Strength added as exercise
Options
lgestwicki
Posts: 3 Member
why doesn't strength training (weight lifting) count in the calculation of daily caloric intake? I only see that cardio is taken into the equation...
0
Replies
-
I have the same problem.. It's not registering my strength training calorie intake too - Any ideas welcomed.0
-
Because strength training isn't a major calorie burner.0
-
If only there were a help link on the top of every page that had answers to questions .....
https://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/11170-why-don-t-you-calculate-calories-burned-for-strength-training-0 -
notnikkisixx wrote: »Because strength training isn't a major calorie burner.
I suggest you go look at the studies before saying strength training isn't a major calorie burner.
0 -
Thanx bryanpperkins! Didn't have to be a smart a**
0 -
There's an option under the cardio section to choose "strength training". I hear that the calories burned that it logs is over estimated though. You can log it that way if you want to see it as part of your calories for the day.0
-
Strength training is very personal. How many calories you burn will depend on so many variables (down to how much you weigh on that particular day, how much rest you take between sets, etc..)
Cardio is similarly subjective, and I dare to say that the calories this app says you've 'burned' during any given session could be off by anywhere between +/- 200 calories.
Still, it's there as an arbitrary number, which is good enough for most people.
Similarly, weight training burns most of its calories once you leave the gym, throughout the day.
Cardio, not so much.
0 -
piperdown44 wrote: »notnikkisixx wrote: »Because strength training isn't a major calorie burner.
I suggest you go look at the studies before saying strength training isn't a major calorie burner.
Did.
It's not.0 -
piperdown44 wrote: »notnikkisixx wrote: »Because strength training isn't a major calorie burner.
I suggest you go look at the studies before saying strength training isn't a major calorie burner.
Did.
It's not.
Well, 8.83+-1.55 kcal-min for weights versus 9.48+-1.3 kcal-min treadmill is not that significant. Especially considering the continued elevation in cal burning after a weight session, something that does not happen with aerobics.
So 30 mins weight is ~265 and aerobics at 30 mins is ~285.
0 -
Yeah, good luck with that.0
-
-
0
-
piperdown44 wrote: »piperdown44 wrote: »notnikkisixx wrote: »Because strength training isn't a major calorie burner.
I suggest you go look at the studies before saying strength training isn't a major calorie burner.
Did.
It's not.
Well, 8.83+-1.55 kcal-min for weights versus 9.48+-1.3 kcal-min treadmill is not that significant. Especially considering the continued elevation in cal burning after a weight session, something that does not happen with aerobics.
So 30 mins weight is ~265 and aerobics at 30 mins is ~285.
Are you actually claiming that EPOC doesn't happen after cardio?0 -
Ah.
Well I've found that weights or hiit burns more for me than cardio does.0 -
piperdown44 wrote: »Ah.
Well I've found that weights or hiit burns more for me than cardio does.
When did "for me" become a substitute for the scientific method?0 -
The numbers I used came from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/251626520
-
piperdown44 wrote: »The numbers I used came from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25162652
" Nine recreationally active men " .... "These data suggest that individuals can burn more calories performing an HIIT session with an HRS than spending the same amount of time performing a steady-state exercise session" (if you can do the HIIT for as long as steady state, it isn't HIIT).
It's amazing what you can find when you actually read the abstract and understand what it means.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »piperdown44 wrote: »The numbers I used came from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25162652
" Nine recreationally active men " .... "These data suggest that individuals can burn more calories performing an HIIT session with an HRS than spending the same amount of time performing a steady-state exercise session" (if you can do the HIIT for as long as steady state, it isn't HIIT).
It's amazing what you can find when you actually read the abstract and understand what it means.
Which is why I didn't use those numbers.
Pop over to scientific studies on pub med. My original response was to someone claiming weight lifting didn't burn a significant amount of calories. It does burn a significant amount of calories. The same as aerobics for equal time probably not but that's not what I was replying to. Just pointing out that you can burn a good amount of cals while lifting weights.
0 -
piperdown44 wrote: »The numbers I used came from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25162652piperdown44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »piperdown44 wrote: »The numbers I used came from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25162652
" Nine recreationally active men " .... "These data suggest that individuals can burn more calories performing an HIIT session with an HRS than spending the same amount of time performing a steady-state exercise session" (if you can do the HIIT for as long as steady state, it isn't HIIT).
It's amazing what you can find when you actually read the abstract and understand what it means.
Which is why I didn't use those numbers.
Pop over to scientific studies on pub med. My original response was to someone claiming weight lifting didn't burn a significant amount of calories. It does burn a significant amount of calories. The same as aerobics for equal time probably not but that's not what I was replying to. Just pointing out that you can burn a good amount of cals while lifting weights.
I can't make up that level of contradiction of one's own posts. Good night.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »piperdown44 wrote: »The numbers I used came from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25162652piperdown44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »piperdown44 wrote: »The numbers I used came from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25162652
" Nine recreationally active men " .... "These data suggest that individuals can burn more calories performing an HIIT session with an HRS than spending the same amount of time performing a steady-state exercise session" (if you can do the HIIT for as long as steady state, it isn't HIIT).
It's amazing what you can find when you actually read the abstract and understand what it means.
Which is why I didn't use those numbers.
Pop over to scientific studies on pub med. My original response was to someone claiming weight lifting didn't burn a significant amount of calories. It does burn a significant amount of calories. The same as aerobics for equal time probably not but that's not what I was replying to. Just pointing out that you can burn a good amount of cals while lifting weights.
I can't make up that level of contradiction of one's own posts. Good night.
Not sure where you're getting a contradiction but have a good evening.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions