Resistance training calories burnt?

Hertford86
Hertford86 Posts: 55 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Does anybody know how many calories get burned doing weights? I do about 40 minutes, 4 times a week, 30 reps of a bunch of dumbell things, and I assume quite a lot of calories are getting burned - certainly feel like I've used more energy than for an equivalent time of cardio, and would like to eat back the calories, but MFP doesn't seem to count it that way. Can anybody help?
(If it matters, I'm a middle-aged woman, not overweight but way not fit, totally new to this exercise business, trying to lose another 10lb because the Dr. says it will lessen the chance of my breast cancer coming back, and to shore up my bones against the coming of age.)

Thanks to anyone who can give me a number, or direct me to where this has already been addressed on MFP

Replies

  • vtmoon
    vtmoon Posts: 3,436 Member
    You burn less from weights vs Cardio, but weights help you build bigger muscles which in turn help you burn more calories. If you type weight in the exercise database you will get a hit.
  • AntShanny
    AntShanny Posts: 359 Member
    There's a selection for weight training in the Cardio database...it's doesn't burn many calories when you're doing it, at all. But the benefit comes after.
  • needamulligan
    needamulligan Posts: 558 Member
    There are a lot of threads about this. Basically, there are so many variables that you'd have to wear a heart rate monitor to get an idea. However, people who are lifting really heavy seem to say that it is inaccurate for various reasons. You don't say how heavy your weights are. I just did 30 minutes with my HRM for an estimate. I was using a 10lb kettlebell so the routine is more active/aerobic/sweaty/robust (not sure how to describe it) and I burned 160 calories. I will see what the HRM says when I use regular dumb bells. I know for sure that my 8lb dumb bell routine doesn't seem to be as strenuous but that's where I can workout without injury right now. There was a recent thread that said that if you aren't sweating lifting that you aren't doing it right. Maybe. But, I'm not a man under 30. I'm just trying to keep and improve my muscle tone while I lose weight.
  • needamulligan
    needamulligan Posts: 558 Member
    You burn less from weights vs Cardio, but weights help you build bigger muscles which in turn help you burn more calories. If you type weight in the exercise database you will get a hit.

    Well said. I think this is one reason that it's difficult to quantify.
  • jemanji
    jemanji Posts: 8
    Actually your instincts are probably right: most calorie tables underestimate the calories burned during weightlifting, at least if you keep your heart rate up.

    Here is a formula for calculating calorie burn based on HEART RATE (not type of exercise), which current scientific consensus holds to be the right paradigm: http://www.livestrong.com/article/73315-calculate-calories-burned-based-heart/.

    Here is an online calculator: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx.

    If you are, let's say, a 45-year-old female weighing 142 lbs, then if your heart rate sustains at 130 bpm during resistance training, you'll burn about 472 calories per hour. That's quite a bit more than most calorie tables assume. Supposing that you're taking a good amount of time between sets and keeping your pulse around 115, the calculator still shows 372 calories per hour.

    The question of course is whether you keep your heart rate up during resistance training. I use floor bicycle crunches between lifting sets, keep rest periods controlled, and continually take my pulse. It's not hard to keep the pulse at 130 or higher if you're pushing yourself.

    Military boot camp training is based on bodyweight 'resistance training' cycling quickly between pushups, situps, etc. with little rest between. If you're very interested in calorie burn, weight training can be awesome for it, but you may need to emphasize a 'boot camp' structure and timing.

    Hope that helps! :- )
    Jeff
  • Hertford86
    Hertford86 Posts: 55 Member
    Thanks, all, That's helpful
    m
  • mustgetmuscles1
    mustgetmuscles1 Posts: 3,346 Member
    Heart rate is NOT a good measure for weight lifting. You can raise your heart rate just from holding your breath, it does not mean you are burning calories.

    I have found the "Strength Training" under the cardio tab is pretty accurate for me and it estimates pretty low calories burned. It gives me 219 calories for 60 minutes of lifting.

    If you are turning your lifting into "circuit training" by reducing rest times or adding in other exercise between sets then you need to use "circuit training" in your log and not "strength training".

    Here is a chart from the Mayo clinic. Notice how much lower resistance training is on the calorie burned scale.
    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/exercise/SM00109
  • jemanji
    jemanji Posts: 8
    Actually if you could somehow strangle a person (yowch, I know) so that their heart rate was 150 for 1 hour, the stress and muscular response WOULD burn tons of calories. You only hold your breath to elevate your heart rate for how long? 20 seconds?

    The all-caps "not" you have there looks decisive, but here's the study you'll have to respond to if you want to back up the all caps: http://www.braydenwm.com/cal_vs_hr_ref_paper.pdf. Abstract: there is a linear rate between heart rate and 02 consumption. And what is oxygen being converted for, if not biochemical processes ... that of course are the basis of calorie burn?
  • mustgetmuscles1
    mustgetmuscles1 Posts: 3,346 Member
    Actually if you could somehow strangle a person (yowch, I know) so that their heart rate was 150 for 1 hour, the stress and muscular response WOULD burn tons of calories. You only hold your breath to elevate your heart rate for how long? 20 seconds?

    The all-caps "not" you have there looks decisive, but here's the study you'll have to respond to if you want to back up the all caps: http://www.braydenwm.com/cal_vs_hr_ref_paper.pdf. Abstract: there is a linear rate between heart rate and 02 consumption. And what is oxygen being converted for, if not biochemical processes ... that of course are the basis of calorie burn?

    LOL easy turbo. Just pointing out heart rate monitors are NOT likely to give you an accurate calorie burn and backed up a lower calorie burn/hour, from weightlifting, from a pretty credible source. Your heart rate might spike during heavy lifting and stay elevated after you have finished but the actual energy used stopped when you did. It might have been only a small muscle group that was being used but your heart rate rose the same as if you had used a full body exercise. The HRM will not know this. I could scare the crap out of someone and their heart rate would spike. Yet they did not actually perform any muscle contractions or anything else to burn actual calories. AN HRM will tell you they did. If your heart rate monitor is telling you that you are burning more than you actually are then it is going to cause problems.
  • jemanji
    jemanji Posts: 8
    The middle ground here: if by 'resistance training' you're talking about 5 reps of heavy curls for kissable biceps, and then a minute or two off so that you can max the other bicep, then sure. Of course your heart rate won't be up in that scenario.

    As stated originally, if you're using a boot camp mode during your lifting .... keeping the heart rate up with shorter rests, with situps and crunches mixed ... the lifting based on pushups, deadlifts, squats, using large muscle groups etc, then the calorie burn will be there.

    Army recruits lose weight quick eating three squares a day, and would even if limited to the pushups, situps and burpees. True Russian kettlebell workouts designed for endurance and strength, rather than physical appearance, shed fat quickly.

    Body sculpting designed to make muscles pop, agreed, that can be more show than go. Though even there, the guys who are in the gym for several hours are usually eating 4-5000+ cals and burning it off.
  • sarahg148
    sarahg148 Posts: 701 Member
    I don't know about what others do to track it, but I do use a Polar HRM and wear it during my warm doing cardio, during my circuit training (30 min non stop) and then cool down. So today I did that for 65 minutes and showed a burn of 560 and I'm a 37 yo female, 173 at 5'11''. Works for me. I'm also not eating back all of my exercise calories, so if it's "off" just a bit in the calculations that's fine.
  • mustgetmuscles1
    mustgetmuscles1 Posts: 3,346 Member
    The middle ground here: if by 'resistance training' you're talking about 5 reps for kissable biceps, and then a minute or two off so that you can max the other bicep, then sure. Of course your heart rate won't be up in that scenario.

    As stated originally, if you're using a boot camp mode during your lifting .... keeping the heart rate up with shorter rests, with situps and crunches mixed ... the lifting based on pushups, deadlifts, squats, using large muscle groups etc, then the calorie burn will be there. Army recruits lose weight quick eating three squares a day.

    Body sculpting designed to make muscles pop, agreed, that can be more show than go.

    Yes turning your weightlifting into cardio would make an HRM more accurate but then it wouldnt be "strength training" it would be...cardio. : ) As I stated there is a "circuit training" category for that. Making muscles "pop", (I am assuming you are referring to mass building) would usually be in the 8-12 reps range. The 5 rep range is great for building brute strength and power and retaining muscle mass during a calorie deficit. An HRM would probably be just as useless for both. :drinker:
  • mustgetmuscles1
    mustgetmuscles1 Posts: 3,346 Member
    I don't know about what others do to track it, but I do use a Polar HRM and wear it during my warm doing cardio, during my circuit training (30 min non stop) and then cool down. So today I did that for 65 minutes and showed a burn of 560 and I'm a 37 yo female, 173 at 5'11''. Works for me. I'm also not eating back all of my exercise calories, so if it's "off" just a bit in the calculations that's fine.

    An HRM is great for that. Good workout. :drinker:

Categories