Message Boards » Website Suggestions/Feedback

TOPIC: Strength Training Calorie Calculator?

 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
August 10, 2011 12:20 PM
Is there no way to track calories burned through strength training exercises? I do a combination of both cardio and strength training, but I do not see my strength training calculated into calories burned.

Am I missing something or is this option not available?
August 10, 2011 12:22 PM
it is hard to determine your calorie burn with a calculator. It all depends on the weight amount, the reps and the amount of time between sets. Something that can tell you is a heart rate monitor.
August 10, 2011 12:23 PM
It is counter-intuitive but you have to search the "Cardiovascular" section for "Strength training (weight lifting, weight training)". Put in the amount of time doing strength training to get an estimate of calories burned.
  8763009
August 10, 2011 12:23 PM
For an estimate enter "strength training" in the cardio tab
August 10, 2011 12:23 PM
you can enter strength training as a cardio excercise but you either need to guess the calories burned or use a HRM
  9813668
August 10, 2011 12:24 PM
Look up strength training under cardio. The best way to know how much you're burning, however, is with a heart rate monitor. It will become a necessity the closer you get to your goal. Trust me!
  746692
August 10, 2011 12:25 PM
Its in Cardio

Strength training (weight lifting, weight training)
August 10, 2011 12:26 PM
HRM's don't work for strength training
August 10, 2011 12:27 PM
I add 30-minutes at 200 calories burned under Cardio just to give me something.
August 10, 2011 12:30 PM
thanks everyone! I will check that out and use the strength training under cardio for now until I get a HRM! Thanks again!
November 18, 2011 9:28 AM
I was wondering the same thing, but did add it into the cardio section. Looking at other sources, you can burn from between 168-331 calories (obviously, depends on quite a few factors including your body weight, intensity levels, effort, etc.). Adding the exercises individually is way too tedious for me. I plugged in the time and gave an estimate - which is better than nothing. I prefer to structure my wt training so that I can keep my HR levels up a little, with less rest in between that traditional wt training.
June 2, 2012 8:14 AM
use an equation involving the acceleration, distance, weight of said movement. combined with your heart rate and you got yourself a guestimation :0
July 14, 2012 11:11 AM
I use a calorie calculator when I feel that mfp is over/underestimating my calories burned. This calculator let's you put in your weight and the time you spent exercising and gives you a whole list of results for a bunch of different workouts. Then I just manually enter my calories burned on mfp. Not as good as an HRM, but still better than nothing. Best of luck!

This is the calculator I use: http://www.healthdiscovery.net/links/calculators/calorie_calculator.htm
Edited by Tanais On July 14, 2012 11:14 AM
  8956012
July 14, 2012 12:09 PM
I used to just use the default calories burned they had in the app but i decided to buy a HRM so i knew exactly whst I was burning. I noticed fitness pal was @ times estimating i burned sometimes almost double what i actually did!! My HRM has been
an amazing tool thus far!!
October 21, 2012 5:34 PM
QUOTE:

HRM's don't work for strength training


This guy is correct.
  29325335
October 21, 2012 5:38 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

HRM's don't work for strength training


This guy is correct.


Why?
  3372560
October 21, 2012 5:48 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

HRM's don't work for strength training


This guy is correct.


Why?


"A HRM won't give you an accurate idea of how many calories you burn during strength training, because the relationship between heart rate and calorie expenditure is not the same during strength training as during cardio exercise, which is what the HRM's estimate is based on. Unless your weight training is very vigorous circuit training, the heart rate monitor will be overestimating your calorie burn by a fair amount.

The problem is a technical one. Calorie burning isn't determined by heart rate, it's determined by the number of muscle cells that are activated to perform a given activity. It's the working cells that actually use the energy (calories) and consume oxygen. When working muscle cells need more energy and oxygen, your heart rate goes up to deliver these things to the cells via the blood stream.

Any muscle that performs a high intensity or maximum effort (strength training) will trigger an increase in heart rate and blood flow. But if only a single muscle group is on the receiving end to utilize that extra oxygen (doing a strength exercise that isolates your biceps, for example), only a relatively small amount of oxygen (and calories) will actually be consumed.

So while a series of strength training exercises may elevate your heart rate like aerobic exercise does, you're not actually using as much oxygen and burning as many calories as you would be if you were steadily using several large muscles all at once, as when walking, running, swimming, or doing aerobics for example.

The heart rate monitor doesn’t know whether your increase in heart rate is due to several large muscle groups working (cardio), an isolated muscle group lifting a weight (strength training), or even if adrenaline or excitement is increasing your heart rate. It just knows your heart rate, and the formulas it uses to estimate calories are based on studies of aerobic exercise, not other activities. So, it's going to overestimate your calorie expenditure when the rise in heart rate is stimulated by using isolated muscles at maximum intensity, which is what occurs during strength training."

http://www.sparkpeople.com/community/ask_the_experts.asp?q=75
October 21, 2012 5:52 PM
QUOTE:

I prefer to structure my wt training so that I can keep my HR levels up a little, with less rest in between that traditional wt training.


Me, too. I walk for 10-15 minutes at about 4/5 mph, then do one set of each exercise walking quickly in between, then straight into second and third sets. I have a Bodymedia Fit, so I get a calorie count from that for my workout.
  17225453
October 21, 2012 6:09 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

HRM's don't work for strength training


This guy is correct.


Why?


"A HRM won't give you an accurate idea of how many calories you burn during strength training, because the relationship between heart rate and calorie expenditure is not the same during strength training as during cardio exercise, which is what the HRM's estimate is based on. Unless your weight training is very vigorous circuit training, the heart rate monitor will be overestimating your calorie burn by a fair amount.

The problem is a technical one. Calorie burning isn't determined by heart rate, it's determined by the number of muscle cells that are activated to perform a given activity. It's the working cells that actually use the energy (calories) and consume oxygen. When working muscle cells need more energy and oxygen, your heart rate goes up to deliver these things to the cells via the blood stream.

Any muscle that performs a high intensity or maximum effort (strength training) will trigger an increase in heart rate and blood flow. But if only a single muscle group is on the receiving end to utilize that extra oxygen (doing a strength exercise that isolates your biceps, for example), only a relatively small amount of oxygen (and calories) will actually be consumed.

So while a series of strength training exercises may elevate your heart rate like aerobic exercise does, you're not actually using as much oxygen and burning as many calories as you would be if you were steadily using several large muscles all at once, as when walking, running, swimming, or doing aerobics for example.

The heart rate monitor doesn’t know whether your increase in heart rate is due to several large muscle groups working (cardio), an isolated muscle group lifting a weight (strength training), or even if adrenaline or excitement is increasing your heart rate. It just knows your heart rate, and the formulas it uses to estimate calories are based on studies of aerobic exercise, not other activities. So, it's going to overestimate your calorie expenditure when the rise in heart rate is stimulated by using isolated muscles at maximum intensity, which is what occurs during strength training."

http://www.sparkpeople.com/community/ask_the_experts.asp?q=75


I'm sorry, I should have backed up my claim of HRM's don't work for weight training.
I wrote a topic about it a few minutes ago here...

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/776044-caloric-expenditure-for-weight-training

Below is an excerpt from that topic post.

Also, people don't understand that calories burned lifting weights are different than calories burned doing cardio. I included a reference below from women's health online that explains this very well.

"Cardio's edge: Calorie for calorie, cardio has a slight advantage. You'll burn 8 to 10 calories a minute hoisting weight, compared with 10 to 12 calories a minute running or cycling, says Wayne Westcott, Ph.D., director of research at the South Shore YMCA in Quincy, Massachusetts.

Strength's edge: Lifting weights gives you a metabolic spike for an hour after a workout because your body is trying hard to help your muscles recover. That means you'll fry an additional 25 percent of the calories you just scorched during your strength session, Westcott says. "So if you burned 200 calories lifting weights, it's really closer to 250 overall." And if you lift heavier weights or rest no more than 30 seconds between sets, you can annihilate even more.

And there's more good news when it comes to iron's fat-socking power. "For every 3 pounds of muscle you build, you'll burn an extra 120 calories a day -- just vegging -- because muscle takes more energy to sustain," Westcott says. Over the course of a year, that's about 10 pounds of fat -- without even changing your diet. Yes, please."

Read more at Women's Health:
http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/cardio-vs-strength-training-workouts#ixzz29z4U4mjK
Edited by jefedesalto On October 21, 2012 6:10 PM
  29325335
October 21, 2012 6:11 PM
That extra 3 lbs of muscles and 120 calories a day burned sure helps with that midnight snack.
  29325335
February 21, 2013 1:01 PM
then how are we suppose to know?
February 21, 2013 1:47 PM
There are estimations, and that's all they are. There is really no way to tell you exactly. If you want to get the most accurate. Use a few different calculators, and a HRM. Take the average of all...The HRM will be higher however.
February 21, 2013 2:28 PM
Depends on HOW you use your HRM. See there is a calorie burn that you would get just from being awake, and sedendary.....So if you subtract that from the total you will get net calories burned. I burn ~100 cals/hr at rest and ~75 cals/hr when I am asleep. Whenever I workout...I use a HRM and Subtract BASE CALORIES from the workout based on duration. So if you lift weights for 45 minutes...and burn typically 100 cals/hr...that means NET calories Burned is Total calories minus 75. So if you HRM says 150 calories you have truthfully burned 75 for the workout since you would have burned the additional 75 ebven if you didn't go to the gym.

I do a 2.5 hr Bricking Workout on Sat AM...I subtract 2.5 hrs at base from the number on the HRM.

"On Average" Weight Training, unless your doing giant sets, breakdown sets, supersets, burns about a calorie a rep or about 8-10 calories a set unless you handling very light weight. ~120-150 cals. Not Much, but indeed, gaining muscle will increase your caloric needs for the day.

The way folks get in trouble with a HRM is when they count base calories twice then "Eat there exercise calories back" which seems to be a popular reccomendation.

The numbers I get from My HRM MINUS BASE is in the realm of reality. The algorithms on this site are so way off base its rediculous. Also you need to use a HRM than allows you to measure and input VO2max and HR Max. I am using the Polar FT-40.
February 21, 2013 2:28 PM
As a suggestion try a BodyMedia FIT device for calories burned during all activity 24/7. It also takes other measurements too, including sleep patterns, and I found that it helped me in all aspects of assessing my progress towards weights goals etc. The device links in to MFP too.

I have looked at the calories burned output/calculations from several different Apps and devices: MFP, Endomondo, BodyMedia FIT, Sports Tracker and a Calories Burned Calculator each for the same activity or exercise and ran concurrently. Sounds a bit sad I know but I was slightly peeved by all the different calories burned figures I was getting - all other relevant external factors remained equal, i.e. my height, weight and age. I must say that there is quite a spread, e.g. approx between 1600 - 2100 calories burned for the same activity (running at 6mph for over 2 hours). The closest pairing were the Polar HRM & BodyMedia FIT, with Endomondo giving the highest figure. So I modify my MFP calories burned data to align with the calorie output data from the HRM. Sports Tracker was also consistently close to both the HRM and BodyMedia FIT data.
Edited by dustyrunning On February 21, 2013 2:28 PM
  36055326
August 16, 2013 4:23 AM
I have found a few different formulae on the internet, that for my stats put me between 117 and 421 for 30 mins strength, average 269. Your way puts me 270 and was much easier :-)
Minus my base gives around 235 and I was estimating about 100, so even though I was eating back those calories (high protein low carb, I was still under eating, which explains why I am not building muscle. Very helpful thread. Thanks :-)

Reply

Message Boards » Website Suggestions/Feedback

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.