No Burned Calories for Wieght Training

I wear my HRM and log it under my exercises under cardio based on what the HRM says I burned.

Some people...myself included....just simply don't log it and consider it a bonus. I only strength training 2 days a week...full body...and core 3 times a week. I do a lot of cardio. I set my weight loss goal at 2lbs a week...and I overestimate how many calories I'm eating. I'm getting results.

If you're trying to lose weight....my recommendation is don't log these calories. What's more important to you...results or getting credit for these activities. There are some people that log crazy stuff....I do not and it's working freakin' great for me.

I wear my HRM and log it under my exercises under cardio based on what the HRM says I burned.

This isn't an accurate measure of calorie expenditure for weight training. HRMs are only good to estimate calories burned when doing cardio or calisthenics. Your calorie burn for weight training will be under 1/2 of what your HRM says. I use MFP's estimation with weight training and my HRM with cardio. MFP rarely overestimates for me with cardio (usually 10-20 calories less, actually), so I feel safe doing so.

HRM are not very accurate for non-cardio activities such as resistance training.
You can google the topic for a complete discussion.

Fact is, you're not buring very much during weight training.
I no longer count resistance training towards calories burned as my priority remains fat loss.

Good luck!

If you're trying to lose weight....my recommendation is don't log these calories. What's more important to you...results or getting credit for these activities. There are some people that log crazy stuff....I do not and it's working freakin' great for me.

Ha ha, good point.

You should always eat more on days you exercise. Your body needs additional fuel, especially when weight training, to help build muscle. Though if you're eating at a deficit already, building muscle is nearly impossible. But my point is that if you don't eat enough to fuel your burn, you will end up losing lean body mass (a.k.a. muscle), which defeats the entire purpose of weight training in the first place.

I wear my HRM and log it under my exercises under cardio based on what the HRM says I burned.

Your calorie burn for weight training will be under 1/2 of what your HRM says.

Why? What's your premise for this? Just curious what your reasoning is.

I suggest you read New Rules of Lifting for Women. That will fully explain, with scientifically backed reasoning, why strength training does not burn as many calories as cardio in the same length of time. In fact, I think it's in the first 2 chapters that this explanation as made.

However, that doesn't mean that cardio is better because it expends more calories. Weight training is very important as well, since more lean body mass = higher metabolism.

I wear my HRM and log it under my exercises under cardio based on what the HRM says I burned.

Your calorie burn for weight training will be under 1/2 of what your HRM says.

Why? What's your premise for this? Just curious what your reasoning is.

I suggest you read New Rules of Lifting for Women. That will fully explain, with scientifically backed reasoning, why strength training does not burn as many calories as cardio in the same length of time. In fact, I think it's in the first 2 chapters that this explanation as made.

However, that doesn't mean that cardio is better because it expends more calories. Weight training is very important as well, since more lean body mass = higher metabolism.

Ok, but if my HRM is telling me how many calories I've burned why would it only be 1/2. That's the part that I'm confused, your random "Your calorie burn for weight training will be under 1/2 of what your HRM says."

It isn't random. Your VO2 during weight training is not the same as your VO2 during cardio. Unless you have a Polar F55, or another HRM which is designed for weight lifters, your HRM is not giving you an accurate reading on calorie expenditure estimations. It's as simple as that. Weight training VO2 is not equal to cardio VO2.

(ETA) Most HRMs use an equation that is VO2 for cardio only, which is why your HRM would not give you an accurate calorie estimate. I wear my HRM during weight training sessions and it will say my calories burned is around 400 calories for a 30 minute session. When I input that same training time into MFP, I get around 120-150 calories. Most people who use MFPs calculations get the same results. 120-150 is less than 1/2 of 400.

You asked what my premise was for this, and that was my premise, as read in NROLFW, which is why I suggested you read it.

I wear my HRM and log it under my exercises under cardio based on what the HRM says I burned.

Your calorie burn for weight training will be under 1/2 of what your HRM says.

Why? What's your premise for this? Just curious what your reasoning is.

I suggest you read New Rules of Lifting for Women. That will fully explain, with scientifically backed reasoning, why strength training does not burn as many calories as cardio in the same length of time. In fact, I think it's in the first 2 chapters that this explanation as made.

However, that doesn't mean that cardio is better because it expends more calories. Weight training is very important as well, since more lean body mass = higher metabolism.

Ok, but if my HRM is telling me how many calories I've burned why would it only be 1/2. That's the part that I'm confused, your random "Your calorie burn for weight training will be under 1/2 of what your HRM says."

It isn't random. Your VO2 during weight training is not the same as your VO2 during cardio. Unless you have a Polar F55, or another HRM which is designed for weight lifters, your HRM is not giving you an accurate reading on calorie expenditure estimations. It's as simple as that. Weight training VO2 is not equal to cardio VO2.

(ETA) Most HRMs use an equation that is VO2 for cardio only, which is why your HRM would not give you an accurate calorie estimate. I wear my HRM during weight training sessions and it will say my calories burned is around 400 calories for a 30 minute session. When I input that same training time into MFP, I get around 120-150 calories. Most people who use MFPs calculations get the same results. 120-150 is less than 1/2 of 400.

You asked what my premise was for this, and that was my premise, as read in NROLFW, which is why I suggested you read it.

I'm not being dificult or challenging you, I was questioning where the 1/2 was coming from. I just wanted you to explain so that it made sense to me. The description of the VO2 calculation for most of the lower end HRM makes sense to me now.

I'm not being dificult or challenging you, I was questioning where the 1/2 was coming from. I just wanted you to explain so that it made sense to me. The description of the VO2 calculation for most of the lower end HRM makes sense to me now.

I didn't think so. It's hard to read tone in words on the Internet, and I've grounded myself off smilies (lol) so my statements might seem b!tchy or whatever, but I added the further explanation because I figured I wasn't explaining myself well enough.

I'm glad I could make a coherent statement today, actually. lmao

I didn't think so. It's hard to read tone in words on the Internet, and I've grounded myself off smilies (lol) so my statements might seem b!tchy or whatever, but I added the further explanation because I figured I wasn't explaining myself well enough.

I'm glad I could make a coherent statement today, actually. lmao

Yeah me too and some people on MFP are a bit sensitive. But now I have a problem..... because now I want a better HRM, one for cardio and weight lifting!!!