurate during a weight training session if it measures heart rate. Your heart does still pump while training, just as it does with cardio, only at different speeds. It isn't measuring oxygen, so it cannot differentiate between an anaerobic and aerobic activity.

mccbabe1

Personally, I don't see how it would be inaccurate during a weight training session if it measures heart rate. Your heart does still pump while training, just as it does with cardio, only at different speeds. It isn't measuring oxygen, so it cannot differentiate between an anaerobic and aerobic activity.

bump.. exactly... calories burned is calories burned... i do an hour long "body pump' class at the gym... weights/lt cardio.. and i track those cals burned!!

Mads1997

by all means use one just don't go eating those calories back and wonder why you aren't losing weight.

some reading for you

http://www.sparkpeople.com/community/ask_the_experts.asp?q=75

RUNNINxRIOT

Thanks for the responses.. It does sound like there's some disagreement even here, so let me ask this:

How much should body indeed be burning when doing a strength-only session with periods of rest? I tend to agree that if the heart is beating, then calories are theoretically being burned; so why would it be any different than a cardio session? I'm not saying that I think it's correct, but it does sound more logical. Is there a reason for the difference?

-And Madds, is there a way to correct track your strength-training cals aside from a monitor?

Mads1997

Not that I'm aware of, I suppose there is but probably to technical for me. Most people I spoke to don't track strength training apart from reps and weights.

I edited my post above with a link.

Viva81Diva

Every person burns calories at a different rate. It depends on your lifestyle: what you do daily, how much lean muscle you have, how much you consume and WHAT you put into your body, and your chemistry. To answer your question on how much you burn, try using different HRMs to measure how many calories you burn per minute at rest. The closer in number they are, that is a measure of what you burn. To figure out what you burn when your heart rate is elevated, you can always do a fit test. Use the HRM(s) at rest, then by doing 5 minutes of stepping, again at 5 minutes sitting after stepping, and then see how much you burn 10 minutes later, or when your heart rate returns to normal.

A device is a device and not any machine/device is 100% true. Some are more accurate than others, but it's best not to solely rely on them. (Not saying you would It's just a way to help determine a measure.

Azdak

Personally, I don't see how it would be inaccurate during a weight training session if it measures heart rate. Your heart does still pump while training, just as it does with cardio, only at different speeds. It isn't measuring oxygen, so it cannot differentiate between an anaerobic and aerobic activity.

Your last sentence (correct) refuted your first sentence (incorrect).

adrienne_ut1

My personal trainer told me that intense weightlifting can burn just as many, if not more, calories than cardio so I wouldn't assume it's an extremely inflated number. I also use a HRM and personally I don't burn as many calories with weight lifting as I do cardio (for example, 45 minutes of intense cardio I burn between 500-550 calories and 45 minutes of weight lifting usually burns about 300 calories for me) but I do not lift heavy (yet) so I wouldn't say that my weight lifting routine is intense.

geebusuk

The HRM is likely to way overestimate calories burnt while lifting weights I suspect.

However, I believ lifting can continue to burn calories for something like 39 hours after you stop, as your body recovers and repairs. So in the grand scheme of things it may actually equal out a bit.

wswilliams67

HRMs do not work for strength training. They are only intended for use to measure cardio.

NOT TRUE! Drives me nuts when people spout this broscience. But the fact is most lifters don't wear HRMs because they aren't needed, not that they don't work for lifting.

I easily burn 400-600 calories during strength training. Just because you aren't moving during rest periods doesn't mean your muscles aren't burning calories.

Example... yesterday I did 10 minutes @ level 8 on the elliptical as a warm-up. Only burned like 90 calories (even though the machine said I burned nearly twice that). The rest of my workout was just my bi/tri split. 78 minutes of total exercise time I burned 502 calories. 37 minutes of that 78 was rest periods between sets. So if you get 'technical' I only exercised 41 minutes, but again rest periods still count. All rest periods are for is to allow your glycogen to replenish. I personally pace (or step) during my rest periods just to keep my HR going and not get cold.

Personally I use a FIT armband for my workouts and it is 90+% accurate. I can even tie an HRM to it if needed. I've found from personal experience that cardio is called cardio for a reason. It works your heart, lungs, and circulatory system... period.

If you are a lifter, get a monitor that tracks the mETs your body produces during exercise. HR is not an accurate measurement of muscle usage. Look into the FIT or Up bands.

MercenaryNoetic26

You can use hrms for lifting. I think the ones with the fitness test are better for lifting; Polar. The FT80 lets you download weight training workouts. I don't have that one.

I do watch my heart rate when lifting. When I lift heavier/less reps (lower cal/higher fat burn) and when higher reps/less weight/less rest (more cal burn/less fat burn/more like cardio) <

---

(Eta: per hrm readings)

It's a great tool to monitor intensity.

wswilliams67

My personal trainer told me that intense weightlifting can burn just as many, if not more, calories than cardio so I wouldn't assume it's an extremely inflated number. I also use a HRM and personally I don't burn as many calories with weight lifting as I do cardio (for example, 45 minutes of intense cardio I burn between 500-550 calories and 45 minutes of weight lifting usually burns about 300 calories for me) but I do not lift heavy (yet) so I wouldn't say that my weight lifting routine is intense.

Your trainer is correct. However to get those high caloric burn lifting sessions your intensity and timing have to be spot on. That's the problem with most HRMs, they aren't designed for lifters, therefore they give inaccurate readings. There ARE HRMs that are designed for total fitness (cardio and lifting) but they are on the high end of the scale and therefore cost more. Plus most people are under the broscience that HRMs are only for cardio so they buy the ones that are cheaper and only designed for running/cardio.

Trust me, you start pushing/pulling heavy weights... you burn a ton of calories. My personal preference is to burn my calories via lifting rather than spend hours of my life running in place on a treadmill. :bigsmile:

Mads1997

HRMs do not work for strength training. They are only intended for use to measure cardio.

NOT TRUE! Drives me nuts when people spout this broscience. But the fact is most lifters don't wear HRMs because they aren't needed, not that they don't work for lifting.

I easily burn 400-600 calories during strength training. Just because you aren't moving during rest periods doesn't mean your muscles aren't burning calories.

Example... yesterday I did 10 minutes @ level 8 on the elliptical as a warm-up. Only burned like 90 calories (even though the machine said I burned nearly twice that). The rest of my workout was just my bi/tri split. 78 minutes of total exercise time I burned 502 calories. 37 minutes of that 78 was rest periods between sets. So if you get 'technical' I only exercised 41 minutes, but again rest periods still count. All rest periods are for is to allow your glycogen to replenish. I personally pace (or step) during my rest periods just to keep my HR going and not get cold.

Personally I use a FIT armband for my workouts and it is 90+% accurate. I can even tie an HRM to it if needed. I've found from personal experience that cardio is called cardio for a reason. It works your heart, lungs, and circulatory system... period.

If you are a lifter, get a monitor that tracks the mETs your body produces during exercise. HR is not an accurate measurement of muscle usage. Look into the FIT or Up bands.

Did you even read the link. As i said dont eat back your exercise cals and complain that you cant lose weight.

usmcmp

It has to do with VO2. Here's a pretty good blog Adzak did on it.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-17698

wswilliams67

You can use hrms for lifting. I think the ones with the fitness test are better for lifting; Polar. The FT80 lets you download weight training workouts. I don't have that one.

I do watch my heart rate when lifting. When I lift heavier/less reps (lower cal/higher fat burn) and when higher reps/less weight/less rest (more cal burn/less fat burn/more like cardio).

It's a great tool to monitor intensity.

I agree, most people don't track HR or calories during lifting (I personally do) and don't see the benefits of lifting. Most people don't know HOW to lift (as you described above) for their goals. There's so much more to lifting than picking things up and putting them down. :glasses:

wswilliams67

Did you even read the link. As i said dont eat back your exercise cals and complain that you cant lose weight.

I wasn't responding to that post...

I was responding to your post about HRMs being useless for lifting. Did YOU read?

wswilliams67

It has to do with VO2. Here's a pretty good blog Adzak did on it.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-17698

His article is accurate for MOST HRMs... not all. There are newer models out.

jaxxie

To be honest, I only use it during strength see what it reads right after a set. I don't use it for Calorie tracking because like you, I need to take longer rests. I just calculate it at 1 calorie burned and move on. I, also don't eat back my exercise calories as my Diary is already set to what I should be eating. I hope that helps a bit.
I ALWAYS track it for cardio though.

kuger4119

Thanks for the responses.. It does sound like there's some disagreement even here, so let me ask this:

How much should body indeed be burning when doing a strength-only session with periods of rest? I tend to agree that if the heart is beating, then calories are theoretically being burned; so why would it be any different than a cardio session? I'm not saying that I think it's correct, but it does sound more logical. Is there a reason for the difference?

-And Madds, is there a way to correct track your strength-training cals aside from a monitor?

As someone else said, everyone is going to be different. I have found that I burn about 50% more calories than MFP estimates for strength training. If MFP says I burned 120 calories, I'm actually burning 180 calories. That's based on two things. My HRM and empirical evidence. Back when I used the straight MFP numbers and really tried to nail my 500 calorie deficit, I was losing more than one pound per week. When I doubled the calorie estimate for working out, I started gaining weight because I was eating too much back. When I added 50% to my strength training calorie estimates, I was dead on. Of course....that's just me.

Mads1997

Shakes head

MercenaryNoetic26

You can use hrms for lifting. I think the ones with the fitness test are better for lifting; Polar. The FT80 lets you download weight training workouts. I don't have that one.

I do watch my heart rate when lifting. When I lift heavier/less reps (lower cal/higher fat burn) and when higher reps/less weight/less rest (more cal burn/less fat burn/more like cardio).

It's a great tool to monitor intensity.

I agree, most people don't track HR or calories during lifting (I personally do) and don't see the benefits of lifting. Most people don't know HOW to lift (as you described above) for their goals. There's so much more to lifting than picking things up and putting them down. :glasses:

I also noticed "efficiency" improvement if that makes sense. I believe the more efficient I become the lower the calorie burn that appears on the hrm. Sometimes I can crank out a few reps before exhaling.... anaerobic.

Either way it's nice to see the intensity when doing deadlifts, squats or bench. It'll tell you if you need to push harder or chill.

brooke0206

I too use an HRM and I also work with a personal trainer. Just because you are resting between sets does not mean that you arent getting a fairly accurate calorie burn during weight lifting. When you are raising your heart rate and then resting your body is still burning a good deal of calories recovering. Fact is, you continue to burn calories well after your workout is over. I had asked my trainer before when do I turn off my HRM after my workout and he told me to leave it on until I get back to a normal heart rate. This time can vary from person to person depending on how fit/in shape they are. So someone who is overweight and just starting to workout will obviously take longer to recover and come back to a more normal resting heart rate than someone who has been working out regularly and is in more.

drefaw

Here is a good informative link for this topic. And a good reason why I usually do Super Sets when I do my weight training. Then if I do cardio, it's about 15 - 30 min of high intensity cardio, AFTER my weight training .......

http://www.answerfitness.com/296/how-many-calories-are-burned-weight-liftin/

barbaratrollman

Tracking this thread, as it is of great interest to me.

Azdak

It has to do with VO2. Here's a pretty good blog Adzak did on it.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-17698

His article is accurate for MOST HRMs... not all. There are newer models out.

No, it's still accurate. New HRMs, but same old physiology. There still is no wearable device that can accurately estimate calories expended during resistance training.

melindasuefritz

i didnt read all this but u lose w eight from cardio and strength training dont make u lose weight

Azdak

Here is a good informative link for this topic. And a good reason why I usually do Super Sets when I do my weight training. Then if I do cardio, it's about 15 - 30 min of high intensity cardio, AFTER my weight training .......

http://www.answerfitness.com/296/how-many-calories-are-burned-weight-liftin/

This article is better than most I have read from this type of source. You likely won't go wrong following the advice. However, he still makes the fundamental mistake of equating elevated heart rate during strength training with increased calorie burn, which is not always true and which is not a reliable indicator. His definition of "vigorous", ie equating that with elevated heart rate is misleading. If the elevated heart rate occurs because the movement is more dynamic with less of a resistive component, then it is possible that increased heart rate might indicate a higher calorie burn. For that to happen, however. The resistance would have to be lower and so the strength effects would be less. If the increased heart was due to a higher resistance--ie a heavy weight--then the increased HR is not caused by increased cardiac output/oxygen uptake and thus direct calorie burn is modest.

As I constantly repeat, this does NOT mean that resistance training cannot burn some significant calories overall, or that resistance training is not useful for weight loss, or that one cannot successfully lose weight via weight training and diet alone. It just means there are too many variables to easily quantify the calories expended, and that HRM calorie estimates are meaningless.