Strength Training Calories

futurerunner
futurerunner Posts: 169 Member
edited September 21 in Fitness and Exercise
Why doesn't the calorie counter count weight lifting calories that are burned? It only counts the cardio. Doesn't weight lifting burn just as much calories as cardio?
«1

Replies

  • skinnytayy
    skinnytayy Posts: 459
    Weight lifting = strength training which builds up muscle rather than burn fat. I'm sure it probably does burn some calories though. You should get a Heart rate monitor that has a calorie burner on it. Cardio exercises the heart and burns fat. In my opinion, its best to do a moderate amount of cardio and a small amount of strength training until you reach your ideal weight that way you aren't building muscle that's hidden behind fat OR turning all the fat into muscle which depending on how much fat you have could look a bit crazy lol.
  • I don't know "why" but I do know that you can put your strength training under the cardio and it gives you the calories.
  • FlashBang
    FlashBang Posts: 136
    I am not sure but, I think, it is because it is a very complicated calculation with too many variables to generalize into a calculator. You can find some calculators online but I doubt they would even be in the ball park. Even an HRM measurement is unreliable even if under reported for strength training. The benefit of strength training is not while you are doing it anyway, it is all about the fitness and metabolism gains. Muscle burns calories in your sleep. Measure it with a tape measure and the scale. Last night I flipped a tire for about 15 minutes, the HRM gave me about 87 Calories burned, it was very hard work, I am sure it was worth more than 87 Calories. The benefit from that will come later. Keep it up your doing great. I did log it as strength training, so, I can measure progress with increased speed and reps.
  • dmcohee
    dmcohee Posts: 99 Member
    No, not really. Cardio is definitely the best for burning calories, unless it's very intense lifting. However, strength training has a lot of benefits. It will help raise your metabolism so even at a resting rate you're burning more calories. I think to get the most benefit from weight training you should work it in between circuits of cardio, that way your heart rate is still up, thus burning more calories. Also, if you type in strength training in the cardio section it will give you some calories.
  • canstey
    canstey Posts: 118
    Why doesn't the calorie counter count weight lifting calories that are burned? It only counts the cardio. Doesn't weight lifting burn just as much calories as cardio?

    Weight lifting does not burn as many calories per hour as aerobic exercise because of weight liftings very intermittent effort of lift, rest, lift, rest. The amount of calories burned is highly variable and only a blood test to find lactate can get a reasonable approximation. Some say it increases metabolism but that is not technically accurate. LIfting weights burns energy anaerobicly from your muscle reserves. Your body cannot immediately replace the energy used during a 60 minute workout and instead replaces it over the next 24-48 hours. During that time your Total Daily Energy Expenditure is higher than simply BMR+lifestyle because of the additional load of replacing the muscle energy but it is temporary and in proportion to the amount of energy used during your workout, like reheating the water in your hot water tank after a shower.

    Also trying to increase muscle to increase metabolism is very ineffective. One pound of muscle burns 6 calories per day, not the 50 bandied around the internet. So even if you were able to gain 10 lbs of additional muscle fiber, a nearly unobtainable goal even when not trying to lose weight, it would only add 60 calories a day to your BMR. You will burn far far more calories from the workouts trying to gain the muscle and then to maintain it whether you gain 10 lbs or zero pounds.

    If you are concerned about either your calorie deficit is being increased too much or your workouts might suffer because you are not replacing the energy fast enough, you could eat an extra 75 calories a day to help fuel recovery and hope the workouts will cover it. Listen to your body and adjust up or down from there to cover the weightlifting. Maximizing strength/fitness requires excess calories and losing weight requires a deficit so they are competing goals. You need to pick a balance point.
  • Here is what I found out about your questions and it explains it pretty well. This obviously from an article.

    "You are probably burning more calories when you are actually moving a heavy weight than when you are doing aerobic exercise. But you are taking breaks, so over 30 minutes the actual number of calories burned doing strength training will be less."

    Time factors into the contest another way, too: "You are limited in the amount of strength training you can do,"
    The ACSM advises you weight-train no more than two to three times per week, to give the body time to repair microscopic muscle tears produced by training that are key to gaining strength. "But you can do cardiovascular exercise every day,"

    "Ideally, you want a combination of moderate to vigorous aerobic exercise and moderate-intensity strength training. But if vigorous aerobic exercise and vigorous weight training went head-to-head for calories burned, vigorous aerobic exercise would win."
  • ShaneT99
    ShaneT99 Posts: 278 Member
    Why doesn't the calorie counter count weight lifting calories that are burned? It only counts the cardio. Doesn't weight lifting burn just as much calories as cardio?

    Too many variables. Which exercise you're doing, how much weight you're using, how many sets, how many reps, how long your rest periods are, the actual tempo of your lifts, how much effort you're putting in...those are all variables that a calorie counter has no way of accounting for so there's really no way for them to give you an accurate calorie count. My understanding is that heart rate monitors don't work particularly well for weight lifting either, so I'm not real sure about how one would go about knowing how much they actually burn while lifting weights.
  • Pete_Luxford
    Pete_Luxford Posts: 10 Member
    As above, but to say they don't burn much would be wrong, it is all relative. I have never had such a low %BF as when I did a fairly intense 1 hour workout a day with weights. However without proper supervision and knowledge it is pretty hard to work to a level where you are achieving those results on your own.

    What I would suggest goes against what most gym instructors tell you because it is what they are taught day one of a course, is do your weights BEFORE the Cardio.

    Weightlifiing is anaerobic and therefore uses the glycogen in your muscles for energy. If you then follow your weights session with Cardio, there is no glycogen so the cardio starts tapping into fat reserves more quickly.

    Make sure you refuel immediately after working out as well.
  • ShaneT99
    ShaneT99 Posts: 278 Member
    ...its best to do a moderate amount of cardio and a small amount of strength training until you reach your ideal weight that way you aren't building muscle that's hidden behind fat OR turning all the fat into muscle which depending on how much fat you have could look a bit crazy lol.

    I'd like to offer some clarity on two common misconceptions shown here if I may:

    1) If simply losing weight is the goal then resistance training is not your friend. However, if losing FAT is your goal then you should put more emphasis on diet and resistance training than on cardio. The vast majority of calories burned by you per day are not done while you are exercising. They are done while you're just doing what you do. The more muscle you have on your body the more calories your body is going to burn. If your goal is to lose fat then you need to keep every little bit of muscle that you can, if not gain more. Muscle is an awesome fat burner. The more muscle you have the faster you'll burn your fat. You can certainly do all cardio and lose weight, but in the end you'll just be "skinny fat". Lift those weights and keep/build that muscle!

    2) Fat does not turn into muscle nor does muscle turn into fat. Muscle is muscle and fat is fat. The only way to build muscle is with resistance training and proper nutrition. The only way to lose fat is by forcing your body to use it for energy, which means creating a calorie deficit.

    Do a Google search for an article called The Hierarchy of Fat Loss by Alwyn Cosgrove. It does a great job of explaining which type of exercises are best for fat loss.

    :smile:
  • ShaneT99
    ShaneT99 Posts: 278 Member

    Also trying to increase muscle to increase metabolism is very ineffective. One pound of muscle burns 6 calories per day, not the 50 bandied around the internet. So even if you were able to gain 10 lbs of additional muscle fiber, a nearly unobtainable goal even when not trying to lose weight, it would only add 60 calories a day to your BMR. You will burn far far more calories from the workouts trying to gain the muscle and then to maintain it whether you gain 10 lbs or zero pounds.

    Where on earth did you hear this? There are FAR too many studies out there that show the key to metabolism is muscle mass. It's a proven fact that your body burns far more calories to maintain muscle mass than it does to maintain fat mass. That's exactly why someone with a LOT of muscle has to eat like a horse if they want to maintain that muscle.
  • canstey
    canstey Posts: 118

    Also trying to increase muscle to increase metabolism is very ineffective. One pound of muscle burns 6 calories per day, not the 50 bandied around the internet. So even if you were able to gain 10 lbs of additional muscle fiber, a nearly unobtainable goal even when not trying to lose weight, it would only add 60 calories a day to your BMR. You will burn far far more calories from the workouts trying to gain the muscle and then to maintain it whether you gain 10 lbs or zero pounds.

    Where on earth did you hear this? There are FAR too many studies out there that show the key to metabolism is muscle mass. It's a proven fact that your body burns far more calories to maintain muscle mass than it does to maintain fat mass. That's exactly why someone with a LOT of muscle has to eat like a horse if they want to maintain that muscle.

    Sorry I misquoted, it is 7-10 calories a day.
    http://www.dailyspark.com/blog.asp?post=how_many_calories_does_muscle_really_burn_not_as_much_as_you_think

    It is because you are counting it in the wrong column. Muscle takes 10 calories a day to maintain at rest (fat ~2 calories), i.e. BMR, so adding muscle to increase metabolism is almost pointless. However, exercise activities that move your body weight are proportional to weight so big, heavy, muscular guys burn more calories moving around and exercising. Also those big, muscular guys didn't get that way sitting in front of the TV. They are working out well over an hour a day and are burning lots of calories exercising. So they don't burn tons of calories simply because they have lots of muscle, they burn calories tons of calories trying to build or maintain their physique and moving a large amount of muscle mass hours a day. Simply the attempt to build a muscular body will burn far more calories than having one and sitting on you butt.
  • krmat
    krmat Posts: 6 Member
    I agree completely with ShaneT99 on this one. I was an avid runner a few years ago but could never quite get to my goal weight. There were always a few extra pounds that I wish I could lose. I was diligent with my diet as well. It wasn't until I started doing more strength training that I was able to see some amazing results. Strength training has allowed me to look the best I have ever looked in years! I still do some cardio, but my workouts are more strength training now.
  • AEROBICVIC
    AEROBICVIC Posts: 159 Member

    Also trying to increase muscle to increase metabolism is very ineffective. One pound of muscle burns 6 calories per day, not the 50 bandied around the internet. So even if you were able to gain 10 lbs of additional muscle fiber, a nearly unobtainable goal even when not trying to lose weight, it would only add 60 calories a day to your BMR. You will burn far far more calories from the workouts trying to gain the muscle and then to maintain it whether you gain 10 lbs or zero pounds.

    Where on earth did you hear this? There are FAR too many studies out there that show the key to metabolism is muscle mass. It's a proven fact that your body burns far more calories to maintain muscle mass than it does to maintain fat mass. That's exactly why someone with a LOT of muscle has to eat like a horse if they want to maintain that muscle.

    so true! my husband is a prof power lifter. he weighs 275 and he has to eat around 7000-8000 calories a day to maintain his weight during competition training. if he drops below 7000 cals, he will drop weight and he doesn't want to do that since he competes in the 275 wt division. he is a drug free lifter so food his "drug", not steroids. believe me, it's hard to cook clean for him and keep it above 7000 cals a day! we have a son who plays football during his competition off season so it is double duty in our home when it comes to eating....
  • ShaneT99
    ShaneT99 Posts: 278 Member


    Sorry I misquoted, it is 7-10 calories a day.
    http://www.dailyspark.com/blog.asp?post=how_many_calories_does_muscle_really_burn_not_as_much_as_you_think

    It is because you are counting it in the wrong column. Muscle takes 10 calories a day to maintain at rest (fat ~2 calories), i.e. BMR, so adding muscle to increase metabolism is almost pointless. However, exercise activities that move your body weight are proportional to weight so big, heavy, muscular guys burn more calories moving around and exercising. Also those big, muscular guys didn't get that way sitting in front of the TV. They are working out well over an hour a day and are burning lots of calories exercising. So they don't burn tons of calories simply because they have lots of muscle, they burn calories tons of calories trying to build or maintain their physique and moving a large amount of muscle mass hours a day. Simply the attempt to build a muscular body will burn far more calories than having one and sitting on you butt.

    You sort of contradicted yourself. If muscle burns 10 calories per pound per day to maintain itself and someone has 150 pounds of muscle on their body (my LBM is about 180), then the muscle alone on that person's body burns 1500 calories a day doing absolutely NOTHING but sitting there and looking pretty. How often do your workouts burn 1500 calories? Contrast that to fat at 2 calories per day and 150 pounds of fat would burn only 300 calories. So, tell me which is better?

    Certainly exercising is a good thing. No one here said it wasn't. Exercise aside though, it's a proven fact that a body with more muscle will burn more calories at rest than a body with less muscle. That's why strength training is important.
  • ShaneT99
    ShaneT99 Posts: 278 Member


    so true! my husband is a prof power lifter. he weighs 275 and he has to eat around 7000-8000 calories a day to maintain his weight during competition training. if he drops below 7000 cals, he will drop weight and he doesn't want to do that since he competes in the 275 wt division. he is a drug free lifter so food his "drug", not steroids. believe me, it's hard to cook clean for him and keep it above 7000 cals a day! we have a son who plays football during his competition off season so it is double duty in our home when it comes to eating....

    I'd hate to have your grocery bill! :wink:
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I am not sure but, I think, it is because it is a very complicated calculation with too many variables to generalize into a calculator. You can find some calculators online but I doubt they would even be in the ball park. Even an HRM measurement is unreliable even if under reported for strength training. The benefit of strength training is not while you are doing it anyway, it is all about the fitness and metabolism gains. Muscle burns calories in your sleep. Measure it with a tape measure and the scale. Last night I flipped a tire for about 15 minutes, the HRM gave me about 87 Calories burned, it was very hard work, I am sure it was worth more than 87 Calories. The benefit from that will come later. Keep it up your doing great. I did log it as strength training, so, I can measure progress with increased speed and reps.

    You are correct, in that HR or HRM readings from strength training are useless. And the effects occur after the exercise session. And there are too many variables to generalize. I think the "muscle burns calories in your sleep" is a little overstated, but you are mostly on the right track.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Here is what I found out about your questions and it explains it pretty well. This obviously from an article.

    "You are probably burning more calories when you are actually moving a heavy weight than when you are doing aerobic exercise. But you are taking breaks, so over 30 minutes the actual number of calories burned doing strength training will be less."

    Time factors into the contest another way, too: "You are limited in the amount of strength training you can do,"
    The ACSM advises you weight-train no more than two to three times per week, to give the body time to repair microscopic muscle tears produced by training that are key to gaining strength. "But you can do cardiovascular exercise every day,"

    "Ideally, you want a combination of moderate to vigorous aerobic exercise and moderate-intensity strength training. But if vigorous aerobic exercise and vigorous weight training went head-to-head for calories burned, vigorous aerobic exercise would win."

    There is some research that suggests that even this might not be true. For some strength exercises at certain intensities, the direct calorie burn might exceed that of comparable aerobic exercise--it just can't be measured by typical means.

    There are also studies which show that, a combination of aerobic and strength training exercises leads to greater weight loss than equivalent cardio-only or strength-only routines, even when there is no increase in lean body mass.

    In the end, it is important to think of the overall effects of exercise/diet over a long period of time, rather than the short-term, transient effects of a single exercise session, regardless of the activity.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    As above, but to say they don't burn much would be wrong, it is all relative. I have never had such a low %BF as when I did a fairly intense 1 hour workout a day with weights. However without proper supervision and knowledge it is pretty hard to work to a level where you are achieving those results on your own.

    What I would suggest goes against what most gym instructors tell you because it is what they are taught day one of a course, is do your weights BEFORE the Cardio.

    Weightlifiing is anaerobic and therefore uses the glycogen in your muscles for energy. If you then follow your weights session with Cardio, there is no glycogen so the cardio starts tapping into fat reserves more quickly.

    Make sure you refuel immediately after working out as well.

    This just isn't true. You cannot lift enough in a typical session so that there is "no glycogen". And even if you could, two bad things would happen: 1) you couldn't do cardio for *kitten* (see: marathoners "hitting the wall") and 2) you would still need glucose for your brain and some other organs so your body would have to break down amino acids to scavenge the carbon skeletons.

    Finally, the fuel substrate used during an exercise session has almost no long-term effect on stored body fat. In some cases, intense lifting can result in increased fat oxidation during a subsequent cardio workout, but, over 24 hrs, fat oxidation is no different from someone who followed a different workout pattern (the same holds true if you do a "fat burning" cardio workout). Things even out over time.

    So maybe those "gym instructors" learned something on day one after all.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member

    Also trying to increase muscle to increase metabolism is very ineffective. One pound of muscle burns 6 calories per day, not the 50 bandied around the internet. So even if you were able to gain 10 lbs of additional muscle fiber, a nearly unobtainable goal even when not trying to lose weight, it would only add 60 calories a day to your BMR. You will burn far far more calories from the workouts trying to gain the muscle and then to maintain it whether you gain 10 lbs or zero pounds.

    Where on earth did you hear this? There are FAR too many studies out there that show the key to metabolism is muscle mass. It's a proven fact that your body burns far more calories to maintain muscle mass than it does to maintain fat mass. That's exactly why someone with a LOT of muscle has to eat like a horse if they want to maintain that muscle.

    so true! my husband is a prof power lifter. he weighs 275 and he has to eat around 7000-8000 calories a day to maintain his weight during competition training. if he drops below 7000 cals, he will drop weight and he doesn't want to do that since he competes in the 275 wt division. he is a drug free lifter so food his "drug", not steroids. believe me, it's hard to cook clean for him and keep it above 7000 cals a day! we have a son who plays football during his competition off season so it is double duty in our home when it comes to eating....

    The key word is "competition training". Tour de France riders burn an equal amount of calories per day, if not more, during the race, and most of them weigh between 140-170 lbs, with not a whole lot of muscle.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member


    Sorry I misquoted, it is 7-10 calories a day.
    http://www.dailyspark.com/blog.asp?post=how_many_calories_does_muscle_really_burn_not_as_much_as_you_think

    It is because you are counting it in the wrong column. Muscle takes 10 calories a day to maintain at rest (fat ~2 calories), i.e. BMR, so adding muscle to increase metabolism is almost pointless. However, exercise activities that move your body weight are proportional to weight so big, heavy, muscular guys burn more calories moving around and exercising. Also those big, muscular guys didn't get that way sitting in front of the TV. They are working out well over an hour a day and are burning lots of calories exercising. So they don't burn tons of calories simply because they have lots of muscle, they burn calories tons of calories trying to build or maintain their physique and moving a large amount of muscle mass hours a day. Simply the attempt to build a muscular body will burn far more calories than having one and sitting on you butt.

    You sort of contradicted yourself. If muscle burns 10 calories per pound per day to maintain itself and someone has 150 pounds of muscle on their body (my LBM is about 180), then the muscle alone on that person's body burns 1500 calories a day doing absolutely NOTHING but sitting there and looking pretty. How often do your workouts burn 1500 calories? Contrast that to fat at 2 calories per day and 150 pounds of fat would burn only 300 calories. So, tell me which is better?

    Certainly exercising is a good thing. No one here said it wasn't. Exercise aside though, it's a proven fact that a body with more muscle will burn more calories at rest than a body with less muscle. That's why strength training is important.

    I think your logic is off. First of all, you are trying to directly compare 150 pounds of muscle on a human body with 150 pounds of fat and claim that proves a 1200 calorie per day difference in BMR. You can't make that simplistic a comparison, because that's not how bodies are made. You would have to compare someone who has 150lbs MORE muscle mass than another person. Since even a 5ft tall female is likely to have 70lbs of muscle, you are looking at a minimum of trying to use an example of someone with a muscle mass of at least 220 pounds, which after adding the rest of the body and a typical 20% fat amount, would be pushing 350-400 lbs--hardly a representative sample. Someone with 150 lbs of fat would be in the same category--allowing for a 50% level of body fat (which is still pretty unusual). So, you are using completely atypical body types for this comparison,body types for which there are few, if any, common reference points.

    A more appropriate comparison or analysis would involve a net CHANGE in muscle mass. That is the point made by the earlier poster. He used an increase of 10lbs of muscle mass. For the average exerciser that is a substantial amount of muscle increase, and will most likely not be achieved, especially in individuals who are trying to lose weight. Again, you can see those types of increases (or larger) in competitive athletes, but that's not the typical person on this forum.

    Technically, I would agree that an increase in muscle mass will lead to an increase in resting metabolism. However, from a practical standpoint, most people are not going to achieve enough of an increase to make a significant difference. Because of that, I do believe that the benefits of "muscle building" in the typical workout program are vastly overstated. When I see Jillian Michaels showing an exercise of someone waving around a 5 lb dumbbell in a movement that is horizontal (so there is no resistance) and yelling "we're building muscle so we can burn more fat", I think that is a much more typical example of how this concept is being misused, than the example of the 275 lb powerlifter.

    It's also helpful to point out two other points: One, research by Westcott in the 1990s showed a significant improvement in fat loss of over time with a program that consisted of a combination of strength and cardio compared to strength-only and cardio-only routines. This benefit occurred even when there was no measurable increase in lean body mass. Two: the "metabolic type" workouts that are cited as being most effective for losing body fat often use relatively low-intensity weights--i.e. 40% of 1 RM max. They consist of high-intensity movements, but they are not "muscle-building" routines at all.

    I like to focus on the practical applications of these principles. That's why I disagree with taking examples from the farther ends of the spectrum--be they Olympic powerlifters or Kenyan marathoners--and trying to generalize their results/experiences to the general population.

    For weight loss, strength training is important because of the dynamic metabolic response to the training stimulus rather than a possible increase in muscle mass.
  • king6083
    king6083 Posts: 30
    First, I'd like to state to the OP that their question is a very good one. I've nothing more to add of any value than what has already been said on the subject.

    While I do suggest that anyone looking at fat loss to read up on the solid science, I'd also suggest not getting lost in the minutiae of it. There's really no need to understand, for example, that insulin triggers AdPLA which in turn produces PGE2 which in turn degrades cAMP which is what tells the body to burn fat. We don't need to know the science behind why the body doesn't burn fat very well when we've just eaten. We can leave that stuff to the people who find it interesting or want to use the info to promote intermittent fasting, I suppose. It's common sense that the body wouldn't use its stored energy when it just ate.

    Dedication is still the most important thing. As with anything, more zeal and less knowledge will likely get better results than less zeal and more knowledge about fat loss. (Not that it's wise to go to the gym and set up a diet without any knowledge at all - that's just plain a waste of ones time and effort)

    Sometime KISS (keep it simple, stupid) is of more use to us than detailed, accurate knowledge.

    When I lose the forest for the trees, I will sometimes throw everything out mentally and just look at it as simple adaption. The body wants to do things like store energy (fat) but it also adapts to what is being done with it. The kind of exercise a person does (provided their diet is good) can have dramatically different effect on body composition. Why? I'd guess that's because sometimes that extra fat the body prefers to keep hinders what the body is doing. For example if you compare the body types of runners and sprinters, you'll see that sprinters are leaner than runners. And sprinters in all probability are burning considerably less calories than runners. Maybe this is a result of EPOC and creating a lesser calorie deficit during exercise so the body doesn't try as hard to store fat, but we don't need to know that. All we really need to know is that all things being equal, sprinting will make you leaner than running.

    In short: Do whatever exercise(s) get the results you are looking for (and that you enjoy enough to do, of course). Knowing the calories burned during the exercise isn't all that important. You can always watch the scale and mirror and adjust the diet. Going a week or whatever your weigh-in schedule is without having your calorie deficit exactly what you want it to be isn't a big deal at all in the long run.
  • king6083
    king6083 Posts: 30

    Technically, I would agree that an increase in muscle mass will lead to an increase in resting metabolism. However, from a practical standpoint, most people are not going to achieve enough of an increase to make a significant difference. Because of that, I do believe that the benefits of "muscle building" in the typical workout program are vastly overstated. When I see Jillian Michaels showing an exercise of someone waving around a 5 lb dumbbell in a movement that is horizontal (so there is no resistance) and yelling "we're building muscle so we can burn more fat", I think that is a much more typical example of how this concept is being misused, than the example of the 275 lb powerlifter.

    For weight loss, strength training is important because of the dynamic metabolic response to the training stimulus rather than a possible increase in muscle mass.

    I would suggest from experience that the benefit of weightlifting while losing weight is for the most part not about building muscle at all, but helping retain it. The more muscle lost during weight loss, the more total weight a person has to lose in order to get to a given body fat percentage. Though I do agree that it is overstated for individuals with a high body fat percentage, I have to say that as a persons body fat percentage gets lower, weightlifting becomes more beneficial and at some point anaerobic exercise is a must for reducing bf%.
  • king6083
    king6083 Posts: 30
    Double posted somehow.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member

    Technically, I would agree that an increase in muscle mass will lead to an increase in resting metabolism. However, from a practical standpoint, most people are not going to achieve enough of an increase to make a significant difference. Because of that, I do believe that the benefits of "muscle building" in the typical workout program are vastly overstated. When I see Jillian Michaels showing an exercise of someone waving around a 5 lb dumbbell in a movement that is horizontal (so there is no resistance) and yelling "we're building muscle so we can burn more fat", I think that is a much more typical example of how this concept is being misused, than the example of the 275 lb powerlifter.

    For weight loss, strength training is important because of the dynamic metabolic response to the training stimulus rather than a possible increase in muscle mass.

    I would suggest from experience that the benefit of weightlifting while losing weight is for the most part not about building muscle at all, but helping retain it. The more muscle lost during weight loss, the more total weight a person has to lose in order to get to a given body fat percentage. Though I do agree that it is overstated for individuals with a high body fat percentage, I have to say that as a persons body fat percentage gets lower, weightlifting becomes more beneficial and at some point anaerobic exercise is a must for reducing bf%.

    Good point as well. Hopefully as the discussion looks at some of the more arcane aspects, the primary idea is not lost--that resistance training is essential for both the short and long term success of any weight loss program.

    I also also agree with the last sentence--the body's response to "diet" and exercise changes substantially as one gets closer to an ideal level of body fat and it takes a different approach to continue seeing results.
  • Pete_Luxford
    Pete_Luxford Posts: 10 Member
    As above, but to say they don't burn much would be wrong, it is all relative. I have never had such a low %BF as when I did a fairly intense 1 hour workout a day with weights. However without proper supervision and knowledge it is pretty hard to work to a level where you are achieving those results on your own.

    What I would suggest goes against what most gym instructors tell you because it is what they are taught day one of a course, is do your weights BEFORE the Cardio.

    Weightlifiing is anaerobic and therefore uses the glycogen in your muscles for energy. If you then follow your weights session with Cardio, there is no glycogen so the cardio starts tapping into fat reserves more quickly.

    Make sure you refuel immediately after working out as well.

    This just isn't true. You cannot lift enough in a typical session so that there is "no glycogen". And even if you could, two bad things would happen: 1) you couldn't do cardio for *kitten* (see: marathoners "hitting the wall") and 2) you would still need glucose for your brain and some other organs so your body would have to break down amino acids to scavenge the carbon skeletons.

    Finally, the fuel substrate used during an exercise session has almost no long-term effect on stored body fat. In some cases, intense lifting can result in increased fat oxidation during a subsequent cardio workout, but, over 24 hrs, fat oxidation is no different from someone who followed a different workout pattern (the same holds true if you do a "fat burning" cardio workout). Things even out over time.

    So maybe those "gym instructors" learned something on day one after all.

    I was probably a little too glib in my last post when I said NO glycogen, it does deplete your glycogen level but not emptying them and I would only suggest 20-40mins or so of cardio. Also, like many things in life it is only another school of thought. I wasn't suggest it is the ONLY way to train.

    You are unlikely to hit the wall in a typical one hour gym session using this method as hitting the wall is a combination of depleted glycogen levels as a result of prolonged intense exercise as well as an inability to process fat stores into energy quickly enough, because of the intensity.

    If you are working at too high a level for extended durations you deplete glycogen too fast, whereas if you lower the intensity to nearer 70% HR Reserve then the ratios of energy supply from Fat and Glycogen change.

    However if you have got to this stage it is often too late to do anything about it, hence you have to get it right early on in a marathon etc.

    Having seen your experience and profile I understand you have greater expertise in this area but I did want to pass on something that had worked for me and was told to me by the conditioning coach of the World Cup winning England Rugby Union team.

    Like I said, just another theory.
  • canstey
    canstey Posts: 118


    Sorry I misquoted, it is 7-10 calories a day.
    http://www.dailyspark.com/blog.asp?post=how_many_calories_does_muscle_really_burn_not_as_much_as_you_think

    It is because you are counting it in the wrong column. Muscle takes 10 calories a day to maintain at rest (fat ~2 calories), i.e. BMR, so adding muscle to increase metabolism is almost pointless. However, exercise activities that move your body weight are proportional to weight so big, heavy, muscular guys burn more calories moving around and exercising. Also those big, muscular guys didn't get that way sitting in front of the TV. They are working out well over an hour a day and are burning lots of calories exercising. So they don't burn tons of calories simply because they have lots of muscle, they burn calories tons of calories trying to build or maintain their physique and moving a large amount of muscle mass hours a day. Simply the attempt to build a muscular body will burn far more calories than having one and sitting on you butt.

    You sort of contradicted yourself. If muscle burns 10 calories per pound per day to maintain itself and someone has 150 pounds of muscle on their body (my LBM is about 180), then the muscle alone on that person's body burns 1500 calories a day doing absolutely NOTHING but sitting there and looking pretty. How often do your workouts burn 1500 calories? Contrast that to fat at 2 calories per day and 150 pounds of fat would burn only 300 calories. So, tell me which is better?

    Certainly exercising is a good thing. No one here said it wasn't. Exercise aside though, it's a proven fact that a body with more muscle will burn more calories at rest than a body with less muscle. That's why strength training is important.

    I did not contradict myself as Azdak pointed out. Your logic is completely flawed. Let's take a real world example.

    Two people both weight 150lbs. One does cardio and the other strength training so the strength training guy has 10lbs more muscle than cardio guy, who has 10lbs more fat.

    Strength guy's BMR is (8.5 calories muscle/extra pound - 2 calories fat/extra pound) * 10 extra pounds = 65 calories net per day over cardio guy. So if you work out for a year strength training, burning probably on the order of 250 calories per day * 365 days = 91250 calories, you could get an extra 60 calories a day. As I said, the act of trying to put on the muscle and maintain it burns far more calories than having it. Also you could get the extra 65 calories from walking about 10-15 minutes, like say always parking far away from the store.

    The other is what is the point of having massive caloric needs? Just to make your friends jealous you can eat an entire pizza and not gain weight? Strength training makes sense for body composition and strength but doing it just to try to raise your BMR seems useless because the higher your daily caloric needs, the more you will automatically eat because your body knows how much it needs to maintain weight. If you want great strength and body composition, do strength training and some cardio. If you simply want to be able to eat massive amounts of food then take up long distance running.
  • king6083
    king6083 Posts: 30
    As above, but to say they don't burn much would be wrong, it is all relative. I have never had such a low %BF as when I did a fairly intense 1 hour workout a day with weights. However without proper supervision and knowledge it is pretty hard to work to a level where you are achieving those results on your own.

    What I would suggest goes against what most gym instructors tell you because it is what they are taught day one of a course, is do your weights BEFORE the Cardio.

    Weightlifiing is anaerobic and therefore uses the glycogen in your muscles for energy. If you then follow your weights session with Cardio, there is no glycogen so the cardio starts tapping into fat reserves more quickly.

    Make sure you refuel immediately after working out as well.

    This just isn't true. You cannot lift enough in a typical session so that there is "no glycogen". And even if you could, two bad things would happen: 1) you couldn't do cardio for *kitten* (see: marathoners "hitting the wall") and 2) you would still need glucose for your brain and some other organs so your body would have to break down amino acids to scavenge the carbon skeletons.

    Finally, the fuel substrate used during an exercise session has almost no long-term effect on stored body fat. In some cases, intense lifting can result in increased fat oxidation during a subsequent cardio workout, but, over 24 hrs, fat oxidation is no different from someone who followed a different workout pattern (the same holds true if you do a "fat burning" cardio workout). Things even out over time.

    So maybe those "gym instructors" learned something on day one after all.

    I was probably a little too glib in my last post when I said NO glycogen, it does deplete your glycogen level but not emptying them and I would only suggest 20-40mins or so of cardio. Also, like many things in life it is only another school of thought. I wasn't suggest it is the ONLY way to train.

    You are unlikely to hit the wall in a typical one hour gym session using this method as hitting the wall is a combination of depleted glycogen levels as a result of prolonged intense exercise as well as an inability to process fat stores into energy quickly enough, because of the intensity.

    If you are working at too high a level for extended durations you deplete glycogen too fast, whereas if you lower the intensity to nearer 70% HR Reserve then the ratios of energy supply from Fat and Glycogen change.

    However if you have got to this stage it is often too late to do anything about it, hence you have to get it right early on in a marathon etc.

    Having seen your experience and profile I understand you have greater expertise in this area but I did want to pass on something that had worked for me and was told to me by the conditioning coach of the World Cup winning England Rugby Union team.

    Like I said, just another theory.

    And it does make sense. But I think there's a balance there. The body isn't going to add muscle very well if you never work hard enough to bring down glycogen (cardio would be a no-brainer way to do that), but on the other hand, the body is going to prioritize replacing glycogen before it will want to repair muscle. If glycogen levels get so low that it takes too long for the body to replace them, there won't be much time left for the body to repair muscle. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but it seems to me that from the perspective of evolution, that would be how the body would respond. Having the glycogen for endurance would have been more important than the additional muscle. At least it seems so to me.
  • ShaneT99
    ShaneT99 Posts: 278 Member
    I did not contradict myself as Azdak pointed out. Your logic is completely flawed. Let's take a real world example.

    Two people both weight 150lbs. One does cardio and the other strength training so the strength training guy has 10lbs more muscle than cardio guy, who has 10lbs more fat.

    Strength guy's BMR is (8.5 calories muscle/extra pound - 2 calories fat/extra pound) * 10 extra pounds = 65 calories net per day over cardio guy. So if you work out for a year strength training, burning probably on the order of 250 calories per day * 365 days = 91250 calories, you could get an extra 60 calories a day. As I said, the act of trying to put on the muscle and maintain it burns far more calories than having it. Also you could get the extra 65 calories from walking about 10-15 minutes, like say always parking far away from the store.

    The other is what is the point of having massive caloric needs? Just to make your friends jealous you can eat an entire pizza and not gain weight? Strength training makes sense for body composition and strength but doing it just to try to raise your BMR seems useless because the higher your daily caloric needs, the more you will automatically eat because your body knows how much it needs to maintain weight. If you want great strength and body composition, do strength training and some cardio. If you simply want to be able to eat massive amounts of food then take up long distance running.

    You're completely missing my point, so let me make this very simple for you and then I'll leave it alone.

    Muscle is better than fat. Period.
  • canstey
    canstey Posts: 118
    You're completely missing my point, so let me make this very simple for you and then I'll leave it alone.

    Muscle is better than fat. Period.

    Your two points originally were pretty much spot on and did not contradict what I posted originally so why all the angst over the reality checks I posted? There are lots of studies that show the benefits of strength training over cardio to combat the effects of aging whether muscle is added or not. There is no reason to support false claims like "Each extra pound of muscle burns 50 calories a day" or "Strength training will raise your metabolism so you will lose more weight compared to cardio" to convince people of the benefits. You said yourself in point #1 that for people needing to lose weight, strength training is not their friend. Too many times I see posts about strength training being more effective than cardio for losing weight because of the two myths posted above and all I did was show why they are myths before you even weighed in on the subject. If don't believe those myths and simply claim "muscle better than fat" then why dispute my post at all?
  • iplayoutside19
    iplayoutside19 Posts: 2,304 Member
    I don't understand why strength training and cardio have to be mutually exclusive. I honeslty like long distance running. I honestly like hitting the weights and other ST excersises pretty hard. I'm fine with the fact that if the body has to choose between muscle mass and endurance it's going to choose endurance.

    The best results I have seen as far as fat (notice I said fat, I've actually gained a few pounds doing this) loss, and inches off my waist is when I do 3 days ST, 2 days long distance running, and 1 day HIIT over a long distance.

    But I have seen an increase in stregnth (notice I said strength, not muscle), while also experiencing an increase in endurance.

    In the end, unless you're training for a specific athletic event or are a proffessional athlete, it doesn't matter. Just move. Don't just sit there, Do SOMETHING!
This discussion has been closed.