Calories Burned for Same Effort, but Different Timing

The burn for lifting isn't that high unfortunately. MFP estimates it around 93 cals for 30 mins so it would double it for an hour.
It makes sense if you do your reps quicker that you would be burning more cals than stretching it out for 60 mins.


Hope you get some good feedback as your question is valid and I'd also be interested to know the answer

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

HRM won't work for that. Sweating has nothing to do with anything.

In running, you can run slow or run fast, but the effort to run 5 miles is the same regardless. I heard this and didn't believe it but tested it for myself and on a 5 mile run, no matter how fast or slow, the calorie burn is exactly the same.

if thats really true i got to think your in really good shape and your body is that good at pacing yourself.

what if you walked it? same calories burned then?

I got to think if you pushed your self to the absolute edge it would burn more calories

In order to answer this, people always try to throw variables in that do not exist. In order to look at a situation like this, you can't say, "that's impossible to have exactly the same workout". I fully understand that.

understand that you only want to change one variable in order to test said varible,

but you also admit that its not really realistic to expect that you can do EXACTLY the same reps/weights/sets in 30 min as you do in 60... that is assuming your working at peak levels (if you were just going to do 10 lbs on all lifts i'm sure its doable, and in that case i'm sure the calorie burn WOULD be very close).

I understand the scientific method, i just think its pointless to use it to explore a situation that does not exist in reality.

I get what your saying about the running, as far as the walking burning less cals. did any of the articles you read say why you burn the same running same distance at different speeds?

imagine taking virtually no rest between sets and doing more of a circuit. your HR will be astronomically higher in the 30 min work out compared to the 60 min. in an instance such as this, even if you ended up pushing less weight in the 30 min workout, i think you would burn more in the short workout. mostly basing this on personal experience admittedly

Also, doing some exercises very slowly increases the intensity a great deal. Think of planks and such. Same goes for lifting and holding a weight instead of lifting and immediately putting it back down.

Ok. But, in my example, the only difference is the resting period.

Think sprinting 100 Metres vs, jogging, which do you think will burn more?

Also, doing some exercises very slowly increases the intensity a great deal. Think of planks and such. Same goes for lifting and holding a weight instead of lifting and immediately putting it back down.

Ok. But, in my example, the only difference is the resting period.

Think sprinting 100 Metres vs, jogging, which do you think will burn more?

read the whole thread, and google (i just took his word for it).

or how about this OP

walking = running in that they are both cardio. in running, one foot on the ground at an given time adds some what of a resistance aspect and apparently that magnifies the calories burned.

if your working hard/fast enough that your heart rate goes way up during lifting, then you've added a cardio component that wasn't really there in the 60 min workout

perhaps this could have the same effect as walking vs running

FYI, with walking you have one foot on the ground at all time, with running the majority of the distance you cover you have no feet on the ground. Watch a sprinter in slow motion, looks like they taking small leaps, one foot on the ground = walking, race walking they have judges to make sure at least one foot is touching at all time.

whatever, thats 100% besides the point, i'm just using the OP's words

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

You're using logic. But, logic doesn't prevail when it comes to science. When it comes to running, I know for a fact, and you can Google it, running 5 miles in 40 minutes or 60 minutes is exactly the same number of calories burned. This is what prompted me to ask this question.

That is almost 100% wrong. Calories burned has a lot to do with oxygen uptake and to what % of your Max V02 you are training at. So distance, duration, and intensity all factor in to the amount of work performed. walking 1 mile in 12 minutes burns a lot less than running a 5 minute mile, due to oxygen uptake to pump oxygen/blood through your body. HRM's use HR to estimate % of max intensity, but are not 100% as that does not have a 1:1 correlation with oxygen uptake.

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/general/qa-does-a-faster-runner-burn-more-calories/740.html

The calories burned in running the same distance, no matter the speed, is essentially the same.

I am interested in the V02 uptake argument.

My argument is not 100% wrong. You seriously need to do some research on this. I have.

But, my question is not about running, because I know I'm right on that. My question is on lifting weight.

Okay, not 100% wrong, and that variable is probably the most correlated, but still probably only accounts for <70% of total burn. VO2 Max studies suggest that when you use HR, V02Max, distance, duration, weight, may be missing another factor that, these combined only account of about 85% of total cals burned, the other 15% is due to unknown reasons but can be fairly well estimated using linear lines based on the 85%, meaning you can be about 95% accurate on cals burned for cardio.... strength training is even more difficult to measure.

I definitely burn a lot more than that estimated lifting weights. With the hrm and chest strap, I add on a lot with certain exercises, squats, upright row, overhead press, deadlift, etc. Maybe because I am new to it, but I am checking my heart rate.