Timing weights workouts

The whole session. Rest time between lifting counts too. Plus no need to make things over complicated. 🤷🏼‍♀️

I'll say again, as I have before, that I do not believe you can get a good "guess" of calorie burn without knowing energy expenditure.

You and I lift the same weight, but in terms of difficulty it's a 5 out of 10 for you but a 7 out of 10 for me. Thus, all else equal - I would burn more calories doing the same lift.
Also, let's take the squat.as an example exercise. If I weigh 200 (i.do) and you weigh 160, then even if we.load the bar the same, I would be squatting 40 lbs more than you.

And, I'm 5'10". So the guy 6'1" has to squat FARTHER than I do, thus expending more energy (calories).

I could go on, but the point is anything saying "strength training is this much" is a fairy tale.

So you think the same.workout with longer breaks is the same.calorie burn?@!

I'm not really a break person. In the time some folks call 'rest' or 'break' I could have a snack and a nap 😂

But your story doesnt take.into consideration efficiency (or the lack of it). In the first couple if months most see the weight on the bar increase significantly. Some of this is strength, but much is just becoming familiar and.coordinated with the movements.
But strength OR efficiency, are you really suggesting.that the calorie burn is the same.for the.person who barely manages to push up.135 and the person who pushes 135 though he can push 270?
In other words, you think the calorie burn is the same.for.somemone pushing MAX weight and the person pushing 50% of max weight?

Food for thought for the next guy ....

You start strength training today. You do bicep curls 25 lbs for 3 sets of 12. Reps 10,11, and 12 kinda sucked.

45 days from now, you do the same workout. It's easy now, almost boring to do it. You think maybe you.should move up to the 35# dumbbells.

You haven't weight lifted yourself taller, so you're still 5'10" tall. But you.did some workouts honestly and your body composition is a bit better even tho weight is unchanged , still at 200#. You are 45 days older than the first workout.

Height, weight, age and workout all the same as before. Calorie burn same as before?

Not about how you feel. You saying two.ppl doing the same.thing but. The same calories? Then why the height, weight, age?
Dont waste time and money on more than one set of dumbbells. Right? Since the one set affects.us all equally, we just need one set in the gym. that's sarcasm

PHYSICS is a good point. Work equals force x distance applied (may be measured in time). Or, W= fd. So even if the weight stays the same ( we use the same.bar) increasing the distance its.moved increases the AMT OF WORK DONE. The FORCE is the same. But the WORK is increased.

jeffjeff85 wrote: »

Not about how you feel. You saying two.ppl doing the same.thing but. The same calories? Then why the height, weight, age?
Dont waste time and money on more than one set of dumbbells. Right? Since the one set affects.us all equally, we just need one set in the gym. that's sarcasm

PHYSICS is a good point. Work equals force x distance applied (may be measured in time). Or, W= fd. So even if the weight stays the same ( we use the same.bar) increasing the distance its.moved increases the AMT OF WORK DONE. The FORCE is the same. But the WORK is increased.

Calorie burn is not the same thing as strength gain. I don't question that you need progressive resistance to attain progressive strength gain. Moving the same weight the same distance at the same body weight is going to burn roughly the same amount of calories, even if neuromuscular adaptation makes it seem easier.

Bicep curls (your earlier example), if done correctly, are the same movement: Same force, same distance. Same work. If you're saying that the distance difference when reps 10, 11, 12 sucked are going to make a significant difference is calorie burn, we have different definitions of "significant".

There's every reason to progress the weight if your goal is strength, mass or general fitness. But pushing X weight Y distance is the same amount of work, and pretty darned close to the same calorie expenditure, whether X weight is near the max you can achieve, or only a small fraction of your max.

None of which has anything to do with Haitch's contention that MFP gives people a workable enough approximation of weight training calories that most people can use it as part of their weight management equation, and succeed. None of this stuff is exact, but close enough is close enough.

ETA: None of this is germane to OP's question, so I won't post further about this digression. Other readers can draw their own conclusions. Best wishes to you!

The physiology of lifting weights is completely different from cardio, so any cardio-based metrics (e.g. heart rate) are not applicable. Since there are so many variables involved in a lifting workout, it is virtually impossible to come up with a formula that is generally applicable (like the energy prediction equations for running or walking).

I have tried to put together some common concepts from various studies I have read on the topic. One, is that, overall, lifting heavier weights burns less calories than burning lighter weights. That is because, while calorie burn per second might be higher for heavier weights (and I don’t know if it is or isn’t—I’ve never seen it studied and am not sure how you would do so), the time actually spent under tension is much less and recovery periods need to be longer.

The calorie burn for lifting one set to failure of a 40% 1RM weight is about twice that of one set at 90% of 1 RM. That’s mainly because the lighter weight set lasts about 4 times as long.

There is no difference in “afterburn” between sets of lighter or heavier weights performed to failure.

Since the body is not moving during lifting, body weight does not make any difference. Like riding a bike. Height and age don’t make a difference either.

I have not seen any studies that looked at the difference between absolute weights—i.e. independent of relative intensity, do you burn more calories lifting 50 lbs vs lifting 100lbs.

Every study I have seen measures relative weights — the % of one’s 1 RM.

This is one of those topics where using “what makes sense” is a very poor strategy for drawing conclusions. The usual observations of heart rate, breathing, sweating, muscle fatigue, etc have little or no predictive value.

Neither does increased strength performance.