LIAR!

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.

Azdak

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

You can lose weight (fat) through weight training and cardio alone. I don't think it's the ideal plan for most people, but it is definitely possible. It's absolutist (and inaccurate) statements like this that keep this silly debate alive.

phjorg1

It was said before, but I'll make the point again. Your heartrate while doing resistance training has NOTHING to do with calories burn while resistance training. Absolutely nothing, there is zero relation that can possibly be made.

Why you ask? simple, lifting weights does not use oxygen. It's anaerobic. No oxygen means heartrate has zero bearing, since the purpose of counting heartbeats is to do a formula based upon oxygen usage.

It's straight up biological fact people. Anyone claiming that your heartrate can be used to calculate calories from lifting is straight up full of it. No such thing exists, or can ever exist. It's impossible.

The ONLY real rule is the more weight and bodyparts used, the more calories burned. As an example, Someone squatting 300lbs for 15 reps with a 100 heartrate will burn a poopton more calories than someone squatting 100lbs for 20 reps at 120 heartrate. so higher heartrate, far less calories burned.

phjorg1

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

you lose weight by eating less than your body burns. just cause you do exercise does not necessarly make this basic principle true.

Azdak

It was said before, but I'll make the point again. Your heartrate while doing resistance training has NOTHING to do with calories burn while resistance training. Absolutely nothing, there is zero relation that can possibly be made.

Why you ask? simple, lifting weights does not use oxygen. It's anaerobic. No oxygen means heartrate has zero bearing, since the purpose of counting heartbeats is to do a formula based upon oxygen usage.

It's straight up biological fact people. Anyone claiming that your heartrate can be used to calculate calories from lifting is straight up full of it. No such thing exists, or can ever exist. It's impossible.

The ONLY real rule is the more weight and bodyparts used, the more calories burned. As an example, Someone squatting 300lbs for 15 reps with a 100 heartrate will burn a poopton more calories than someone squatting 100lbs for 20 reps at 120 heartrate. so higher heartrate, far less calories burned.

Because of the shorter duration of the set when lifting heavier weights, there is some research that indicates that is not true.

In the April 2011 edition of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Christopher Scott et al, investigated the energy-expenditure of a single set of a strength exercise (bench press) performed at various percentages of 1 RM--ranging from 37% to 90% of 1 RM.

The total number of direct calories burned was inversely proportional to the weight being lifted. Dr Scott has published research in which he claims to be able to calculate the energy burned via anaerobic pathways during resistance training. So they were able to break down TEE into the aerobic, anerobic, and EPOC components.

The most surprising finding was not that the 37% of 1 RM workload burned more calories than the 90% 1 RM load--that is to be expected given that the average reps completed were 36.5 vs 4.5. It was the fact that there was no significant difference in EPOC either.

From the authors' summary:

When data from the separate protocols were compiled and
examined, lifting to muscular fatigue resulted in greater
energy expenditure for 1-set of muscular endurance-type
lifting (60.2614.5 kJ) as compared with 1-set of the strengthtype
lifts (43.2612.5 kJ, p = 0.001).Work also was greater for
muscular endurance (462 6 131 J) as opposed to strength
(253 6 93 J, p = 0.001). In application, the use of exercise in
the promotion of weight loss would be one where the
greatest amount of energy is expended. Our results suggest
that the best resistance training program to promote energy
expenditure might be lifting at a lighter percentage of a 1RM
to fatigue. Whether resistance training protocols that employ
20–40 repetitions to muscular failure will be accepted by
those who want or need to lose weight remains to be seen.
Moreover, multiple (large) muscle group exercises as
opposed to isolation exercises with smaller muscles would
likely need to be chosen when designing a weight loss
program that focuses on resistance training (e.g., bench press
vs. triceps extension; leg press vs. leg extension).

Like any single study, one cannot draw absolute conclusions from this one, but the detailed analysis of energy pathways used is not often found and it definitely makes for interesting reading.

This study also corroborates the results we have seen in our medical weight loss program--i.e. that obese, relatively untrained individuals respond very well -- often much better-- to higher volumes of lower-intensity resistance training than they do to "heavier" resistance training. Heavy training has it's use and benefits, but they are farther down the road.

geebusuk

I presume that study only considers energy burnt while lifting, not for the following day or two?

It does stand to reason for me that to lift more 'volume' in total will burn more calories at the time.

But, it also seems to stand to reason that cardio will be better still for a calories burnt figure in this manner.

I always thought the idea of lifting for a better body was that your body carried on burning calories after to repair it's self - and that thus doing heavy compound lifts were the most effective as you have a lot of muscles that need a lot of repair.

mdarrall

But don't forget that after a strength workout, your body has to burn calories to rebuild. While the calories on your monitor are based on your heart rate and weight, it might even out in the end.

And yes; you have to allow for some instrument and measurement error in these. The algorithms are pretty good, but still...

Azdak

I presume that study only considers energy burnt while lifting, not for the following day or two?

It does stand to reason for me that to lift more 'volume' in total will burn more calories at the time.

But, it also seems to stand to reason that cardio will be better still for a calories burnt figure in this manner.

I always thought the idea of lifting for a better body was that your body carried on burning calories after to repair it's self - and that thus doing heavy compound lifts were the most effective as you have a lot of muscles that need a lot of repair.

This study did measure EPOC, which is the afterburn effect you are referring to. They measured it until the subjects energy expenditure returned to resting levels. When someone says that a given exercise can raise metabolism for "hours" after a workout, the use of the term "hours" can be misleading. Even in the studies that show an "afterburn" effect (and not all of them do), the actual calories burned per hour is so low that it would be indistinguishable from what you might burn during regular activity.

The issue of muscle repair is something else. I read a study once that suggested that inducing high levels of DOMS via lots of eccentric loading had a small benefit for weight loss, however the study had subjects doing 8 sets of 8 exercises (unless that was a typo), which seemed impractical.

The real point is not to contest which is "best", but to understand that there are different approaches that might be appropriate for different people at different stages of their program. Or that there can be a number of effective paths to success.

tomcornhole

Who cares? Unless you are eating back exercise calories.