We all know that you burn a good amount of calories doing cardio, which is often monitored on the equipment. What I am curious about is whether I am burning a lot of calories when I lift weights. Obviously I burn something, but in say a 1.5 hr session, am I burning around 100 calories or more like 300-400 calories?

Anyone have an idea?

Completely impossible to say since we don't know what your workouts are, and what their intensity level is. But yes, you do burn a good amount of calories.

I forgot what the actual figure is, but for every 5 lbs of muscle you put on, you burn a couple hundred more calories everyday without even trying. Someone find the number for me

Well, obviously you can't tell me specifically. I was just looking for a general idea. My workouts are usually 40 mins per muslce group (1-2 muscle gorups per workout) and are pretty intense.

Ive made some calculations based on my workouts..
and its somenting like this:

Intense weightlifting = 360 Kcal/hour
Medium weightlifting = 290 Kcal/hour
Easy weightlifting = 185 Kcal/hour

These numbers are just my estimates though...

The figure you were looking for Zamboni was for every 1lb yes 1lb of muscle you burn 50 calories a day. For every 1 lb of fat you burn 2calories. Weightlifting is extremely helpful in fat loss.

bump..

using my HR monitor...over a 45 period session, I get about 650cals on average.. Is this too high?

Everyone put this site (http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.html) in your favorites. It works it up by weight, age, sex, height for a number of activities.

A 180 lb 25 year old 5' 8" male doing vigious weights for 40 mins would burn 327 calories. For every lb of muscle you burn 37.5 calories a day. cardio doesn't really build much muscle so you miss that benefit.

Bookmarked :) (need to sort all these bookmarks out)

Results:
Totals: 597 calories in 1 hr 30 min

Male 20, 5' 7", 195 lb BMI=30.5 RMR=1,853
Weight Lifting - free weights or machine, moderate
199 calories in 45 min
Weight Lifting - free weights or machine, vigorous
398 calories in 45 min

Calorie Balance: 0 consumed - 597 burned = 597 lost



Seems I burn more in 45 min than the 45min above, and even in 1hr 30min just doing heavy weights... :D

You could make a rough guess using physics. 1kg of mass in the earth's gravitational force at sea level generates a force of 9.8 Newtons. Energy = Force x Distance, so moving this force through a distance of 1 metre gives 9.8 Joules, or 0.00234 kcal.

For example, if you bench press a 50kg weight a distance of 60cm, you have done at least 0.0702 calories of work. I say "at least" because your body isn't 100% efficient at performing these tasks, so you will actually burn more energy than this in performing the lift. I'm sure somebody more qualified than me will be able to comment on how much.

If you were to go through your workouts measuring how much you lift and how far the weights travel you could conceivably arrive at a figure for the total energy you use, though I doubt it would be much more accurate than the answers you've already been given.

The figure you were looking for Zamboni was for every 1lb yes 1lb of muscle you burn 50 calories a day. For every 1 lb of fat you burn 2calories. Weightlifting is extremely helpful in fat loss.

Where did the 50 calorie per pound per day of muscle come from? I see it quoted around the weight loss blogs and whatnot - tried to look it up myself - the more reputable places had the figure more like 13 calories per pound per day.

actually its 37 ish.. but i have read 74 too.

The figure you were looking for Zamboni was for every 1lb yes 1lb of muscle you burn 50 calories a day. For every 1 lb of fat you burn 2calories. Weightlifting is extremely helpful in fat loss.
That number is inflated. If it weren't, huge 280 pound bodybuilders would have to eat 8,000 to maintain.

hubladon, I've also tried estimating using physics equations but I think that underestimates it by a great deal. I think you burn at least 100 calories during the session and 200 or more in the "afterburn."

Well, obviously you can't tell me specifically. I was just looking for a general idea. My workouts are usually 40 mins per muslce group (1-2 muscle gorups per workout) and are pretty intense.


I'd just like to point out that if you are lifting for almost an hour and a half every workout you are going for way too long..
Ideally you want to do your workout in under 50 minutes. If you are taking that long per muscle group you are either:

1) resting way too long between sets
2) doing way too many exercises.

Their is no point in going that long. You are just gonna end up overtraining.

That number is inflated. If it weren't, huge 280 pound bodybuilders would have to eat 8,000 to maintain.

hubladon, I've also tried estimating using physics equations but I think that underestimates it by a great deal. I think you burn at least 100 calories during the session and 200 or more in the "afterburn."

He was a little higher than my number of 37.5 calories for pound at rest. Now it reflects the majority of your BMR is determined by your muscles. I can't speak to the makeup of a 280 lb bodybuilder and how much he eats. I think UCLA should make a study on it.

But for normal people your BMR is bascally determined by your muscles. Lets take an average 5'9" male weighting 170 pounds with 25% fat or 42.5 pounds of fat. He has 127.5 lbs of LBM from which we will subtract 64.5 lbs for bone, skin, organs, etc. to leave us with 63 lbs of muscle. Now at rest the fat burns 85 calories while Muscle burns 2362.5 a day!

You see why Muscle controls metabolism. Muscle is the best thing you have going in your body. Build it don't lose it. On top of burning calories, Muscle gives our bodies form. You want a six pack, you want muscles.

Where did the 50 calorie per pound per day of muscle come from? I see it quoted around the weight loss blogs and whatnot - tried to look it up myself - the more reputable places had the figure more like 13 calories per pound per day.

I think it generally came from overzealous "fitness experts" who hype up the numbers to unsuspecting clientele, but the 50 calorie number is not completely inaccurate either.

The best example i've heard used was the car explanation:

When a car is idling on neutral it burns much less gasoline than if it were flying down the highway at 90 mph, muscles are similar in that regard, when the muscle is in a rested state, it generally burns 10-15 calories per hour, now when it's in a fully active state, such as when you're weight lifting, it burns much more.

General numbers that i've seen, place calorie burn per pound of muscle in the 30-40 range because even while we simply walk to the bathroom, our muscles are being used, so I think that's where they average it out, but I don't know this for a fact so don't qoute me on it ;)

hubladon, I've also tried estimating using physics equations but I think that underestimates it by a great deal. I think you burn at least 100 calories during the session and 200 or more in the "afterburn."

Now I think about it, we're always told that it's the recovery period where we really see the benefit from training. Muscle growth and repair probably does use a significant amount of energy as well.

I wear a polar heart rate monitor when i lift to check on my intensity.

i average about

300-400 for 30mins

500 cals for 45mins

700 cals for an hour

there pretty good figures when i match it with my run of 50 mins and get about 1000 calories out of it

I wear a polar heart rate monitor when i lift to check on my intensity.

i average about

300-400 for 30mins

500 cals for 45mins

700 cals for an hour

there pretty good figures when i match it with my run of 50 mins and get about 1000 calories out of it

I know this is an Old thread, but it's new to me, and also the best one I could find under this topic.

I'm currently cutting and trying to figure how much more I should eat on the days when I do gym workouts, than on the days when I'm not training. I'm slowly leaning on using my heart rate monitor while I'm working out in the gym, to see how many calories I burn. But somehow I don't think the monitor's results would be accurate when measuring during wheight lifting.

What do you guys think, is it just as accurate as measuring cardio - despite how different the workout is?

I know this is an Old thread, but it's new to me, and also the best one I could find under this topic.

I'm currently cutting and trying to figure how much more I should eat on the days when I do gym workouts, than on the days when I'm not training. I'm slowly leaning on using my heart rate monitor while I'm working out in the gym, to see how many calories I burn. But somehow I don't think the monitor's results would be accurate when measuring during wheight lifting.

What do you guys think, is it just as accurate as measuring cardio - despite how different the workout is?

I don't think the heart rate monitor can distinguish whether you are eating, sleeping, running, lifting weights or having sex:D as long as it is a monitor which by one means or another knows you weight/height fitness level etc it is going to be fairly accurate whatever you are doing ;) check out Zen's logs, he uses his for a range of activities :)

I'm slowly leaning on using my heart rate monitor while I'm working out in the gym, to see how many calories I burn. But somehow I don't think the monitor's results would be accurate when measuring during weight lifting.

What do you guys think, is it just as accurate as measuring cardio - despite how different the workout is?

It's not as accurate, but it's still pretty accurate, and about the best you are going to do.

What happens when you track Calories with a heart rate monitor is that heavy lifting burns anerobic Calories which the heart rate monitor can't track directly, but your body uses aerobic Calories to replenish that energy, which the heart rate monitor can (and does) track. The body doesn't recover as fast as you burn anerobic Calories, so in order to get a good estimate of all the Calories you burn from lifting, you have to wear the heart monitor until all the recovery is finished.

In practice, you can stop recording Calories when the heart rate gets down to somewhere halfway between your LISS heart rate and your resting heart rate. Yeah, you are still burning recovery Calories there, but slowly, and the bulk of the Calories due to exercise have been recorded.

By the way there is no difference in this between lifting and HIIT, which has the same sort of effect.

you have to wear the heart monitor until all the recovery is finished.

In practice, you can stop recording Calories when the heart rate gets down to somewhere halfway between your LISS heart rate and your resting heart rate. Yeah, you are still burning recovery Calories there, but slowly, and the bulk of the Calories due to exercise have been recorded.

By the way there is no difference in this between lifting and HIIT, which has the same sort of effect.

Zen, I have a question though? I did some intense hill sprints this morning, had my HR up in the 180s during the intervals but after my 5 min cooldown, within 5 minutes my HR was back down in the 80s??? ie not much recovery burn?? my resting HR is around 53

Zen, I have a question though? I did some intense hill sprints this morning, had my HR up in the 180s during the intervals but after my 5 min cooldown, within 5 minutes my HR was back down in the 80s??? ie not much recovery burn?? my resting HR is around 53

Sounds like someone is in really good shape to me. :)

I don't think the heart rate monitor can distinguish whether you are eating, sleeping, running, lifting weights or having sex:D as long as it is a monitor which by one means or another knows you weight/height fitness level etc it is going to be fairly accurate whatever you are doing ;) check out Zen's logs, he uses his for a range of activities :)

Hey Jedi!
Hehe, maybe I should too widen the area where I use my heart rate monitor! :tu:

It's not as accurate, but it's still pretty accurate, and about the best you are going to do.

What happens when you track Calories with a heart rate monitor is that heavy lifting burns anerobic Calories which the heart rate monitor can't track directly, but your body uses aerobic Calories to replenish that energy, which the heart rate monitor can (and does) track. The body doesn't recover as fast as you burn anerobic Calories, so in order to get a good estimate of all the Calories you burn from lifting, you have to wear the heart monitor until all the recovery is finished.

In practice, you can stop recording Calories when the heart rate gets down to somewhere halfway between your LISS heart rate and your resting heart rate. Yeah, you are still burning recovery Calories there, but slowly, and the bulk of the Calories due to exercise have been recorded.

Thank you zenpharaohs!
I was all the time thinking the difference between doing cardio & weightlifting but couldn't quite put it in words. Anaerobic energy burning was the difference I had in mind! I think.

I'll the my monitor with me next time on the gym, or maybe a couple of times to create some sort of estimate for average calorie burn per workout.

Sounds like someone is in really good shape to me. :)

I second Big_D's notion!

It really depends on your specific workout, and the intensity with chich you approach it.

I track my calories burned while lifting every session. My current approach is to do a circuit of 8 exercises (pullup, lat pulldown, dip, shrug, flat BB bench, incline DB flyes, DB pullover, cable flyes) with a 5 rep higher weight approach (pullups and dips are at 10 reps at BW). This circuit take me ~6 minutes, as I do not pause long between sets. I do the circuit 5 times in quick succession, then add in 10 more sets of alternating BD rows and DB OH presses from the floor. I then finish up with 3 sets each of situps and oblique work.

Averaged over the last ten sessions -

Total sets = 56
Total time = 57.5 minutes
Average calories burned = 701

At the end of this, I am sweating like crazy, and physically exhausted. These are signs of a good lifting session (and the cardio benefit is unquestionable).

Zen, I have a question though? I did some intense hill sprints this morning, had my HR up in the 180s during the intervals but after my 5 min cooldown, within 5 minutes my HR was back down in the 80s??? ie not much recovery burn?? my resting HR is around 53

This means you recover quickly; usually this means you are in good shape.

It's a little complicated because training to consume energy usually ends up in intense bursts followed by less intense work or rest, which trains both consuming energy and also trains a sort of fast recovery.

But if you do long steady state work close to the lactate threshold, it trains consuming energy and steady state maintenance of the byproducts. This is not quite the same as training recovery, but there is a lot of overlap.

I think the difference is to do with the parasympathetic nervous system - the part of the autonomic nervous system that involves decelerating the metabolism. If you go steady, you don't use it very much. If you do HIIT or other work that transitions from intense to easy a lot, then the parasympathetic nervous system gets more of a workout.

So I think you can see people of similar endurance training who have different recovery rates relating to the way they train.



So dep