How many calories burned from strength training?

2»

Replies

  • simon_pickard
    simon_pickard Posts: 50 Member


    "I find the exact opposite to be true. My fitbit usually gives me about 100 cals every 10min of strength training which is high. My smart watch will give me even higher numbers, for 50 min workout I burn like 560 to 600 cals. I just assume those numbers need to be halved, and then I don't care. Because I aim for my MFP calorie goal of deficit at lightly active and basically ignore my weight lifting calories. I do like tracking them tho, I like to review my heart rate spikes and compare different workouts to see whats up."

    What "smartwatch" and what exercise did you ask it to track?
  • mutantspicy
    mutantspicy Posts: 624 Member
    edited April 2018
    simon_pickard wrote: »

    "I find the exact opposite to be true. My fitbit usually gives me about 100 cals every 10min of strength training which is high. My smart watch will give me even higher numbers, for 50 min workout I burn like 560 to 600 cals. I just assume those numbers need to be halved, and then I don't care. Because I aim for my MFP calorie goal of deficit at lightly active and basically ignore my weight lifting calories. I do like tracking them tho, I like to review my heart rate spikes and compare different workouts to see whats up."

    What "smartwatch" and what exercise did you ask it to track?

    Gear S3/UA Record app - Upper Body Strength. Today I selected Legs. I think just figured out what is going on.

    So today I did 45min leg workout, Squats, Lunges, More lunges, Step ups, Sumos, RDL's, Bulgarian Split Squats, hip thrusts.

    UA Record with Gear S3 = 533kCals. I also wore my fitbit blaze = 475kCals.

    UA Record is set to legs which is a strength setting. Fitbit is set to weights. According to both my heart rate was in the cardio zone for 70% of the workout and 11% in the fat burn zone. Peak of 153bpm, avg 120 bpm.

    If I look at the chart provided by the Harvard study and extrapolate the data for a vigorous weight lifting session.
    My body weight at 192lbs and 45mins that says my calories spent should have been 415 kCal as opposed to generic weight lifting, what MFP essentially uses, which would be half of that.

    Obviously, that would be a lot closer to what many of you are reporting. However, many of you are in a gym doing big barbell lifts with lots of rest. I'm working out at home with dumbells, and dumbells are expensive so I make up for weight with volume lots and lots of reps. My biggest weights today were 2x70lb dumbells. So 140 lb total on squat. So that's starting to make things make more sense to me. I've been really puzzled by the numbers I'm getting compared to what others are saying.

    So even though both are still higher than the projected number from the Harvard study, the fitbit is indeed a lot closer which also falls in line with what many of you are saying. I think what they must be doing is using HR data and accelerometer data to come up with MET correction factor from the base generic score.

    Also thanks to @jseams1234 for the link. And everyone for the conversation. This has been bugging my OCD virgo brain for awhile. I think I finally maybe onto something. I should go to my gym at work and do a big bro lift session and see if I get more normal numbers, that would be the true test.


  • sgt1372
    sgt1372 Posts: 3,997 Member
    edited April 2018
    I allocate only 120 cals/hr to weight lifting activity (which is far less than MFP does) and, when adding up the time, I only include the time actually lifting (inclding restcbet sets) but not the time setting up and/"or resting between different lifts.

    Generally, I only do 3 different lifts of 3x12 sets per session and rest 5 mins bet sets, because I lift relatively heavy and am older requiring more rest bet sets. E

    Even so, the time actually lifting is only about 15 mins total; 5 mins max actually lifting plus a total of 10 mins rest bet sets.

    So, the total time involved lifting is 45 mins for which I only allocate 90 cals. If you tske less rest between sets and do fewer reps, the time and cal allocation eould be even lower.

    Not many cals to make any difference in terms of cals burned but logging them helps me keep track of the activity and the low cal allocation prevents me from overeating.


  • bbell1985
    bbell1985 Posts: 4,571 Member
    My weight lifting literally falls into my lightly active activity level. I'm not elite but if I'm squatting 8 reps, it's usually 4-5 sets around 180-190lbs. Then I'll bench in the same % of my 1rm, and then run a full 45 min-hour long upper or lower body building program. It can take me two hours. I don't think of the calories at all. I doubt they're even 200.
  • simon_pickard
    simon_pickard Posts: 50 Member
    mutantspicy wrote: »
    simon_pickard wrote: »

    "I find the exact opposite to be true. My fitbit usually gives me about 100 cals every 10min of strength training which is high. My smart watch will give me even higher numbers, for 50 min workout I burn like 560 to 600 cals. I just assume those numbers need to be halved, and then I don't care. Because I aim for my MFP calorie goal of deficit at lightly active and basically ignore my weight lifting calories. I do like tracking them tho, I like to review my heart rate spikes and compare different workouts to see whats up."

    What "smartwatch" and what exercise did you ask it to track?

    Gear S3/UA Record app - Upper Body Strength. Today I selected Legs. I think just figured out what is going on.

    So today I did 45min leg workout, Squats, Lunges, More lunges, Step ups, Sumos, RDL's, Bulgarian Split Squats, hip thrusts.

    UA Record with Gear S3 = 533kCals. I also wore my fitbit blaze = 475kCals.

    UA Record is set to legs which is a strength setting. Fitbit is set to weights. According to both my heart rate was in the cardio zone for 70% of the workout and 11% in the fat burn zone. Peak of 153bpm, avg 120 bpm.

    If I look at the chart provided by the Harvard study and extrapolate the data for a vigorous weight lifting session.
    My body weight at 192lbs and 45mins that says my calories spent should have been 415 kCal as opposed to generic weight lifting, what MFP essentially uses, which would be half of that.

    Obviously, that would be a lot closer to what many of you are reporting. However, many of you are in a gym doing big barbell lifts with lots of rest. I'm working out at home with dumbells, and dumbells are expensive so I make up for weight with volume lots and lots of reps. My biggest weights today were 2x70lb dumbells. So 140 lb total on squat. So that's starting to make things make more sense to me. I've been really puzzled by the numbers I'm getting compared to what others are saying.

    So even though both are still higher than the projected number from the Harvard study, the fitbit is indeed a lot closer which also falls in line with what many of you are saying. I think what they must be doing is using HR data and accelerometer data to come up with MET correction factor from the base generic score.

    Also thanks to @jseams1234 for the link. And everyone for the conversation. This has been bugging my OCD virgo brain for awhile. I think I finally maybe onto something. I should go to my gym at work and do a big bro lift session and see if I get more normal numbers, that would be the true test.


    Just keep in mind the difference between active and active + resting cals.
    Fitbits combine where as Apple Watch reports only active cals you've burnt over what you would have at rest anyhow.

    I see this mistake all the time. People recording 800cals for a cardio workout but not understanding that 300-350 of those would have been burnt sat on their *kitten* anyhow.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • mutantspicy
    mutantspicy Posts: 624 Member
    edited April 2018
    simon_pickard wrote: »
    mutantspicy wrote: »
    simon_pickard wrote: »

    "I find the exact opposite to be true. My fitbit usually gives me about 100 cals every 10min of strength training which is high. My smart watch will give me even higher numbers, for 50 min workout I burn like 560 to 600 cals. I just assume those numbers need to be halved, and then I don't care. Because I aim for my MFP calorie goal of deficit at lightly active and basically ignore my weight lifting calories. I do like tracking them tho, I like to review my heart rate spikes and compare different workouts to see whats up."

    What "smartwatch" and what exercise did you ask it to track?

    Gear S3/UA Record app - Upper Body Strength. Today I selected Legs. I think just figured out what is going on.

    So today I did 45min leg workout, Squats, Lunges, More lunges, Step ups, Sumos, RDL's, Bulgarian Split Squats, hip thrusts.

    UA Record with Gear S3 = 533kCals. I also wore my fitbit blaze = 475kCals.

    UA Record is set to legs which is a strength setting. Fitbit is set to weights. According to both my heart rate was in the cardio zone for 70% of the workout and 11% in the fat burn zone. Peak of 153bpm, avg 120 bpm.

    If I look at the chart provided by the Harvard study and extrapolate the data for a vigorous weight lifting session.
    My body weight at 192lbs and 45mins that says my calories spent should have been 415 kCal as opposed to generic weight lifting, what MFP essentially uses, which would be half of that.

    Obviously, that would be a lot closer to what many of you are reporting. However, many of you are in a gym doing big barbell lifts with lots of rest. I'm working out at home with dumbells, and dumbells are expensive so I make up for weight with volume lots and lots of reps. My biggest weights today were 2x70lb dumbells. So 140 lb total on squat. So that's starting to make things make more sense to me. I've been really puzzled by the numbers I'm getting compared to what others are saying.

    So even though both are still higher than the projected number from the Harvard study, the fitbit is indeed a lot closer which also falls in line with what many of you are saying. I think what they must be doing is using HR data and accelerometer data to come up with MET correction factor from the base generic score.

    Also thanks to @jseams1234 for the link. And everyone for the conversation. This has been bugging my OCD virgo brain for awhile. I think I finally maybe onto something. I should go to my gym at work and do a big bro lift session and see if I get more normal numbers, that would be the true test.


    Just keep in mind the difference between active and active + resting cals.
    Fitbits combine where as Apple Watch reports only active cals you've burnt over what you would have at rest anyhow.

    I see this mistake all the time. People recording 800cals for a cardio workout but not understanding that 300-350 of those would have been burnt sat on their *kitten* anyhow.

    That's kinda the point, to fit in everything I'm trying to do in 45 min session, I'm not sitting very much. 60 sec rest max. In fact, my weight lifting sessions look like cardio sessions based on my HRM numbers. This is exactly why my kCal results are skewed. I'm not going change my diet based on this info. My diet currently works. Its just nice to know why I'm getting such crazy results. Also, I'm not sure what you are talking about with cardio. Most cardio is steady state or intervals of some kind. There's not a lot of breaks maybe 2 - 60 sec rest in a 30min session. I'm not sure what kind of cardio has you sitting around for 50% of the routine. That's a weak program.
  • simon_pickard
    simon_pickard Posts: 50 Member
    edited April 2018


    [/quote]

    Just keep in mind the difference between active and active + resting cals.
    Fitbits combine where as Apple Watch reports only active cals you've burnt over what you would have at rest anyhow.

    I see this mistake all the time. People recording 800cals for a cardio workout but not understanding that 300-350 of those would have been burnt sat on their *kitten* anyhow.
    [/quote]

    That's kinda the point, to fit in everything I'm trying to do in 45 min session, I'm not sitting very much. 60 sec rest max. In fact, my weight lifting sessions look like cardio sessions based on my HRM numbers. This is exactly why my kCal results are skewed. I'm not going change my diet based on this info. My diet currently works. Its just nice to know why I'm getting such crazy results. Also, I'm not sure what you are talking about with cardio. Most cardio is steady state or intervals of some kind. There's not a lot of breaks maybe 2 - 60 sec rest in a 30min session. I'm not sure what kind of cardio has you sitting around for 50% of the routine. That's a weak program. [/quote]

    That's not what I meant by resting cals.
    Resting cals are what you would burn laying in bed doing nothing.
    A lot of fitness trackers include this as part of your workout making the number look bigger than what has actually been "burnt".

    That's why the Apple watch model works so well. It just gives you active cals, so anything you've burnt over your resting.

    I used to have a fitbit and it was quite a shock when I went to the Apple Watch and my workouts went from 500cal's for a heavy weight session to 230cals.

    Basically if you're adding resting + active (which is what I think fitbit still reports) to MFP you're way over what you should be (as you're reporting as well).

    If you're adding just active cals (i.e. anything you've done extra). It should tally up pretty closely.



  • mutantspicy
    mutantspicy Posts: 624 Member
    edited April 2018
    simon_pickard wrote: »





    That's not what I meant by resting cals.
    Resting cals are what you would burn laying in bed doing nothing.
    A lot of fitness trackers include this as part of your workout making the number look bigger than what has actually been "burnt".

    That's why the Apple watch model works so well. It just gives you active cals, so anything you've burnt over your resting.

    I used to have a fitbit and it was quite a shock when I went to the Apple Watch and my workouts went from 500cal's for a heavy weight session to 230cals.

    Basically if you're adding resting + active (which is what I think fitbit still reports) to MFP you're way over what you should be (as you're reporting as well).

    If you're adding just active cals (i.e. anything you've done extra). It should tally up pretty closely.



    OK now I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying its adding BMR calories to your activities. I'm not sure that's accurate. I think that's the case for overall daily calorie burn, but not for specifically tracked activities. Those are calculated from some algorithm using MET scores, HRM adjustments and motion detections. Others may know more than me. Can anyone confirm this? But even if it were true, I would simply need to subtract about 60 cals off my total. But certainly not 50% like you're suggesting.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    simon_pickard wrote: »
    The only sure fire way to get close (it'll never be perfect) is tracking heart rate.
    That's why some of these Apple Watch apps track really well. It's all about tracking your heart rate over time.

    as it's been mentioned in this topic and why all the comments - absolutely wrong application of using HR-based calorie burn formula.

    That formula only has valid application for potentially decent estimate (because it can still be fouled up majorly) is for aerobic cardio with steady-state same HR for 2-4 min.

    Lifting is anaerobic if done correctly, and no where near steady-state HR. Neither is intervals.

    The farther you are from the valid usage, the worse the inflation.

    Now - if you lift 3 x weekly for 20 min and are otherwise very active - no big whoop on average daily calories over a week.
    If you lift 4-6 x weekly for 60 min and otherwise sedentary - big influence.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    mutantspicy wrote: »
    simon_pickard wrote: »





    That's not what I meant by resting cals.
    Resting cals are what you would burn laying in bed doing nothing.
    A lot of fitness trackers include this as part of your workout making the number look bigger than what has actually been "burnt".

    That's why the Apple watch model works so well. It just gives you active cals, so anything you've burnt over your resting.

    I used to have a fitbit and it was quite a shock when I went to the Apple Watch and my workouts went from 500cal's for a heavy weight session to 230cals.

    Basically if you're adding resting + active (which is what I think fitbit still reports) to MFP you're way over what you should be (as you're reporting as well).

    If you're adding just active cals (i.e. anything you've done extra). It should tally up pretty closely.



    OK now I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying its adding BMR calories to your activities. I'm not sure that's accurate. I think that's the case for overall daily calorie burn, but not for specifically tracked activities. Those are calculated from some algorithm using MET scores, HRM adjustments and motion detections. Others may know more than me. Can anyone confirm this? But even if it were true, I would simply need to subtract about 60 cals off my total. But certainly not 50% like you're suggesting.

    The Fitbit is including the underlying BMR level calorie burn in all activities - because guess what - it's happening all the time.
    So that's a correct method.

    If you have a VO2 test done while resting or running - and it's measuring calorie burn based on fuel burned - it includes everything.

    Rare is the device or database or formula that does not use Gross values. Net is rare, because frankly what would you have been doing otherwise - really sleeping deeply?

    For daily activity where steps are seen, a distance is calculated, and distance and time and mass allow some very accurate formula for calorie burn based on MET's - which is BMR x a certain level.

    Your Circuit like training is MET 8.0 x BMR for instance, using database method.
    Weights is 3.5 to 6 depending on the type - database entry just uses 1 value.

    The Fitbit isn't getting that fancy, HR isn't included because a useless figure, except to decide WHEN to start the workout when in auto-mode.
    It might use the motion sensor to decide if enough action to be Circuit compared to regular lifting, but I doubt it since Circuit training doesn't require a lot of movement either that could be seen, merely smaller rests and more reps.

    Here's how to see what it's using that others have confirmed. This showed that the device merely had the database rate of burn for you pre-saved, and when that workout was selected - it was used.

    Take the total calorie burn shown for that Activity Record, and how many minutes given. Divide for cal/min burn rate.
    Get your Mifflin BMR from MFP app-tools or anywhere - Fitbit changed to using undisclosed BMR calc, but it's close to Mifflin.

    Daily BMR/1440 = your 1 MET/min.

    Divide workout cal/min by MET = MET's used to calculate it.

    So 475 cal say for 60 min = 7.92/min.

    BMR say 1800/1440 = 1.25 cal/min.

    7.92 / 1.25 = 6.336 METS

    What are your figures for that with the Fitbit Blaze set to the Weight lifting?
    And can you set it to Circuit training which sounds closer to reality.
  • mutantspicy
    mutantspicy Posts: 624 Member
    edited April 2018
    heybales wrote: »


    The Fitbit is including the underlying BMR level calorie burn in all activities - because guess what - it's happening all the time.
    So that's a correct method.

    If you have a VO2 test done while resting or running - and it's measuring calorie burn based on fuel burned - it includes everything.

    Rare is the device or database or formula that does not use Gross values. Net is rare, because frankly what would you have been doing otherwise - really sleeping deeply?

    For daily activity where steps are seen, a distance is calculated, and distance and time and mass allow some very accurate formula for calorie burn based on MET's - which is BMR x a certain level.

    Your Circuit like training is MET 8.0 x BMR for instance, using database method.
    Weights is 3.5 to 6 depending on the type - database entry just uses 1 value.

    The Fitbit isn't getting that fancy, HR isn't included because a useless figure, except to decide WHEN to start the workout when in auto-mode.
    It might use the motion sensor to decide if enough action to be Circuit compared to regular lifting, but I doubt it since Circuit training doesn't require a lot of movement either that could be seen, merely smaller rests and more reps.

    Here's how to see what it's using that others have confirmed. This showed that the device merely had the database rate of burn for you pre-saved, and when that workout was selected - it was used.

    Take the total calorie burn shown for that Activity Record, and how many minutes given. Divide for cal/min burn rate.
    Get your Mifflin BMR from MFP app-tools or anywhere - Fitbit changed to using undisclosed BMR calc, but it's close to Mifflin.

    Daily BMR/1440 = your 1 MET/min.

    Divide workout cal/min by MET = MET's used to calculate it.

    So 475 cal say for 60 min = 7.92/min.

    BMR say 1800/1440 = 1.25 cal/min.

    7.92 / 1.25 = 6.336 METS

    What are your figures for that with the Fitbit Blaze set to the Weight lifting?
    And can you set it to Circuit training which sounds closer to reality.


    Using your calculation, and data from the Blaze. My METS would have been 8.2 for the workout. My BMR is 1850 and the workout avg was 10.5 cal/min. It was a 45min session. And yes my setting was set to weights, I have not tried circuit training. So based on that there must be a MET modification within the algorithm. I don't know how that is determined. Based on some info from moderators at the fitbit forum, I gathered it was based on heart rate. That said, if I subtract my resting BMR 57cals from the workout cals of 475 that gets it really close to the Harvard prediction for vigorous weightlifting which would be 415cals.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    For the range of heavy weight lifting to straight cardio - yours is for sure moving towards cardio, which is where Circuit training is too.

    I'll bet the use of HR is merely to confirm the selection of the right workout if auto-mode is used, or perhaps to correct manual selection.

    That the Circuit training in database is 8 METS, and you came up with 8.2, I think is no coincidence.
    The difference is probably Fitbit's BMR being slightly different than Mifflin, and rounding.
    I'd be curious if you manually selected Circuit next time and it came out similar.

    That would be an interesting and smart way to correct things though.
    When I heard many complaining that the auto-selection was so off on some workouts, using motion and HR together isn't a bad idea.

    Here is the METs database info for a finer breakdown of what most databases don't use because it would just be too unwieldy. But it also mentions the studies the results came from. That's where I read through them to see those reps and rest times I mentioned in another post.

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxjb21wZW5kaXVtb2ZwaHlzaWNhbGFjdGl2aXRpZXN8Z3g6MjdiN2Y3NzAwYTU1YWExZQ
  • mutantspicy
    mutantspicy Posts: 624 Member
    On the side I was just doing some digging at UA record site to see if there is some adjustment that can be made to get more realistic numbers. Of course not. But I found that the UA record does not use the HRM in their calculation. They track it and provide it for the routine, but its not part of the algorithm. They claim the calculation is based off the MET database. Which in turn makes think their mathematician did way too much LSD in college. Seriously smh on that one. How are they so far off?
  • simon_pickard
    simon_pickard Posts: 50 Member
    edited April 2018
    [/quote]

    Just keep in mind the difference between active and active + resting cals.
    Fitbits combine where as Apple Watch reports only active cals you've burnt over what you would have at rest anyhow.

    I see this mistake all the time. People recording 800cals for a cardio workout but not understanding that 300-350 of those would have been burnt sat on their *kitten* anyhow.
    [/quote]

    How high of a BMR are you thinking people have?

    300-350!, try under 100 for an hour.

    And for what Fitbit and logging, you do use the full Gross amount, because you are replacing (if logged manually) the total Gross anyway.

    If using MFP, actually it would not be BMR level removed to obtain NET. It would be whatever MFP figured your daily burn is, that your eating goal is based on. So that would be higher. Still not 300-350. Good grief, that would lead to a TDEE of 7200-8400.

    Your advice regarding this in this topic has been very wrong with the way MFP and 3rd party trackers work. Just lack of knowledge on it.

    Recommend getting some understanding before commenting as it's messed up info.[/quote]

    I agree with the BMR- that accounts for 100cals or so per hour as you say.
    I'm talking about how gym equipment / fitbits, track. I've had many cases where the runner, stepper, etc, was 300 cals out from my Apple Watch after an hour of cardio.

    When I had a fitbit, this was some years ago so it might have improved, it was the same thing.


  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Machine calorie burns can vary.

    Treadmills with accurate calibration on the belts can be more accurate that HRM easily, because it's the most used equipment in the lab for studies - so formula is very accurate.

    But many gyms don't spend the time/effort/money to do so.

    Elliptical is crap shoot since no formulas have been found good - to many variable ways of doing it that changes things.
    They could use the motor to measure the watts exerted like an exercise bike - that would be very accurate for only the energy put into the machine, so more the NET value. But user must enter correct weight.

    And you may have had issue that HRM-based formula just wasn't good fit for you, though early fitbits were step-based - so if distance was off ....

    They can be much better now.
    They can still be fouled up though too.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories