Does strength exercise ever increase calories for the day?

rachf2013
rachf2013 Posts: 69
in Fitness and Exercise
When I put in strength training for daily exercise, it never increases my calories for the day. Why not?

Replies

  • Meg_78
    Meg_78 Posts: 998 Member
    You need to put it in in the cardio section too, I think it goes under strength training in the DB
  • prejot974
    prejot974 Posts: 1
    Thanks Coco_mum
    It is Strength training (weight lifting, weight training)
    I found this article about the benefits of both and the calories it burns: http://www.livestrong.com/article/78970-cardio-exercise-vs.-strength-traininig/.
  • rachf2013
    rachf2013 Posts: 69
    I mean I put in bicep curls (and triceps, back, chest, etc) in the exercise on this site and it didn't effect my calories. I was just wondering if the site doesn't count that as burning calories or if I'm missing something.
  • Loseweight1980
    Loseweight1980 Posts: 94
    You have to search for "strength training" under cardio, sounds silly, but it's set up that way on this site. You do get extra calories for strength training, definitely. Anaerobic exercise burns calories!
  • JPod279
    JPod279 Posts: 722 Member
    Sounds like you are using the area to track your weight & reps progress. There is another area to put in calories.
  • DixiedoesMFP
    DixiedoesMFP Posts: 935 Member
    You have to enter it under cardio, not strength.

    The DB for bicep curls, etc. I believe is to track your reps and weight, but doesn't reflect the calorie burn.
  • iamMaLisa
    iamMaLisa Posts: 278 Member
    I use an Heart Rate Monitor and place it under cardio, i was just thinking the same thing, i am wondering if maybe i shouldnt eat my exercide calories back since i am not losing weight.
  • randall774
    randall774 Posts: 37
    I never include strength trainnig in my diary, only cardio. I look at cals burnt doing weight training as a bonus.
  • cramernh
    cramernh Posts: 3,335 Member
    To properly determine caloric burn, you should invest in an HRM.

    The values MFP have are only 'the best guess' and Ill tell ya: after using my HRM for the first time today at the gym.. I compared it to what MFP guessed... what a HUGE difference... almost 150 calories!!!

    My HRM was much more accurate....
  • Mompanda4
    Mompanda4 Posts: 869 Member
    Bump
  • BigDave1050
    BigDave1050 Posts: 854 Member
    I mean I put in bicep curls (and triceps, back, chest, etc) in the exercise on this site and it didn't effect my calories. I was just wondering if the site doesn't count that as burning calories or if I'm missing something.

    This site is a little wierd when it comes to that. You can track the calories burned under Cardio, but you can track the number of reps and wieght your doing using the strength Tracker.
  • randall774
    randall774 Posts: 37
    150 more burnt than mfp says or less?
  • rachf2013
    rachf2013 Posts: 69
    Ah ok, i looked up strength training under cardio, but you have to know how many calories you burned and I don't. Useless... :tongue:

    I like the idea of just thinking of them as extra weight loss. I just don't want to not eat back those calories and put my body into starvation mode (I'm already down at 1270 cal/day)
  • randall774
    randall774 Posts: 37
    Ah ok, i looked up strength training under cardio, but you have to know how many calories you burned and I don't. Useless... :tongue:

    I like the idea of just thinking of them as extra weight loss. I just don't want to not eat back those calories and put my body into starvation mode (I'm already down at 1270 cal/day)

    i dont eat back my calories everyday if i can help it....

    ...i like to save em for my cheat day at the weekend :)
  • auntiebabs
    auntiebabs Posts: 1,754 Member
    I mean I put in bicep curls (and triceps, back, chest, etc) in the exercise on this site and it didn't effect my calories. I was just wondering if the site doesn't count that as burning calories or if I'm missing something.

    I don't know, but I wonder if it's got to do with the whole muscle being denser than fat issue...

    You are burning fat, but you are INCREASING you muscle mass (which weighs more per cubic inch than fat), so while you maybe getting THINNER you may not be getting any LIGHTER... So calories burned would not contribute toward weight loss.... Does this make sense to anybody else? I really just made this up trying to figure it out.
  • cramernh
    cramernh Posts: 3,335 Member
    Ah ok, i looked up strength training under cardio, but you have to know how many calories you burned and I don't. Useless... :tongue:

    I like the idea of just thinking of them as extra weight loss. I just don't want to not eat back those calories and put my body into starvation mode (I'm already down at 1270 cal/day)

    You need an HRM to learn about a truer caloric burn, otherwise you will need to be good at estimating.
  • Meganosborn1988
    Meganosborn1988 Posts: 24 Member
    if you really want to earn "eating" calories.. do cardio.. your strength training is more for you to tone your body.. cardio is what really earns you more to eat.
  • rachf2013
    rachf2013 Posts: 69
    Ah ok, i looked up strength training under cardio, but you have to know how many calories you burned and I don't. Useless... :tongue:

    I like the idea of just thinking of them as extra weight loss. I just don't want to not eat back those calories and put my body into starvation mode (I'm already down at 1270 cal/day)

    i dont eat back my calories everyday if i can help it....

    ...i like to save em for my cheat day at the weekend :)

    That's not a bad idea, but I tend not to allow myself a cheat day.
  • rachf2013
    rachf2013 Posts: 69
    if you really want to earn "eating" calories.. do cardio.. your strength training is more for you to tone your body.. cardio is what really earns you more to eat.

    Yea, I do cardio every other day. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't burning a whole bunch of calories on the days I do strength and not eating them back
  • randall774
    randall774 Posts: 37
    the idea of eating back calories is to allow you to reach your nutritional goals.

    ie, burning 200 cals on the treadmill means you can then have that protien shake to hit your protien goal for that day and still be under target overall, or thats my take on it.

    i dont eat back the majority of mine for the reason above, and because i guess all my weights of food, so cals burnt will make up for any misjudgements on my part.....

    ...kind of like an insurance against cocking up :smile:
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    I mean I put in bicep curls (and triceps, back, chest, etc) in the exercise on this site and it didn't effect my calories. I was just wondering if the site doesn't count that as burning calories or if I'm missing something.

    I don't know, but I wonder if it's got to do with the whole muscle being denser than fat issue...

    You are burning fat, but you are INCREASING you muscle mass (which weighs more per cubic inch than fat), so while you maybe getting THINNER you may not be getting any LIGHTER... So calories burned would not contribute toward weight loss.... Does this make sense to anybody else? I really just made this up trying to figure it out.

    No, it's simply the way MFP sets up their system. Calories burned is listed under cardio, weights and reps under strength.

    Also, to correct something you mentioned (I understand you're just stumbling through...that's ok!), you're never actually going to gain muscle while eating at a calorie deficit. Yes, you can firm your existing muscle, yes, sometimes this makes it look 'bigger' (along with cellular swelling from water retention)...but you didn't actually gain anything.
  • mfpcopine
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    I've read articles that have said that the notion that strength training will turn the ordinary person's body into into a 24/7 calorie-blasting furnace is major hype. There's apparently a modest increase in calorie burning capacity that lasts for a short time after exercise.

    This is NOT to say that strength training isn't important. As someone else said, cardio may give you more bang for the buck if you want to eat more.
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    I've read articles that have said that the notion that strength training will turn the ordinary person's body into into a 24/7 calorie-blasting furnace is major hype. There's apparently a modest increase in calorie burning capacity that lasts for a short time after exercise.

    This is NOT to say that strength training isn't important. As someone else said, cardio may give you more bang for the buck if you want to eat more.

    The thing about it is this...cardio doesn't give the same kind of hormonal response that heavy strength training gives. Calories in vs calories out is the ONLY thing that matters for weight loss, but there's some VERY real benifits to fat loss with strength training that you just don't get with cardio.
  • auntiebabs
    auntiebabs Posts: 1,754 Member
    I mean I put in bicep curls (and triceps, back, chest, etc) in the exercise on this site and it didn't effect my calories. I was just wondering if the site doesn't count that as burning calories or if I'm missing something.

    I don't know, but I wonder if it's got to do with the whole muscle being denser than fat issue...

    You are burning fat, but you are INCREASING you muscle mass (which weighs more per cubic inch than fat), so while you maybe getting THINNER you may not be getting any LIGHTER... So calories burned would not contribute toward weight loss.... Does this make sense to anybody else? I really just made this up trying to figure it out.

    No, it's simply the way MFP sets up their system. Calories burned is listed under cardio, weights and reps under strength.

    Also, to correct something you mentioned (I understand you're just stumbling through...that's ok!), you're never actually going to gain muscle while eating at a calorie deficit. Yes, you can firm your existing muscle, yes, sometimes this makes it look 'bigger' (along with cellular swelling from water retention)...but you didn't actually gain anything.

    Thanks,
    I gotta a question re:
    you're never actually going to gain muscle while eating at a calorie deficit.
    What if I'm not eating at a deficit? I hit my weight goal and am eating at maintenance and trying to firm up a bit.

    I'm just trying to figure things out from my past experience.
    When ever I came off of a sedentary spell and threw myself into activity. (winter --> summer)
    I wasn't intentionally dieting...
    I'd always gain 5 lbs in the first few weeks, then lose 5 lbs in the few weeks after that. I always sort of assume it was muscle increase, followed by fat decrease. I'd end up the same weight, but be a more compact me.
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    I mean I put in bicep curls (and triceps, back, chest, etc) in the exercise on this site and it didn't effect my calories. I was just wondering if the site doesn't count that as burning calories or if I'm missing something.

    I don't know, but I wonder if it's got to do with the whole muscle being denser than fat issue...

    You are burning fat, but you are INCREASING you muscle mass (which weighs more per cubic inch than fat), so while you maybe getting THINNER you may not be getting any LIGHTER... So calories burned would not contribute toward weight loss.... Does this make sense to anybody else? I really just made this up trying to figure it out.

    No, it's simply the way MFP sets up their system. Calories burned is listed under cardio, weights and reps under strength.

    Also, to correct something you mentioned (I understand you're just stumbling through...that's ok!), you're never actually going to gain muscle while eating at a calorie deficit. Yes, you can firm your existing muscle, yes, sometimes this makes it look 'bigger' (along with cellular swelling from water retention)...but you didn't actually gain anything.

    Thanks,
    I gotta a question re:
    you're never actually going to gain muscle while eating at a calorie deficit.
    What if I'm not eating at a deficit? I hit my weight goal and am eating at maintenance and trying to firm up a bit.

    I'm just trying to figure things out from my past experience.
    When ever I came off of a sedentary spell and threw myself into activity. (winter --> summer)
    I wasn't intentionally dieting...
    I'd always gain 5 lbs in the first few weeks, then lose 5 lbs in the few weeks after that. I always sort of assume it was muscle increase, followed by fat decrease. I'd end up the same weight, but be a more compact me.

    Maintenance is still going to act like a deficit unless your calculations are way off and you're overfeeding.

    That weght you gain in the first few weeks is just your body holding onto water to repair/destress the muscles. Picture your muscles swelling with water (like a dry sponge when you get it wet) on a cellular level, and you'll get the idea. Often this is why girls think they've gained muscle too, those mucles can look visibly bigger.
  • tmpayton
    tmpayton Posts: 148 Member
    i've had the same ???
  • mdcjmom
    mdcjmom Posts: 597 Member
    Strength training you have to add under cardio too. Also if you have an hrm monitor it is best to use that when you are doing your stregth training to get an accurate calorie burn.
  • auntiebabs
    auntiebabs Posts: 1,754 Member
    I mean I put in bicep curls (and triceps, back, chest, etc) in the exercise on this site and it didn't effect my calories. I was just wondering if the site doesn't count that as burning calories or if I'm missing something.

    I don't know, but I wonder if it's got to do with the whole muscle being denser than fat issue...

    You are burning fat, but you are INCREASING you muscle mass (which weighs more per cubic inch than fat), so while you maybe getting THINNER you may not be getting any LIGHTER... So calories burned would not contribute toward weight loss.... Does this make sense to anybody else? I really just made this up trying to figure it out.

    No, it's simply the way MFP sets up their system. Calories burned is listed under cardio, weights and reps under strength.

    Also, to correct something you mentioned (I understand you're just stumbling through...that's ok!), you're never actually going to gain muscle while eating at a calorie deficit. Yes, you can firm your existing muscle, yes, sometimes this makes it look 'bigger' (along with cellular swelling from water retention)...but you didn't actually gain anything.

    Thanks,
    I gotta a question re:
    you're never actually going to gain muscle while eating at a calorie deficit.
    What if I'm not eating at a deficit? I hit my weight goal and am eating at maintenance and trying to firm up a bit.

    I'm just trying to figure things out from my past experience.
    When ever I came off of a sedentary spell and threw myself into activity. (winter --> summer)
    I wasn't intentionally dieting...
    I'd always gain 5 lbs in the first few weeks, then lose 5 lbs in the few weeks after that. I always sort of assume it was muscle increase, followed by fat decrease. I'd end up the same weight, but be a more compact me.

    Maintenance is still going to act like a deficit unless your calculations are way off and you're overfeeding.

    That weght you gain in the first few weeks is just your body holding onto water to repair/destress the muscles. Picture your muscles swelling with water (like a dry sponge when you get it wet) on a cellular level, and you'll get the idea. Often this is why girls think they've gained muscle too, those mucles can look visibly bigger.

    Thanks

Categories