MFP calorie burns from strength training way too low?
Replies
-
MFP's "strength training" entry is laughable, useful only for old ladies lifting pink dumbbells doing only isolation exercises.
The "circuit training" and/or "high effort calisthenics" are a much better approximation of calories burned while real strength training, which gives a value about 2/3-3/4 of what you'd get if you jogged for the same time period.
I actually don't think it matters much what form you are doing; recovery is more or less constant, set output is dependent on % recovered, whether you are doing heavy doubles, higher rep work, or anything in between.
Uber intense circuit work with heavy glycogen depletion (should feel the burn to the max) a la some Crossfit type stuff burns up the cals even faster than jogging does.
This is what I do- per Waldo's recommendation from several months ago- I'm gaining on it just fine.
I tend to be modest in my approach knowing my rests can be longer on heavy lift days- so even if I'm technically there for 2 hrs- I round down to say 75 minutes- If my rest times are shorter- I enter closer to my actual time there.
I also only usually eat back 60-80% of the calories- eating back all of them seems to be too high for me.
I'm also (as a 5'8" female) ball-parking 2500 plus or minus calories- my goal is 2000-2100 and with eat back it's 2500-3000 depending on how much I did that day. (4 hrs of dance plus 75 minutes of lifting is usually what contributes to my 'high' number)
I use it- but I figure out what my sedentary TDEE is... and then I add workouts- and eat back calories. I'm bulking just fine on it- but I have the same issue- varied workouts- just saying moderately active doesn't work for me.I don't use TDEE. I would, but my activity varies so greatly from day-to-day and week-to-week (yard work, etc.) that it would be a mess
But adding it in as needed seems to be working fine.
Remember it's very trial and error- and it is not fixed- as you gain weight- you'll need to eat more- as you lose weight- you need to eat less. It's a range of numbers- not a specific hard and fast fixed point.0 -
I log my workouts with Endomondo (they include average and max heartrate) for a workout. Endomondo then pushes my workouts to MFP.0
-
I did my usual 60-min lifting routine a few times with my HRM (Garmin Forerunner 405 CX) and it always came up between 340 and 380 calories burnt. So, I just use 350 calories to track my calorie intake. Then, I plan aa 500 calories surplus and bingo. One pound gained per week since January.0
-
General consensus on the boards is that heart rate monitors do a poor job at guesstimating calorie burn on weight training, compared to the steady-state aerobic activity for which they're generally better suited. Weight training doesn't, typically, burn a whole lot of calories.
That said, if you're on a bulk to begin with, increasing your surplus by a bit if you're not seeing the gains you expected may be appropriate.
Not sure where you're getting this info but I can definitely say it is different for everyone. I have been using a heart rate monitor for about 1 year now and have seen gains and even loss body fat because I was able to more accurately calculate the calories I burn for weightlifting sessions. I range from 600-1100 calories burned for 50-120 minutes of work. I am averaging about 10 calories per minute during a normal workout. So weight training CAN in fact burn a whole lot of calories. Its the intensity, weight used and amount of rest that determines the effectiveness of a work out. At least for me!0 -
I lose more than I "should" do StrongLifts. Assuming that you do SL (and any other exercise) the same number of times each week, I would just bump your every day deficit until you are gaining again. Probably bump 100 cal/day every week until you hit your gain goal. Good luck!0
-
General consensus on the boards is that heart rate monitors do a poor job at guesstimating calorie burn on weight training, compared to the steady-state aerobic activity for which they're generally better suited. Weight training doesn't, typically, burn a whole lot of calories.
That said, if you're on a bulk to begin with, increasing your surplus by a bit if you're not seeing the gains you expected may be appropriate.
Disagree.
I burn more on heavy leg day in an hour than I do from an hour of steady-state cardio, by double.0 -
BUMP.0
-
General consensus on the boards is that heart rate monitors do a poor job at guesstimating calorie burn on weight training, compared to the steady-state aerobic activity for which they're generally better suited. Weight training doesn't, typically, burn a whole lot of calories.
That said, if you're on a bulk to begin with, increasing your surplus by a bit if you're not seeing the gains you expected may be appropriate.
Disagree.
I burn more on heavy leg day in an hour than I do from an hour of steady-state cardio, by double.
According to the HRM, right?
So the HRM saw your HR spike super high and be elevated from using such big muscles during the workout, so it calculated big calorie burn, compared to much smaller average HR on your steady-state days.
The issue is the relationship between HR and calories burned is TOTALLY related to the aerobic function and amount of oxygen needed for that aerobic level, and your HR to supply that oxygen.
But lifting, if done right, is anaerobic.
The formula's for calculating calories also needs steady-state HR, same for 2-4 minutes.
Lifting is opposite of steady-state.
So yes, the formula's are wrong for lifting, and yes, it can inflate a lifting session as higher than a cardio session since the HR could be higher on average.
But no, it didn't actually burn as much.
I think the problem in this whole topic has been the separation for logging what was burned DURING the workout - and the fact a good lifting session burns more AFTER the workout than other exercise would, except for intervals. Which is just like lifting frankly. All out push, rest, repeat.
For those that found the HRM and results and eating level to seem to bear out - that's great. Except you can't do the math like that because there is a lot more to your TDEE than just exercise and BMR, impossible to prove out accuracy of HRM with results.
But an inflated calorie burn for just DURING the workout could indeed incorporate what the body burns extra during the repair and rebuilding process in the next 24-36 hrs.
But if you are going to pick a number out of the sky and hope it's right, might as well use the database entry for strength training.
Which actually is based on MET's found during studies of weight lifting and whole-room indirect calorimetry.
Obviously it's a big average of the tested movements, and if you don't match what was tested, it doesn't apply.0 -
I disagree with the notion that strength training doesn't burn many calories. It definitely does, but a HRM isn't going to accurately record the calories regardless. If you are using one during strength training, and it's working, I would just say that it's just coincidental that the estimations are correct.0
-
is your heart rate not intrinsically linked with intensity though?
when i do weights,my heart rate goes through the roof,same as when i do high intensity cardio,
i get that you can't measure the number of colories burnt during the repair process of muscles,
but to me my hrm gives me a calories burnt reading that i beleive to be accurate,
if i feel i have been training at maximum intensity it is usually bourne out by what my hrm says, i. e been working in the top 70-80% of my heart rate. i have 2 hrm's that allows me to input my vo2 max,age sex height weight etc, and one of them guides me when to begin my next set. and is designed for strength training, and my results are right in the ball park of where i'm supposed to be.0 -
is your heart rate not intrinsically linked with intensity though?
when i do weights,my heart rate goes through the roof,same as when i do high intensity cardio,
i get that you can't measure the number of colories burnt during the repair process of muscles,
but to me my hrm gives me a calories burnt reading that i beleive to be accurate,
if i feel i have been training at maximum intensity it is usually bourne out by what my hrm says, i. e been working in the top 70-80% of my heart rate. i have 2 hrm's that allows me to input my vo2 max,age sex height weight etc, and one of them guides me when to begin my next set. and is designed for strength training, and my results are right in the ball park of where i'm supposed to be.
What HRM do you have that does that (designed for strength training)? I'm interested.
You said all that stuff about HR. I never said that an HRM doesn't monitory heart rate during strength training, but HR and calorie burn aren't the same thing.
ETA: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories?hl=why+HRM0 -
is your heart rate not intrinsically linked with intensity though?
when i do weights,my heart rate goes through the roof,same as when i do high intensity cardio,
i get that you can't measure the number of colories burnt during the repair process of muscles,
but to me my hrm gives me a calories burnt reading that i beleive to be accurate,
if i feel i have been training at maximum intensity it is usually bourne out by what my hrm says, i. e been working in the top 70-80% of my heart rate. i have 2 hrm's that allows me to input my vo2 max,age sex height weight etc, and one of them guides me when to begin my next set. and is designed for strength training, and my results are right in the ball park of where i'm supposed to be.
What HRM do you have that does that (designed for strength training)? I'm interested.
You said all that stuff about HR. I never said that an HRM doesn't monitory heart rate during strength training, but HR and calorie burn aren't the same thing.
i have a polar ft80 (strength training) and a polar rc3 gps,
i know hr and calorie burn are not the same thing,
but it is my understanding that the calculations for calorie burn are based on what your heart is doing during the exercise period.0 -
is your heart rate not intrinsically linked with intensity though?
when i do weights,my heart rate goes through the roof,same as when i do high intensity cardio,
i get that you can't measure the number of colories burnt during the repair process of muscles,
but to me my hrm gives me a calories burnt reading that i beleive to be accurate,
if i feel i have been training at maximum intensity it is usually bourne out by what my hrm says, i. e been working in the top 70-80% of my heart rate. i have 2 hrm's that allows me to input my vo2 max,age sex height weight etc, and one of them guides me when to begin my next set. and is designed for strength training, and my results are right in the ball park of where i'm supposed to be.
What HRM do you have that does that (designed for strength training)? I'm interested.
You said all that stuff about HR. I never said that an HRM doesn't monitory heart rate during strength training, but HR and calorie burn aren't the same thing.
i have a polar ft80 (strength training) and a polar rc3 gps,
i know hr and calorie burn are not the same thing,
but it is my understanding that the calculations for calorie burn are based on what your heart is doing during the exercise period.
Right, and hence, that's why it isn't necessarily accurate because heart rate elevation does not equal calorie burn. I added a link to my last post. Have a read.0 -
Agreed!!!0
-
is your heart rate not intrinsically linked with intensity though?
when i do weights,my heart rate goes through the roof,same as when i do high intensity cardio,
i get that you can't measure the number of colories burnt during the repair process of muscles,
but to me my hrm gives me a calories burnt reading that i beleive to be accurate,
if i feel i have been training at maximum intensity it is usually bourne out by what my hrm says, i. e been working in the top 70-80% of my heart rate. i have 2 hrm's that allows me to input my vo2 max,age sex height weight etc, and one of them guides me when to begin my next set. and is designed for strength training, and my results are right in the ball park of where i'm supposed to be.
No.
You ever had your HR race because of too much caffeine or other meds?
It'll will also start elevating in exercise because of getting dehydrated, thicker blood, less oxygen, need to pump more. Intensity stays the same or goes down.
It will also elevate in the summer to assist with cooling, pushing more blood to surface to help with that.
None of that is related to intensity, or at least not a change in intensity or effort that you would think a rising HR would indicate.
Your HR raises from lifting NOT because of any need for more oxygen at all. Unless you hold your breath the whole time.
You can believe what you want, but VO2max has nothing to do with anaerobic effort, except where that effort starts.
VO2max is your bodies ability to supply oxygen as required for effort, doesn't apply when it's anaerobic.
It thinks that elevated HR was reached with cardio and hence calorie burn appropriate to that level.
You reach the same average HR in a cardio session, you'll get the same calorie burn.
They FAQ on that strength training watch used to include a comment regarding calories not being the purpose, merely watching for when it's time to move on.
Double encouragement to read the topic that was posted too, it is excellent, showing the disconnect between VO2 and lifting.0 -
yeah i've read all that guys posts about how innacurate the calorie burn is,but on the web most of the research (admitedly there's not loads) points to an innacuracy average of about 25% - 15% which to me doesn't seem bad, dependent on model of hrm and sex of person wearing it., is this not acceptable to us amateur athletes?
do we really think we are dealing with an exact science regards losing weight,building strength,so why should we expect the calorie burn on these devices to be exact?
not trying to be argumentative, it's just these threads always end up with someone saying get a hrm and then someone else shooting hrm's down in flames.personally my hrm is a great motivational tool,it may just be saving me the bother of writing all my exercise down, but to me it's not.0 -
is your heart rate not intrinsically linked with intensity though?
when i do weights,my heart rate goes through the roof,same as when i do high intensity cardio,
i get that you can't measure the number of colories burnt during the repair process of muscles,
but to me my hrm gives me a calories burnt reading that i beleive to be accurate,
if i feel i have been training at maximum intensity it is usually bourne out by what my hrm says, i. e been working in the top 70-80% of my heart rate. i have 2 hrm's that allows me to input my vo2 max,age sex height weight etc, and one of them guides me when to begin my next set. and is designed for strength training, and my results are right in the ball park of where i'm supposed to be.
[/quot
No.
You ever had your HR race because of too much caffeine or other meds?
It'll will also start elevating in exercise because of getting dehydrated, thicker blood, less oxygen, need to pump more. Intensity stays the same or goes down.
It will also elevate in the summer to assist with cooling, pushing more blood to surface to help with that.
None of that is related to intensity, or at least not a change in intensity or effort that you would think a rising HR would indicate.
Your HR raises from lifting NOT because of any need for more oxygen at all. Unless you hold your breath the whole time.
You can believe what you want, but VO2max has nothing to do with anaerobic effort, except where that effort starts.
VO2max is your bodies ability to supply oxygen as required for effort, doesn't apply when it's anaerobic.
It thinks that elevated HR was reached with cardio and hence calorie burn appropriate to that level.
You reach the same average HR in a cardio session, you'll get the same calorie burn.
They FAQ on that strength training watch used to include a comment regarding calories not being the purpose, merely watching for when it's time to move on.
Double encouragement to read the topic that was posted too, it is excellent, showing the disconnect between VO2 and lifting.
sorry no, ive never had my heart rate get to 179bpm due to caffine or meds.0 -
Okay, so you know they aren't accurate, and now it's about others telling people they aren't accurate?
I don't care either way who uses one. But if someone comes in and says MFP calculations are too low, and someone replies with "get an HRM to be sure", of course I am going to say they aren't accurate. People don't need to waste their money if that's all they want an HRM for.
I don't expect an HRM to be exact, but using it for something that it isn't designed to do and then calling the results accurate isn't very bright.0 -
no, it's not that at all,i'm just providing anecdotal evidence that using a hrm can help to get a handel on how many calories are burnt, but now i'm just wondering how i'm losing weight, reshaping my body when i use weights as well as other stuff,and all my info on calories burned comes from my hrm. it's late, no offence was meant to anyone, and all this fitness stuff,well it's a learning curve for everyone,me included.0
-
i'm just wondering how i'm losing weight, reshaping my body when i use weights as well as other stuff,and all my info on calories burned comes from my hrm.
It's the internet, no offense was taken, and none was intended towards you either.
How are you losing weight? You are creating a calorie deficit.0 -
Calorie burn is ALSO intrinsically linked with movement.is your heart rate not intrinsically linked with intensity though?
You can watch a scary film while doing weights and have your heart rate peak higher.
Was that related to weights? If so, do you have it to hand?yeah i've read all that guys posts about how innacurate the calorie burn is,but on the web most of the research (admitedly there's not loads) points to an innacuracy average of about 25% - 15% which to me doesn't seem bad, dependent on model of hrm and sex of person wearing it., is this not acceptable to us amateur athletes?
More likely, it seems it would be related to cardio activities, where it can be reasonably accurate.
From what I've seen the algorithms for cardio work are fairly good, even more so if the GPS device links to topo data or other ways to know the elevation you are going up/down.
I haven't seen that anyone's made decent algorithms for weight lifting.
Also, what deficit do you average by your calculations and what rate of loss do you get?0 -
I got around 300 cals burned on my HRM when I did SL. This was later on when I was lifting heavier. I never thought it was unreasonable. For a younger person I can definitely see that number being higher (I'm 40).0
-
Incidentally, on another thread I worked out the calories burnt doing the actual movements for me doing a starting strength routine.
I think it came to around 50 from actually moving - using weight lifted multiplied by height and then inefficiency factors.0 -
I don't use the "strength training"tab ..I use the "circuit training" tab under cardiovascular..I do an intense workout with heavy weights and lil rest times..I superset everything..MFP is not accurate on a lot of things..It just gives the bare minimums..
I've learned to make my own adjustments... 0 -
I find myself so hungry after weight training it can't possibly be only a 150 calorie burn in an hour.
Yeah, and it must be more like 300 in my case instead of 200.
I think I'm on the right track...after the extra hundred calories yesterday, I feel like I am more recovered this evening, 24 hours later, than I felt this morning.
Anyone else?
I actually found it to be pretty good for me. It would give me 450 calories for a 90 calorie session and it was pretty much dead on.
A lot depends on the intensity of your workout and MFP can't possibly know that. Some people have minimal rest between sets (like 30-90 seconds). Some people like me have more. A lot more. On my top set I take at least 10 minutes of rest, sometimes up to 20 before I attempt it. Between sets of chin-ups? 5 minutes rest. The list goes on.
Nevermind the amounts of weight lifted multiplied by reps are going to affect your burn too, and MFP doesn't know that either. So I guess it shouldn't be surprising that results may vary.0 -
General consensus on the boards is that heart rate monitors do a poor job at guesstimating calorie burn on weight training, compared to the steady-state aerobic activity for which they're generally better suited. Weight training doesn't, typically, burn a whole lot of calories.
That said, if you're on a bulk to begin with, increasing your surplus by a bit if you're not seeing the gains you expected may be appropriate.
Not just on the boards, but (many of) the HRM manufacturers themselves admit it.0 -
And this is another issue with it. I go for five minute rest if I've got time, or go down the weight very slightly and two minute rest if I'm busy.. On my top set I take at least 10 minutes of rest, sometimes up to 20 before I attempt it. Between sets of chin-ups? 5 minutes rest. The list goes on.
Likely that my heart rate will still be elevated over rest for those five minutes, so a HRM would be noting me as doing *some* work for five minutes, when the most is often fiddling on a computer or playing with the dog on the sofa.0 -
Wow, so many great replies!
Clearly, I was vastly underestimating my Stronglifts burns. I do feel localized glycogen depletion in my arms and shoulders after a session. At least that's what I assume it is. It's like a dull, mild burn. Not intense like the lactic acid burn you get after running.
So, even though I have my MFP set to active, I was apparently shrinking my surplus down to the 200-300 cal level by underestimating the burns.
I am upping my lift-day calories by another hundred or so starting now. That will make for an increase of 200 cal in the past week on workout days. In addition, I recently upped my baseline surplus everyday to 500 from 400 (as of several weeks ago when I started Stronglifts). I'm eating 3060 cal on non-workout days (and eating back any other estimated burns in addition), and will be eating 3460 or so on Stronglifts days like today (again assuming no other huge activity for the day).
Thanks again!0 -
Incidentally, on another thread I worked out the calories burnt doing the actual movements for me doing a starting strength routine.
I think it came to around 50 from actually moving - using weight lifted multiplied by height and then inefficiency factors.
Did you account for the inefficiency of ATP production for an anaerobic vs. aerobic reaction.
50 cals of aerobic fuel burn is 800 cals of anaerobic fuel burn for an equal amount of ATP.0 -
Plugged in a theoretical 30 min weight session at "difficult" intensity into my UP band interface (for the stats, I'm 186 lbs at 5'5" 44 yo female). UP says that it equals a 394 calorie burn. Just figured I'd toss that number out there. MFP equates that to just under 100 calories, IIRC.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions