Strength training only burns 110 calories?

According to my fitness pal strength training/weight lifting only burns 110 calories in a 45/50 minute session? Is this accurate? I usually perform 8-9 exercises with 4 sets of 8 reps on days I’m lifting heavy and 12 reps if I’m lifting moderately heavy. If I’m only burning 110 calories that seems like all of my hard work during my gym session is worth nothing.

Replies

  • Keto_Vampire
    Keto_Vampire Posts: 1,670 Member
    In the long run, building muscle will increase BMR very slightly.
    In the short term, cardio > weight lifting (even if supersetting non-stop) in terms of sheer time spent doing each.
  • sardelsa
    sardelsa Posts: 9,812 Member
    edited August 2018
    pbryd wrote: »
    It makes me wonder why people cycle their carbs on training and non training days,

    You burn more calories doing the weekly shop at the supermarket.

    Perhaps they should cycle their carbs on shopping and non shopping days. ;)

    For me it's not about calories but the carbs. I feel and perform better with more carbs on my lifting days especially around my workouts.

    Also with 4 leg days a week I need those extra cals ;)
  • flowerhorsey
    flowerhorsey Posts: 154 Member
    I log weight training in "map my fitness", sinc it with mfp; it gives me many more calories (I wanna say around 400per hour) than mfp. I eat them all back most days and I have yet to gain weight, yet I'm recomping so this is what I'm going for.
  • Tic78
    Tic78 Posts: 232 Member
    I do a heavy superset/circuit based routine just now and for an hour my Fitbit is saying 450-538 calories burnt. I pretty much don’t stop so my heart rate is always in my fat burning zone. Obviously Fitbit figures could be a lot of *kitten* but I didn’t realise calorie burn for traditional lifting was so low.

  • BNY721
    BNY721 Posts: 125 Member
    Strength training definitely isn’t for the calorie burn...but covers all the other benefits already mentioned. Stick with it! :)
  • hesn92
    hesn92 Posts: 5,966 Member
    The purpose of strength training is not to burn calories
  • AuthorNinja
    AuthorNinja Posts: 69 Member
    For my stats, I only burn 55 calories in the 25 minutes i strength train. That's enough to cover my coffee creamer lol. But like others have said, it's not done for calorie burning. Personally I love the ache and exhaustion after a strength workout. I follow up with running, but I prioritize doing strength first.
  • collectingblues
    collectingblues Posts: 2,541 Member
    Cardio is for calories, strength training is for function and form.

    (I mean, yes, training for a specific sport gives you cardio function and form, but you get what I'm saying.)
  • Spitspot81
    Spitspot81 Posts: 208 Member
    Yep my calorie burn, according to my fit bit is approx 70-80 Cals for 45 mins. Doesn’t even cover my pre workout banana 😂. But I do it because I enjoy lifting and trust that the process will get me to my goals
  • moogie_fit
    moogie_fit Posts: 280 Member
    I log weight training in "map my fitness", sinc it with mfp; it gives me many more calories (I wanna say around 400per hour) than mfp. I eat them all back most days and I have yet to gain weight, yet I'm recomping so this is what I'm going for.

    Samsung health does the same
  • LiftHeavyThings27105
    LiftHeavyThings27105 Posts: 2,086 Member
    moogie_fit wrote: »
    I log weight training in "map my fitness", sinc it with mfp; it gives me many more calories (I wanna say around 400per hour) than mfp. I eat them all back most days and I have yet to gain weight, yet I'm recomping so this is what I'm going for.

    Samsung health does the same

    @moogie_fit - You saw that pic, too? (referencing something that @Keto_Vampire posted....microwave....not sure if you saw it so this might make ABSOLUTELY no sense...).
  • Larissa_NY
    Larissa_NY Posts: 495 Member
    If you're lifting heavy, I honestly don't think the MFP "you burned X calories so you have Y remaining" approach is all that useful. It's too hard to estimate what your level of effort was. If none of your lifts are close to body weight you won't burn that many, but moving ten or twenty thousand pounds of weight in an hour or so at the gym imposes some costs on your body.

    I use the TDEE method and a Charge HR; my outcomes are body measurements and progression in my lifts. Is my weight doing what it ought to do? Are my lifts squashing me halfway through my warmup sets? I look at that sort of thing and adjust my intake accordingly.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    According to my fitness pal strength training/weight lifting only burns 110 calories in a 45/50 minute session? Is this accurate? I usually perform 8-9 exercises with 4 sets of 8 reps on days I’m lifting heavy and 12 reps if I’m lifting moderately heavy. If I’m only burning 110 calories that seems like all of my hard work during my gym session is worth nothing.

    Sounds about right...I get around 160 or so. Exercise and lifting is for more than just burning calories...regular exercise results in better aesthetics and is huge where overall health is concerned. If you're just exercising for calorie burns, you're missing the boat.

    Cardio is going to give you a higher calorie burn and is good for your cardiovascular health. Lifting doesn't burn as many calories, but it preserves and builds muscle mass and keeps your bones strong and healthy and allows you to do other daily things that could otherwise prove difficult.
  • jaciejaciexoxo
    jaciejaciexoxo Posts: 49 Member
    According to my fitness pal strength training/weight lifting only burns 110 calories in a 45/50 minute session? Is this accurate? I usually perform 8-9 exercises with 4 sets of 8 reps on days I’m lifting heavy and 12 reps if I’m lifting moderately heavy. If I’m only burning 110 calories that seems like all of my hard work during my gym session is worth nothing.

    It's not for nothing. Think about it, the more muscle mass you obtain the more calories you burn naturally without effort.
  • deputy_randolph
    deputy_randolph Posts: 940 Member
    I burn about 300 for 2 hours of powerlifting. If I get a little "fat," I cut back on calories a little and/or add in a little cardio. It works like magic (it's not magic)...

    Lifting is for gainz not calories.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    According to my fitness pal strength training/weight lifting only burns 110 calories in a 45/50 minute session? Is this accurate? I usually perform 8-9 exercises with 4 sets of 8 reps on days I’m lifting heavy and 12 reps if I’m lifting moderately heavy. If I’m only burning 110 calories that seems like all of my hard work during my gym session is worth nothing.

    It's not for nothing. Think about it, the more muscle mass you obtain the more calories you burn naturally without effort.

    Honestly, a person in calorie deficit is not likely adding muscle mass. Even under optimum conditions, ideal nutrition, calorie surplus and perfect training program, a man will add about 1/2 lb per week and a woman half that.

    Even if someone did add muscle, the net calorie gain on 1 lb of muscle is somewhere around 6 to 8 calories per day. Gaining muscle mass is a great thing for many health reasons but burning substantially more calories is not one of them.
  • mrslynda
    mrslynda Posts: 50 Member
    For me , it's not about the calorie burn, it's about what it does for my health. Lifting weights constantly means less pain , makes me feel mentally better (it's my me time) and allows me to be more active in other areas of my life. Walking down the road to the shops, easy, carrying or dragging (In a small trolley) the groceries, strength training makes that possible. At work, I can push extra dollies of bread to help out the truck drivers, or the lazy , usually boys I work with. I can help take out waste dough to the bins, to help the guy who has come and helped me when I needed it and fallen behind. I can help my husband move a couch. All this is why I lift weights.
  • hipari
    hipari Posts: 1,367 Member
    mmapags wrote: »
    According to my fitness pal strength training/weight lifting only burns 110 calories in a 45/50 minute session? Is this accurate? I usually perform 8-9 exercises with 4 sets of 8 reps on days I’m lifting heavy and 12 reps if I’m lifting moderately heavy. If I’m only burning 110 calories that seems like all of my hard work during my gym session is worth nothing.

    It's not for nothing. Think about it, the more muscle mass you obtain the more calories you burn naturally without effort.

    Honestly, a person in calorie deficit is not likely adding muscle mass. Even under optimum conditions, ideal nutrition, calorie surplus and perfect training program, a man will add about 1/2 lb per week and a woman half that.

    Even if someone did add muscle, the net calorie gain on 1 lb of muscle is somewhere around 6 to 8 calories per day. Gaining muscle mass is a great thing for many health reasons but burning substantially more calories is not one of them.

    I had an inBody body composition analysis done in January and in June. I don't have the papers on hand to check the exact numbers, but according to the analysis I gained about 2lbs of muscle while losing around 8lbs of weight, and my BMR had increased by maybe 30 calories. Those 30 calories per day is about 3lbs a year, which is not a lot, but still meaningful if you are a machine and everything else is balanced perfectly.

    (Whether or not the analysis is accurate is a whole different debate, and no, I don't follow the suggestions of the analysis to the letter and I don't now eat 30 more calories daily)

    To the actual question here: yeah, the calories sound about right. I usually get a 200-300 calorie burn (Fitbit reading) from an hour-long strength workout that includes a proper warm-up on the rowing machine. The warm-up alone is probably half the burn. I do strength training to, you know, train strength, increase stability and mobility, gain muscle and stay healthy. If I want to purely burn calories, I go for a long walk since that's something I can do comfortably for extended periods of time and burn at a decent rate (350-500 per hour depending on speed, carried load and uphills). Additionally, I work on my running for cardiovascular health, endurance and overall sanity. The fact that running burns at a good rate is a definite plus.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Weight training will result in more calories burned as your body will work all day (assuming you workout in the AM) at rebuilding the muscles you've broken down. The MFP logging is just for the working within that time period, it can't judge the burn after the fact.

    The muscle repair would also be more or less depending on what you fuel your body with and how much sleep you get.

    EPOC is highly overstated and hardly significant.

    True. I thought Lyle McDonald did a paper on this. f I get a chance later, I'll try and find it.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Weight training will result in more calories burned as your body will work all day (assuming you workout in the AM) at rebuilding the muscles you've broken down. The MFP logging is just for the working within that time period, it can't judge the burn after the fact.

    The muscle repair would also be more or less depending on what you fuel your body with and how much sleep you get.

    EPOC is highly overstated and hardly significant.

    True. I thought Lyle McDonald did a paper on this. f I get a chance later, I'll try and find it.

    He did a research review on it. It's here: https://bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/research-review-effects-of-exercise-intensity-and-duration-on-the-excess-post-exercise-oxygen-consumption.html/
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Weight training will result in more calories burned as your body will work all day (assuming you workout in the AM) at rebuilding the muscles you've broken down. The MFP logging is just for the working within that time period, it can't judge the burn after the fact.

    The muscle repair would also be more or less depending on what you fuel your body with and how much sleep you get.

    EPOC is highly overstated and hardly significant.

    True. I thought Lyle McDonald did a paper on this. f I get a chance later, I'll try and find it.

    He did a research review on it. It's here: https://bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/research-review-effects-of-exercise-intensity-and-duration-on-the-excess-post-exercise-oxygen-consumption.html/

    Yes, that's the one. You are the best! Thanks