Calorie Expenditure for 1 Set of Bench Press

Study: AEROBIC, ANAEROBIC, AND EXCESS POSTEXERCISE OXYGEN CONSUMPTION ENERGY EXPENDITURE OF MUSCULAR ENDURANCE AND STRENGTH: 1-SET OF BENCH PRESS TO MUSCULAR FATIGUE

Authors: CHRISTOPHER B. SCOTT, BRIAN H. LEIGHTON, KELLY J. AHEARN, AND JAMES J. MCMANUS

Journal: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, vol 25, number 4, April 2011 pp 903-908

I noticed this study a couple of years ago and keep a copy in my cloud database because I have found it really useful. I like it because it provides a lot of numbers to chew on.

The researchers looked at the energy expenditure for 1 set of bench press done to failure at 6 different intensity loads. What made this one different was that they examined not only total energy, the the aerobic, anerobic, and EPOC contributions. Prior to this study, Dr Scott published an article describing his methodology for calculating the anerobic energy cost of non-aerobic activity such as a bench press. While his methodology has not been universally accepted yet, it has been used by several other researchers (including the U Wisc LaCrosse study on kettlebells published a year or two ago).

Subjects performed 1 set of bench press at six different intensities: 37% 1RM, 46% 1 RM, 56% 1 RM, 70% 1RM, 80% 1 RM, 90% 1 RM.

I'll provide some of the data, but one interesting finding was that elevated post-oxygen consumption (EPOC) was the same across all intensities. That runs counter to the idea that "the heavier you lift, the greater the 'afterburn'".

Not having a "table" function will make this more difficult, but here is the data--it is arranged in the following order:
Intensity, Number of Reps, Anerobic calories, Aerobic calories, EPOC calories, Total calories (all values are PER SET)

37% 1 RM, 36.5, 7.2, 3.3, 5, 15.5

46% 1 RM, 25.5, 7, 2.2, 5, 14.2

56% 1 RM, 20, 7, 2.2, 5, 14.2

70% 1 RM, 12, 6.3, 1.1, 5, 12.4

80% 1 RM, 8, 5, 1.1, 5, 11.1

90% 1 RM, 4.5, 3.3, 0.5, 4.1, 7.9

There was some variation in the actual EPOC numbers, but since the differences were "nonsignificant", I gave each intensity the same EPOC score.

As might be expected, greatest total calorie burn came from the lower weights that resulted in the longest duration of continuous actvity. It also needs to be pointed out that at 37% 1 RM intensity, one will realize minimal strength gains--in a sense, strength training at that level is more like cardio.

One might also look at the 90% numbers and observe that it would take only about 15-20 secs to complete one set of 4-5 reps, so the rate of cal/min for 90% is really quite high. However, with the longer recovery time between sets, over a workout, it is still probably lower.

I draw a couple of conclusions from this study:

1. There is no penalty for obese beginners who want to start with lighter weights. In fact, from a total energy expenditure standpoint, they might burn more calories with lighter weights. Even at a 50% intensity level, beginners will realize strength gains and conserve lean mass. There is no reason for a beginner to beat themselves up by jumping into a high-volume "heavy lifting" program at the start. Starting at a lower level and building up over a period of several weeks is beneficial in many ways.

2. While 10 calories for a set might not sound like much, if one is doing a full lifting workout that lasts 60 min or more, a 300-400 calorie burn is likely. Do that (or more) regularly, and control food intake, and it is clear that those who wish to do so can consistently lose weight via lifting alone.

3. I have stated this numerous times, but the claims of "afterburn" calories burned are consistently overstated, and should not be relied on as a significant contribution to a weight loss program--whether for "heavy lifting" or HIIT.

Hope you found this interesting.