Strength Training Calories
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
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%.0 -
Double posted somehow.0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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!0 -
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 the only goal is to lose WEIGHT, then strength training is not your friend. I think we both agree on that. However, there's a difference between weight loss and fat loss (weight loss includes fat, muscle, water, etc.). So, if your goal is to lose FAT then strength training (along with cardio, of course) is most definitely your friend. That's true not only because of the calories you burn while strength training (as well as the "afterburn" you get from strength training that you don't necessarily get with cardio), but also because every pound of muscle you put on your body does indeed help to raise your metabolism and, in theory, burn more fat. Is it a significant amount? Probably not, but I'd still take 10 pounds of muscle over 10 pounds of fat any day of the week.0 -
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!
Quoted for truth. This posts hit the single most important point and most often overlooked. Doing whatever exercise you like is the way to results. Doing exercises we don't like produce inferior results because we don't stick to it.
Edit: Also, ST and cardio aren't mutually exclusive. Except for perhaps in theory once an athlete get's advanced enough in one type of exercise. But those people are typically outliers to the general population. The very best at what they do. IE people who hit the genetic lottery like Olympians, etc.0 -
That is not true, a resent study was done and it showed weight training burns far more carories than cardio workouts. With a cardio workout you have to work out for a longer period of time than weight training to achieve the same amount of calories burned. Further with cardio you only burn caloris for up to 20 minutes after you complete your workout, with weight training you burn calories for up to 1 hour after your workout.0
-
After reading all of this I am just MORE confused now.
So, the calories my HRM is telling me I burned during my strength training is essentially useless? Then what is a good way to figure out how many extra calories I should eat to continue to have a good calorie deficit to lose weight/fat, yet still eat enough so that my my metabolism isn't slowing down?
I started a strength training program and lost 5 lbs in 3-4 weeks, then gained back 3-4. I assume I lost fat and then gained muscle since I still lost inches even when I gained that weight back. The program is 3 days cardio, 3 days strength essentially. But I've increased my calorie intake (net calories) and am eating the strength training calories back (based on my HRM). Is there something better or different I could be doing?0 -
After reading all of this I am just MORE confused now.
So, the calories my HRM is telling me I burned during my strength training is essentially useless? Then what is a good way to figure out how many extra calories I should eat to continue to have a good calorie deficit to lose weight/fat, yet still eat enough so that my my metabolism isn't slowing down?
I started a strength training program and lost 5 lbs in 3-4 weeks, then gained back 3-4. I assume I lost fat and then gained muscle since I still lost inches even when I gained that weight back. The program is 3 days cardio, 3 days strength essentially. But I've increased my calorie intake (net calories) and am eating the strength training calories back (based on my HRM). Is there something better or different I could be doing?
IMO, most people need to stop overthinking the "calorie count" thing--at least when it comes to calories expended. I recommend that, unless you are really small, get off the 1200 calorie/day hamster wheel, eat a decent amount of food and stop trying to be precise about estimating activity calories. Most people can lose weight at a level of 1400-1600 calories per day. If you are doing a lot exercise or feeling unusually hungry, throw in a couple hundred extra. The chances of "slowing metabolism" on such a plan are virtually nil.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions