Calories Burned for Same Effort, but Different Timing
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
I'm actually thinking the opposite. My trainer has me do timed workouts where I don't rest except when I really have to. I haven't asked him about it, but my thinking is that your body doesn't have the time to relax therefore it takes more effort to do the exercises therefore burning more calories. By doing the routine faster you are moving faster and also getting cardio all of which is going to burn more calories.
What if you did the exact same thing but took twice as long. How is the effort not exactly the same in both cases?
Because with more rest you wouldn't have to push as hard to lift the same reps/weight/sets. In other words, not working as hard
Work equals force times distance. How does either the force or the distance change by altering rest time?0 -
I'm actually thinking the opposite. My trainer has me do timed workouts where I don't rest except when I really have to. I haven't asked him about it, but my thinking is that your body doesn't have the time to relax therefore it takes more effort to do the exercises therefore burning more calories. By doing the routine faster you are moving faster and also getting cardio all of which is going to burn more calories.
What if you did the exact same thing but took twice as long. How is the effort not exactly the same in both cases?
Because with more rest you wouldn't have to push as hard to lift the same reps/weight/sets. In other words, not working as hard
Work equals force times distance. How does either the force or the distance change by altering rest time?
because the rest affects how the human body works. What you are saying is that other than the lift the human body's mechanics blood pumping, breathing, etc, use nothing. Again for a machine you are correct, same amount of work, but what you the body needs to do in order to do the portion of work you are measuring is required, and uses energy.0 -
I'm actually thinking the opposite. My trainer has me do timed workouts where I don't rest except when I really have to. I haven't asked him about it, but my thinking is that your body doesn't have the time to relax therefore it takes more effort to do the exercises therefore burning more calories. By doing the routine faster you are moving faster and also getting cardio all of which is going to burn more calories.
What if you did the exact same thing but took twice as long. How is the effort not exactly the same in both cases?
Because with more rest you wouldn't have to push as hard to lift the same reps/weight/sets. In other words, not working as hard
No. You lifted exactly the same amount of weight.
Yes you did, but you didn't work as hard, so your heart didn't pump as much blood to the muscles and such. You are thinking in terms of a machine lifting these things, your body goes through all kinds of biological processes in order for you to perform pretty much anything. This "machine" you keep referencing does not need rest and could pick up and put down the same weight 1000 times without needing recovery, animals, humans included, are different.
Can you point me to some articles that discuss this in detail? I am interested that V02 max may have something to do with it. But, I'm not convinced. In the running example, it's not a factor.
I'm not looking for V02 max articles, as I understand that. I am looking for a similar thing to the running example I provided, but for lifting. I know it's complicated. That's why it's not an easy answer. But, again, you're adding unnecessary variables. Keep everything the same, except the duration.
My hypothesis is that doing it faster has no effect. I'm looking for evidence to refute that hypothesis.
everything I have come across says its too hard to calculate with any accuracy calories burned from lifting. Your premise is probably right for lifting the up and down of the lift itself, but with less rest the body does differnent things/recovery, that with more rest, and that is being ignored here, and probably makes up a significant portion of cals burned during a lifting session. Otherwise why would rep 10 of a set be harder than the first, when the work on the 10th rep is the same as it is no the first?
Or the other thing you could say is, if you could lift a weight 10 times takes x amount of work, then why would your 1 rep max not be 10 times what you can do for 10 reps?
So if I can bench 200lbs for 8 reps, that would be 1800 lbs, why is my 1 rep max in the 250 lb range? only 25% higher, and not 1800 lbs.0 -
I'm actually thinking the opposite. My trainer has me do timed workouts where I don't rest except when I really have to. I haven't asked him about it, but my thinking is that your body doesn't have the time to relax therefore it takes more effort to do the exercises therefore burning more calories. By doing the routine faster you are moving faster and also getting cardio all of which is going to burn more calories.
What if you did the exact same thing but took twice as long. How is the effort not exactly the same in both cases?
Because with more rest you wouldn't have to push as hard to lift the same reps/weight/sets. In other words, not working as hard
Work equals force times distance. How does either the force or the distance change by altering rest time?
because the rest affects how the human body works. What you are saying is that other than the lift the human body's mechanics blood pumping, breathing, etc, use nothing. Again for a machine you are correct, same amount of work, but what you the body needs to do in order to do the portion of work you are measuring is required, and uses energy.
Nice attempt counting BMR and attributing it to the effort of lifting.0 -
I'm actually thinking the opposite. My trainer has me do timed workouts where I don't rest except when I really have to. I haven't asked him about it, but my thinking is that your body doesn't have the time to relax therefore it takes more effort to do the exercises therefore burning more calories. By doing the routine faster you are moving faster and also getting cardio all of which is going to burn more calories.
What if you did the exact same thing but took twice as long. How is the effort not exactly the same in both cases?
Because with more rest you wouldn't have to push as hard to lift the same reps/weight/sets. In other words, not working as hard
Work equals force times distance. How does either the force or the distance change by altering rest time?
because the rest affects how the human body works. What you are saying is that other than the lift the human body's mechanics blood pumping, breathing, etc, use nothing. Again for a machine you are correct, same amount of work, but what you the body needs to do in order to do the portion of work you are measuring is required, and uses energy.
Nice attempt counting BMR and attributing it to the effort of lifting.
That is not BMR, When I am fresh my HR, oxygen uptake, strength are all different, non of which is attributed to BMR. I was speaking of during the lift, with less rest your HR will be higher during the lift, your body will be pumping blood to the tired muscles to get oxygen to them, which would be needed more than if you are fresh.0 -
I tend to agree with eric on this. The calories required to lift the weights would be the same, but that's only a fraction of your caloric burn from the exercise and you'd be taxing your cardiovascular and respiratory systems much more in the circuit training example. That said, the example is a bit academic because I don't think it's realistic to say that you can lift the exact same amount of weight when doing circuit training as you could if you're resting for say 5 minutes between sets.0
-
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
Again, in science, you only change one variable in order to study and understand the effect of the change. That's how science works. Sorry if you don't agree with that.
right because what I said contradicts your statment in anyway
my point is simply that what you want to keep as a constant, can not be so in reality
go ahead and try to design and actual experiment like that hot shot0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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
Again, in science, you only change one variable in order to study and understand the effect of the change. That's how science works. Sorry if you don't agree with that.
right because what I said contradicts your statment in anyway
my point is simply that what you want to keep as a constant, can not be so in reality
go ahead and try to design and actual experiment like that hot shot
What I am saying is that you isolate one variable at a time. Is that concept foreign to you? It's pretty standard across the board for experiments. It's the only way to figure out things. You have to control all the variables, and change one, and see the effect.
I'm not a researcher. I'm not an expert. I'm just trying to find evidence. The running example is solid and legit. I'm looking for a weight lifting example that has been tested.
I actually think it can be done. It would take a bit of work. I don't have access to all the tools I would need, like a breathing machine to calculate V02 max, and probably a bunch of other stuff, and a gym. How you measure thermogenesis is a bit beyond my comprehension. But, that doesn't mean it's not possible. One way you could conduct the experiment is to look at results. So, you have to do a 30 minute routine for a month. Then, do the exact same routine, only take longer, and see if there is any appreciable weight loss, eating pretty close to the same during those two months of the experiment. ...something like that.
I can only assume that the one thing you want different is the time of the workout.
Assuming that your working at or near peak ability in both workouts, there is no way that your going to be able to do the exact same exercise/same weight/ same sets in 30 min that you would do in a 60 min workout. If you did, then you were serriously under performing in the 60 min workout.
So if you actually did this in reality, time would not be the only variable.
that is all i am saying.0 -
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
Again, in science, you only change one variable in order to study and understand the effect of the change. That's how science works. Sorry if you don't agree with that.
right because what I said contradicts your statment in anyway
my point is simply that what you want to keep as a constant, can not be so in reality
go ahead and try to design and actual experiment like that hot shot
What I am saying is that you isolate one variable at a time. Is that concept foreign to you? It's pretty standard across the board for experiments. It's the only way to figure out things. You have to control all the variables, and change one, and see the effect.
I'm not a researcher. I'm not an expert. I'm just trying to find evidence. The running example is solid and legit. I'm looking for a weight lifting example that has been tested.
I actually think it can be done. It would take a bit of work. I don't have access to all the tools I would need, like a breathing machine to calculate V02 max, and probably a bunch of other stuff, and a gym. How you measure thermogenesis is a bit beyond my comprehension. But, that doesn't mean it's not possible. One way you could conduct the experiment is to look at results. So, you have to do a 30 minute routine for a month. Then, do the exact same routine, only take longer, and see if there is any appreciable weight loss, eating pretty close to the same during those two months of the experiment. ...something like that.
I can only assume that the one thing you want different is the time of the workout.
Assuming that your working at or near peak ability in both workouts, there is no way that your going to be able to do the exact same exercise/same weight/ same sets in 30 min that you would do in a 60 min workout. If you did, then you were serriously under performing in the 60 min workout.
So if you actually did this in reality, time would not be the only variable.
that is all i am saying.
QFT, that is what I have been saying too.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
I'm always amused by these convoluted discussions over what is settled science. Good thing most people are reasonably in agreement over the laws of gravity.
The simple answer to the OPs question is that, yes, if the exact same workout was spaced over 60 min vs 30 min, the calorie burn would be similar. Again that's assuming everything -- weight, reps, sets, recovery time, etc. was the same.
Oh, and jogging the same distance at different speeds also burns the same number of calories as well--as long as you are in an aerobic steady state. The faster speed burns calories at a faster RATE (more per minute), but that is offset by the fewer minutes it take to cover the distance.0 -
if you did the best you could in 30 min, and then did that same workout at a more leisurly pace in 60 min, then maybe you would burn the same, and perhaps thats the same thing as running a set distance at different paces.
But even in that case i'd be willing to bet that you burn more in the 30 min workout.
if you were half assing it, did some weight that barely challenged you, and did the same weights/sets/exercise in a 30 min vs 60 min workout, i'd expect your calorie burn to be about the same, and pretty low0 -
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
Again, in science, you only change one variable in order to study and understand the effect of the change. That's how science works. Sorry if you don't agree with that.
right because what I said contradicts your statment in anyway
my point is simply that what you want to keep as a constant, can not be so in reality
go ahead and try to design and actual experiment like that hot shot
What I am saying is that you isolate one variable at a time. Is that concept foreign to you? It's pretty standard across the board for experiments. It's the only way to figure out things. You have to control all the variables, and change one, and see the effect.
I'm not a researcher. I'm not an expert. I'm just trying to find evidence. The running example is solid and legit. I'm looking for a weight lifting example that has been tested.
I actually think it can be done. It would take a bit of work. I don't have access to all the tools I would need, like a breathing machine to calculate V02 max, and probably a bunch of other stuff, and a gym. How you measure thermogenesis is a bit beyond my comprehension. But, that doesn't mean it's not possible. One way you could conduct the experiment is to look at results. So, you have to do a 30 minute routine for a month. Then, do the exact same routine, only take longer, and see if there is any appreciable weight loss, eating pretty close to the same during those two months of the experiment. ...something like that.
I can only assume that the one thing you want different is the time of the workout.
Assuming that your working at or near peak ability in both workouts, there is no way that your going to be able to do the exact same exercise/same weight/ same sets in 30 min that you would do in a 60 min workout. If you did, then you were serriously under performing in the 60 min workout.
So if you actually did this in reality, time would not be the only variable.
that is all i am saying.
QFT, that is what I have been saying too.
I never said working at peak ability.
what the hell's the point then?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
neuarl adaption, now your changing the whole thing. i thought we were talking one 30min workout vs one 60min workout. i don't think your going to change much neuralogically one workout to the next.
thought we were just talking about calories burned0 -
Oh, and jogging the same distance at different speeds also burns the same number of calories as well--as long as you are in an aerobic steady state. The faster speed burns calories at a faster RATE (more per minute), but that is offset by the fewer minutes it take to cover the distance.
I don't think that's correct. The difference in calories per mile isn't huge, but it's there nonetheless.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
if you did the best you could in 30 min, and then did that same workout at a more leisurly pace in 60 min, then maybe you would burn the same, and perhaps thats the same thing as running a set distance at different paces.
But even in that case i'd be willing to bet that you burn more in the 30 min workout.
if you were half assing it, did some weight that barely challenged you, and did the same weights/sets/exercise in a 30 min vs 60 min workout, i'd expect your calorie burn to be about the same, and pretty low
The only reason to half-*kitten* it in an experiment is so you're not getting stronger, and therefore running the results due to neural adaption.
To rephrase what they're saying, it's an impractical hypothetical simply because you're either looking at half-assed training at 60 minutes or you're talking about different weights (i.e., less weights for circuit training, closer to your 1RM when training with lengthy pauses between sets). If you compare circuit training to half-*kitten* training for 60 minutes, then you would likely get a somewhat higher caloric burn from the circuit training but how useful is that result, since you probably shouldn't be half-assed training training in the first place. But in that hypothetical, your body is going to burn more calories if you're pushing your heart and lungs during a 30 minute circuit training session versus a 60 minute session lifting the same weights and where you're not pushing your cardiovascular/respiratory systems.0 -
You're using logic. But, logic doesn't prevail when it comes to science.
ROFL. Ok.
There's other factors, but you seem to be focused on two variables:
var1: Effort
var2: Intensity
Both work together to essentially determine effect of the workout. Don't ignore other factors such as efficiency, endurance, etc.
For your information, there is scientific data, all of which is completely logical (as all science is), and you can find it here:
http://scholar.google.com
Stand on the shoulders of giants.0 -
neuarl adaption, now your changing the whole thing. i thought we were talking one 30min workout vs one 60min workout. i don't think your going to change much neuralogically one workout to the next.
thought we were just talking about calories burned
I don't think you're too bright. You're totally not getting anything.
Maybe I should spell it for you with a crayon.
whatever bro, if you were more interested in reading what i said then trying to pass yourself off as some expert then you would have seen that i was open to exploring your point of view...
that is before you felt the need to become condescending0 -
Oh, and jogging the same distance at different speeds also burns the same number of calories as well--as long as you are in an aerobic steady state. The faster speed burns calories at a faster RATE (more per minute), but that is offset by the fewer minutes it take to cover the distance.
I don't think that's correct. The difference in calories per mile isn't huge, but it's there nonetheless.
<headdesk> it's not a subject that is up for debate, any more than the heliocentric orientation of the solar system.0 -
[/quote]You're using logic. But, logic doesn't prevail when it comes to science.
also found this contradictory statement to be quite laughable0 -
Oh, and jogging the same distance at different speeds also burns the same number of calories as well--as long as you are in an aerobic steady state. The faster speed burns calories at a faster RATE (more per minute), but that is offset by the fewer minutes it take to cover the distance.
I don't think that's correct. The difference in calories per mile isn't huge, but it's there nonetheless.
Did you read the article I posted? The difference is negligible.
I looked at it, yes. Not the most authoritative source, but even there the author concludes the difference would be negligible - he doesn't say it's equivalent. Running does burn slightly more calories per mile than walking. As I said, it's not a huge delta but it's there nonetheless. There are other factors that go into it as well, such as HR and V02 max.0 -
Oh, and jogging the same distance at different speeds also burns the same number of calories as well--as long as you are in an aerobic steady state. The faster speed burns calories at a faster RATE (more per minute), but that is offset by the fewer minutes it take to cover the distance.
I don't think that's correct. The difference in calories per mile isn't huge, but it's there nonetheless.
<headdesk> it's not a subject that is up for debate, any more than the heliocentric orientation of the solar system.
So let's say I keep my heart rate at 160 BPM and I'm breathing heavily for 30 minutes (running X miles), versus just breathing normally and with a fractionally elevated heart rate for 60 minutes (strolling X miles at half the pace). You're saying there's no absolutely no additional caloric burn from my body having to work much harder to get enough oxygen in my bloodstream to sustain an elevated pace and finish the X miles in only 30 minutes? Not to mention running is a slightly different movement pattern than walking, but that's a separate issue. As an extreme example, you're saying the calories burned from sprinting 100m are absolutely no different than the calories burned from strolling 100m at a pace of 2.5mph? A negligible difference in caloric burn I can buy, but no difference at all and "distance" being the only variable is a bit silly/simplistic.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 398.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44.7K Getting Started
- 261K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.4K Food and Nutrition
- 47.7K Recipes
- 233K Fitness and Exercise
- 462 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.5K Motivation and Support
- 8.4K Challenges
- 1.4K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 17 News and Announcements
- 21 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.5K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions