Why doesn't strength exercise burn calories?
jhowell275
Posts: 2 Member
Ive noticed on the app that everytime I enter a strength exercise, it adds no calories burned to my day. There must be some benefit incurred, is it calculated in any way?
Also, burpees (strangely not on the list of cardio or strength exercises) are WAY harder (both cardio and strength) than running. However, according to some googling - for an adult of around 220 lbs, each Burpee would only burn around 1.6 calories. I would rather run a mile than do 20 burpees.....this doesn't seem like the calories add up.
How do you reconcile this?
Also, burpees (strangely not on the list of cardio or strength exercises) are WAY harder (both cardio and strength) than running. However, according to some googling - for an adult of around 220 lbs, each Burpee would only burn around 1.6 calories. I would rather run a mile than do 20 burpees.....this doesn't seem like the calories add up.
How do you reconcile this?
0
Replies
-
When you run a mile there are times that you will have trouble talking, you will be breathing faster. This is the sustained effort that burns any sort of significant calories.
Holding a pose takes some effort to hold just doesn't BURN that much extra. The targeted muscles will feel it and recover for the next time you assault them with that sort of outrageous activity, so you do get a benefit out of it. But it's not much of a burn.0 -
0
-
If you want to log strength training as calories expended, wear an HRM. But you won't get as much of a burn.0
-
47Jacqueline wrote: »If you want to log strength training as calories expended, wear an HRM. But you won't get as much of a burn.
HRMs won't give you an accurate reading for strength training. They are developed to work for steady state cardio.
I log strength training under cardio (it's there). The burn is less that for similar time of most other cardio, though. I tend to get about 200 calories for an hour. You can try that. I don't know for sure how accurate the system is, so you may have to experiment some (if you eat back all the calories and your weight isn't doing what you want, adjust what percent you eat back)0 -
It does burn calories, but not as many as cardio. Log strength training under cardio to get an estimate, then take half of that at most.0
-
https://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/11170-why-don-t-you-calculate-calories-burned-for-strength-training-
The help link at the top of every forum page has some decent info.0 -
I think the real reason is it's just incredibly hard to calculate accurately. Even professionals with a big budget for lab equipment have a hard time getting accurate results, particularly if you're lifting heavy (which is mainly anaerobic respiration).
The high amount of anaerobic exercise I do is one reason why I use the TDEE method on MFP - it's just plain hard to get a decent estimate.0 -
Thanks, all!0
-
I use "weight training" under the cardio section. Started with eating back half and worked with the number until I found the actual burns. Sure, it's not anything close to cardio calorie burns but I like to eat all my calories burned and an extra 100-200 makes a difference in how I feel when I lift.0
-
Even though calorie count is low, it does use calories. I've seen some recent stuff suggesting they were not using the proper calculations, as oxygen use remains higher for a period after lifting, and many times that was not properly accounted for in the past.
But I would still think that with all the research, there would be a more accurate method of properly estimating calorie burn for lifting. Horsepower is torque over time, and really weight lifting should be similar if they could break it down in similar fashion.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Even though calorie count is low, it does use calories. I've seen some recent stuff suggesting they were not using the proper calculations, as oxygen use remains higher for a period after lifting, and many times that was not properly accounted for in the past.
EPOC for resistance training is between 5 and 10% of net, so still a fairly small expenditure.
For CV work it's between 3 and 5%, so given the much higher expenditure from CV work the difference as a result of EPOC is negligible at best.But I would still think that with all the research, there would be a more accurate method of properly estimating calorie burn for lifting. Horsepower is torque over time, and really weight lifting should be similar if they could break it down in similar fashion.
As the mass moved is relatively small, and moved for a very short distance, there is little point investing effort in the development. When you're in the realms of 100 cals per 30 minutes, does it really matter if actuals are 80 or 120?
0 -
This is an interesting article.about strength training.
http://www.runnersworld.com/newswire/strength-training-may-burn-more-calories-than-previously-thought
It.may actually burn more than previously thought.
Don't give up strength training. The muscle.you build helps you burn more calories at rest and leads to a stronger, leaner post-weight-loss body. It helps prevent injury during other exercises too. Don't skimp on this!
I did and was left with a two year injury which now recurs. You can't be too careful.0 -
I tend to wear a HRM, but I also do my strength training in a circuit training manner.......quick transitions from one move to the next. I will do a particular move for 45 seconds on, with a 15 second transition, and a 1 minute break after every 7 moves.
If I'm just doing straight strength training, as opposed to circuit training, I won't see my heart rate get high unless I am doing squats.
It appears that your complaint is with how MFP logs strength and doesn't give you an caloric benefit, which is definitely a flaw, but a good portion of their cardio calculations are flawed (well, not really flawed, but based on a formula which may or may not apply to all people).0 -
There was a post on here working out the formula for energy used while lifting.
Weight(kgs) x gravity(9.8) = Force
Force x Distance(m) = Energy (Joules)
Joules x 0.000239006 = Calories burnt
Take a 40kg bench press, moving it from chest to full arm extension, say half a meter:
40 * 9.8 = 392
392 * 0.5 = 196
196 * 0.000239006 = 0.04 calories per lift
Times that final number by the number of reps
0 -
47Jacqueline wrote: »If you want to log strength training as calories expended, wear an HRM. But you won't get as much of a burn.
HRMs won't give you an accurate reading for strength training. They are developed to work for steady state cardio.
I log strength training under cardio (it's there). The burn is less that for similar time of most other cardio, though. I tend to get about 200 calories for an hour. You can try that. I don't know for sure how accurate the system is, so you may have to experiment some (if you eat back all the calories and your weight isn't doing what you want, adjust what percent you eat back)
I do the same. I think yesterday I was lifting weights for 30 min (worked up a little bit of a sweat) and it showed about 90 calories burned. Its not much; but its not nothing.
plus the more muscle mass you get, the more calories you burn throughout the day0 -
There was a post on here working out the formula for energy used while lifting.
Weight(kgs) x gravity(9.8) = Force
Force x Distance(m) = Energy (Joules)
Joules x 0.000239006 = Calories burnt
Take a 40kg bench press, moving it from chest to full arm extension, say half a meter:
40 * 9.8 = 392
392 * 0.5 = 196
196 * 0.000239006 = 0.04 calories per lift
Times that final number by the number of reps
I remember I was on that thread, but can't find it. Anyway, the above formula will give you the calories expended on the weight that was lifted (i.e. the work that the weight felt was done on it - if weights had feelings).
Your body will use a lot more energy though because it isn't a 100% efficient machine, a lot of energy will be lost in heat, and also the energy expended balancing the weight and lowering it. I don't know of any reliable correction factor for this - I guess it would depend a lot on the exercise.0 -
Calorie burn is directly related to oxygen consumption. The exercise which causes more oxygen consumption causes more calorie burn.
Strength training general does not elevate your oxygen consumption and keep it elevated for an extended period of time.0 -
I tend to not bother to log strength training, since it's hard to measure the exact burn. Instead, I will give myself a little bit of wiggle room (say, an extra 100-200 calories) on days I have intense strength training, knowing it might make me slightly hungrier. If I do that, the extra calories are in the form of an extra egg with breakfast or a greek yogurt after dinner...basically something that's protein rich and reasonably healthy.0
-
beemerphile1 wrote: »Calorie burn is directly related to oxygen consumption. The exercise which causes more oxygen consumption causes more calorie burn.
Other way round, oxygen consumption is related to energy consumption, as it's used to burn the fuel that the body demands. I'd also note that the direct relationship only applies in a limited set of circumstances.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Even though calorie count is low, it does use calories. I've seen some recent stuff suggesting they were not using the proper calculations, as oxygen use remains higher for a period after lifting, and many times that was not properly accounted for in the past.
EPOC for resistance training is between 5 and 10% of net, so still a fairly small expenditure.
For CV work it's between 3 and 5%, so given the much higher expenditure from CV work the difference as a result of EPOC is negligible at best.But I would still think that with all the research, there would be a more accurate method of properly estimating calorie burn for lifting. Horsepower is torque over time, and really weight lifting should be similar if they could break it down in similar fashion.
As the mass moved is relatively small, and moved for a very short distance, there is little point investing effort in the development. When you're in the realms of 100 cals per 30 minutes, does it really matter if actuals are 80 or 120?
Great scoop and good points. As for the EPOC thing, I think the major problem I've had is finding the real "scoop" on what is the most accurate. It still seems strange to me that killing it lifting takes so little energy in terms of calories burned.There was a post on here working out the formula for energy used while lifting.
Weight(kgs) x gravity(9.8) = Force
Force x Distance(m) = Energy (Joules)
Joules x 0.000239006 = Calories burnt
Take a 40kg bench press, moving it from chest to full arm extension, say half a meter:
40 * 9.8 = 392
392 * 0.5 = 196
196 * 0.000239006 = 0.04 calories per lift
Times that final number by the number of reps
An interesting thing here is the lack of a time factor. Maybe this messes with my head due to my years as a gearhead and looking at torque vs horsepower and the relationships.0 -
I googled, "How many calories does a 150 pound woman burn lifting," and the number I found there was a little high than what, "Calisthenics low moderate effort," gives me so I use the calisthenics entry.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 397.1K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 456 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.4K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions