Calories burned in weightliftint
loriflask
Posts: 13 Member
Hi everyone, I'm curious for your guidance on measuring calories burned weightlifting. I used my Orange Theory chest strap heart rate monitor during my weight training today, and the app measured over 600 calories in 75 minutes of activity. I always assumed weightlifting was far less (around 200 calories per hour for 5'4" tall, 145 lb, 36 y/o female). Does anyone have guidance on whether I can trust the chest strap's calorie burn?
0
Replies
-
HRM were not designed for weight lifting. That number is extremely high.2
-
@singingflutelady that's what I figured! What do you think is a more reasonable range for heavy lifting for one hour? Obviously no one can be 100% accurate, but I'm curious for a more reasonable range for my stats and body composition (145lb, 5'4, 36 y/o female)0
-
Look for "Strength training (weight lifting, weight training)" under the cardio part of your diary.
It's based on normal heavy weight training and work on METS in proportion to your weight. Just log the entire duration of your workout as it assumes significant breaks between sets.4 -
Just as an FYI.
I give myself 200 cals for each session.
I'm maintaining and that is what I give myself for an hours general workout, not lifting I did the math many moons ago so it is excellent for me, but probably no one else.
My lifting sessions are generally 90 min, but I do the 200 cos I rest longer than my programme advises.
So I have known for a year 200 is good for me. Out of curiosity I just put it in MFP- it gives me 204.
I would say that using the database entry and monitoring how it affects your weight loss would be a good way to start.
Cheers, h.1 -
I'm curious about this I did 37 minutes today and my Fitbit told me 214 burned. Does that sound accurate?0
-
It depends on a lot of factors, really, including tempo, volume, and intensity. It's difficult to calculate and not really worth it. I don't count it and it's not going to be as much as some people might think either. If you lift properly to build muscle, then over time it will speed up your metabolism since muscle burns calories. It's the most important thing you can do, but I don't see the point in tracking it in terms of calories burned.0
-
Jdismybug1 wrote: »I'm curious about this I did 37 minutes today and my Fitbit told me 214 burned. Does that sound accurate?
@Jdismybug1
Your calorie burn is mostly in relation to how much weight you moved during the session.
On what basis is your Fitbit coming up with that estimate?
Steps? Wouldn't be relevant.
HR? Wouldn't be relevant.0 -
middlehaitch wrote: »Just as an FYI.
I give myself 200 cals for each session.
I'm maintaining and that is what I give myself for an hours general workout, not lifting I did the math many moons ago so it is excellent for me, but probably no one else.
My lifting sessions are generally 90 min, but I do the 200 cos I rest longer than my programme advises.
So I have known for a year 200 is good for me. Out of curiosity I just put it in MFP- it gives me 204.
I would say that using the database entry and monitoring how it affects your weight loss would be a good way to start.
Cheers, h.
I also give myself 200 per session (about an hour to an hour and 15 minutes usually) because i've found based on my maintenance calories this to be an accurate estimate for an hour of heavy lifting. I agree to use the entry as an estimate and go from there.
As someone else said above, HRMs are not designed for weight lifting so that number is definitely inaccurate.
1 -
Jdismybug1 wrote: »I'm curious about this I did 37 minutes today and my Fitbit told me 214 burned. Does that sound accurate?
@Jdismybug1
Your calorie burn is mostly in relation to how much weight you moved during the session.
On what basis is your Fitbit coming up with that estimate?
Steps? Wouldn't be relevant.
HR? Wouldn't be relevant.
I see thank you.
1 -
Hi everyone, I'm curious for your guidance on measuring calories burned weightlifting. I used my Orange Theory chest strap heart rate monitor during my weight training today, and the app measured over 600 calories in 75 minutes of activity. I always assumed weightlifting was far less (around 200 calories per hour for 5'4" tall, 145 lb, 36 y/o female). Does anyone have guidance on whether I can trust the chest strap's calorie burn?
Interesting. Today my Polar v800 with chest strap recorded 250 cals for 25 minutes of strength training. 68kg, 172cm male. Extrapolated unscientifically, it is 750 cals per hour.
Intense session with mostly squats and lunges with dumb bells.0 -
Perhaps I'm missing something, or I'm just confused, so a quick question!
I use a HR strap monitor when I lift.
The basic function of a HR monitor is to monitor your HR and, based on your HR and age/weight, it tells you how many calories you are burning due to your heart rate, as there's really not a difference between walking on the treadmill with a HR of 150 and doing squats with a burst of 170 for about 20 seconds, then down, then up, etc. At the end of either workout, if you've burned 300 calories, then you've burned 300 calories.
Or am I missing something?0 -
@govenderd1
@Jaegur
Back to basics. Calories are units of energy - heartbeats are just heartbeats. There is NO direct relationship between the two.
For steady state cardio HR can be used as a rough proxy for oxygen uptake and hence get a somewhat reasonable estimate for a somewhat average person with average fitness.
If you think for a second about the enormous differences between people's HR and fitness levels you will understand quite how rough an estimate it might be for a particular individual.
For lifting you are using a device designed as a heart beat counter and cardio training aid, not an energy measuring device, for something completely inappropriate.
The energy used is mass moved over distance primarily.
0 -
@Jaegur @Azdak explains it well. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-17698
"Heart rate monitors CANNOT count calories burned during strength training.
The most commonly accepted method for measuring the calories burned for a particular activity is to measure oxygen uptake (VO2).
During *steady-state*, *aerobic* exercise, the TCA cycle is the primary means of producing energy, and oxygen is utilized at a relatively consistent rate depending on the intensity of the exercise. There is an observable and reproducible relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake. If we have some individual data--resting heart rate, maximum heart rate, VO2 max, weight--it is possible to make reasonably accurate estimates of caloric expenditure based on the percentage of HRmax or percentage of HRreserve at which someone is working.
From the other perspective, basic exercise activities that have a common movement--walking, running, cycling, stairclimbing--have been extensively studied and equations to predict energy cost have been developed that are applicable to most of the general population. Cross trainers/ellipticals are the exception since they do not have a common movement design.
It is under these conditions and with these types of activities that calorie estimating equations and heart rate monitor estimations are the most accurate--exercises and exercise movements that are aerobic in nature and that are performed at intensities between 40% of VO2 max and the lactate threshold.
If an activity does not meet these criteria, then prediction equations and heart rate monitors become less accurate.
When it comes to strength training, they are not accurate at all.
There is a mistaken belief among many people--repeated even by many "experts" on bodybuilding websites--that ANY increase in heart rate reflects aerobic conditioning and an increase in caloric expenditure. This is not true. The primary reason is that the increase in heart rate that occurs with strength training results from a different physiologic mechanism than it does during aerobic exercise.
The increased heart rate that occurs with aerobic exercise is the result of the need for increased cardiac output--the heart must pump more blood to meet the energy demand of the activity. Heart rate increases because of a VOLUME load.
The increased heart rate that occurs with strength training is the result of changes in intrathoracic pressure and an increase in afterload stress. There is no corresponding increase in cardiac output, and thus only a modest increase in oxygen uptake. Heart rate increases because of a PRESSURE load.
So, unlike aerobic exercise, the increased heart rate during strength training DOES NOT reflect either an increase in oxygen uptake or a significant increase in caloric expenditure. Moving quickly from machine to machine to keep the heart rate elevated does not change this fact. It is still a pressure load, not a volume load."2 -
@govenderd1
@Jaegur
Back to basics. Calories are units of energy - heartbeats are just heartbeats. There is NO direct relationship between the two.
For steady state cardio HR can be used as a rough proxy for oxygen uptake and hence get a somewhat reasonable estimate for a somewhat average person with average fitness.
If you think for a second about the enormous differences between people's HR and fitness levels you will understand quite how rough an estimate it might be for a particular individual.
For lifting you are using a device designed as a heart beat counter and cardio training aid, not an energy measuring device, for something completely inappropriate.
The energy used is mass moved over distance primarily.
To say this another way incase this is confusing. When we're using energy one of the byproducts of that is body-heat and carbon dioxide which we exhale. In a lab setting they can tell how much energy our bodies are using based on the amount of co2 we are exhaling.
The same can be said when we do lab testing to determine vo2 max on a treadmill.
Anyways, while heart rate is correlated with vo2 max/the amount of energy we're using it isn't the same thing. Think about it, when we're running the heart rate monitor can estimate how many calories you're burning based on the assumption that you're moving the entire time. When weightlifting, even though your heart rate may be elevated, you're taking rests in between sets and not actively working out the entire time.
So, let's say you have an elevated heart rate of 140 while squatting, then the next 2 minutes while resting your heart rate slowly reaches back down to baseline. You're HRM thinks you're burning more calories that entire time that you're sitting there doing jack squat.
hope that helps.
2 -
Look for "Strength training (weight lifting, weight training)" under the cardio part of your diary.
It's based on normal heavy weight training and work on METS in proportion to your weight. Just log the entire duration of your workout as it assumes significant breaks between sets.
Yes, this always worked for me...Perhaps I'm missing something, or I'm just confused, so a quick question!
I use a HR strap monitor when I lift.
The basic function of a HR monitor is to monitor your HR and, based on your HR and age/weight, it tells you how many calories you are burning due to your heart rate, as there's really not a difference between walking on the treadmill with a HR of 150 and doing squats with a burst of 170 for about 20 seconds, then down, then up, etc. At the end of either workout, if you've burned 300 calories, then you've burned 300 calories.
Or am I missing something?
Your HR doesn't directly correlate with energy expenditure. It is used in an algorithm that also assumes a steady state cardiovascular event.1 -
Well, *kitten*.
lol1 -
Okay, one more question! What about using a HR monitor in conjuncture with the program on my watch that is specifically for training? (I use a Garmin Vivoactive HR) or will the outcome be the same? I only ask because it has built in things for time under load, resting, etc. Don't really use it much, I typically would just set it to record and go on about my business.0
-
You may find this vid informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37GZIWLArMk
I usually assume about 4-6 calories per min.
So if I lift for 1.5 hours, 90 min...360 - 540 calories.
And my lifting sessions usually leave me sweating buckets
I just got a Fitbit Charge 2 today, so I am curious to see tomorrow what it says.1 -
You may find this vid informative.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37GZIWLArMk
I usually assume about 4-6 calories per min.
So if I lift for 1.5 hours, 90 min...360 - 540 calories.
And my lifting sessions usually leave me sweating buckets
I just got a Fitbit Charge 2 today, so I am curious to see tomorrow what it says.
It may be curious to see the number, but it still will be no more accurate than a random number you make up.
Actually, the number you cite that you use for your sessions is as accurate as you can get (for you).
The video was frustrating. By bro standards, it actually appeared fairly reasonable and "sciency". But it was all wrong. Hard to believe the little minion is getting a Masters degree.
One example: when discussing the second research study, he claimed that the results showed an increase in BMR of 200-300 calories a day. I looked up the study and the number was 73. And the authors stated "there was wide variability between individuals, which can be partially accounted for by changes in FFM and thyroid hormones". Which gets back to the whole reason why weight training calories are so difficult to quantify.1 -
My Garmin FR35 gives me around 350 Calories for 2 hours, but that includes my pacing around between sets and I either lift heavy on the 5/3/1 or as it's school holidays and I can't consistantly get to the gym it's low weight, high volume (like 10x10@50-60% 1rpm)0
-
The numbers on my Polar heart rate monitor (with chest strap) are as low as I'd expect them to be - anything from below 100 to nearly 200 for a 35-40 min session. I strain and I sweat and I work damn hard, but it's not as heart pumping as cardio, so I wouldn't expect a heart rate monitor to give me too much credit.
I track my training volume as well (reps multiplied by weight), but never bothered to do the range calculation to convert it in to energy expenditure!
I have a physics degree, I could totally do the sums if I could be bothered, but...0 -
You may find this vid informative.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37GZIWLArMk
I usually assume about 4-6 calories per min.
So if I lift for 1.5 hours, 90 min...360 - 540 calories.
And my lifting sessions usually leave me sweating buckets
I just got a Fitbit Charge 2 today, so I am curious to see tomorrow what it says.
It may be curious to see the number, but it still will be no more accurate than a random number you make up.
Actually, the number you cite that you use for your sessions is as accurate as you can get (for you).
The video was frustrating. By bro standards, it actually appeared fairly reasonable and "sciency". But it was all wrong. Hard to believe the little minion is getting a Masters degree.
One example: when discussing the second research study, he claimed that the results showed an increase in BMR of 200-300 calories a day. I looked up the study and the number was 73. And the authors stated "there was wide variability between individuals, which can be partially accounted for by changes in FFM and thyroid hormones". Which gets back to the whole reason why weight training calories are so difficult to quantify.
That is why I opt to go for a lower number of calories burned during my sessions.
I think they stated in one of the lowest categories, it was ~13 calories per min.
I opt to go with less, as I assume that is going to be far more accurate, because we know that in order to maintain muscle it is around 6 calories, per pound of muscle I believe?0 -
I worked back today, heavy session.
1hr 15min
My fitbit Charge 2 puts me at 560 calories, so about 7.4 calories / min.
So I am good with that number0 -
I don't even bother logging my lifting under cardio to get a calorie count. I only eat back 1/2 of my cardio calories.0
-
You may find this vid informative.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37GZIWLArMk
I usually assume about 4-6 calories per min.
So if I lift for 1.5 hours, 90 min...360 - 540 calories.
And my lifting sessions usually leave me sweating buckets
I just got a Fitbit Charge 2 today, so I am curious to see tomorrow what it says.
It may be curious to see the number, but it still will be no more accurate than a random number you make up.
Actually, the number you cite that you use for your sessions is as accurate as you can get (for you).
The video was frustrating. By bro standards, it actually appeared fairly reasonable and "sciency". But it was all wrong. Hard to believe the little minion is getting a Masters degree.
One example: when discussing the second research study, he claimed that the results showed an increase in BMR of 200-300 calories a day. I looked up the study and the number was 73. And the authors stated "there was wide variability between individuals, which can be partially accounted for by changes in FFM and thyroid hormones". Which gets back to the whole reason why weight training calories are so difficult to quantify.
That is why I opt to go for a lower number of calories burned during my sessions.
I think they stated in one of the lowest categories, it was ~13 calories per min.
I opt to go with less, as I assume that is going to be far more accurate, because we know that in order to maintain muscle it is around 6 calories, per pound of muscle I believe?
I didn't even mention that part of the video because those are just fantasy numbers.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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