Calories per lift

davyjose

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/65724.html I saw this while searching through google. Looks interesting, and worth knowing. Feel free to pick holes in it - the second guy clearly knows nothing about lifting, but have a look anyway.

Dragan

So you can burn a 1000 calories by doing 3 sets of bench eh?

Explains all the fat maths teachers anyway!!!

davyjose

Dragan wrote:

So you can burn a 1000 calories by doing 3 sets of bench eh?

Explains all the fat maths teachers anyway!!!

Ha ha, No if you read down, the second guy works out that theoretically you burn 23 kcals per 15 rep lift.
Does anyone know if this is accurate? I've never known the real figure.

Dragan

For me there are two many variables based on the individual who is actually doing the work to worry about it. Lift heavy, eat good food often, enjoy life.

Don't get lost in the numbers.

Degsy

Dragan wrote:

For me there are two many variables based on the individual who is actually doing the work to worry about it. Lift heavy, eat good food often, enjoy life.

Don't get lost in the numbers.

Good advice.I'd add to that,If it gives you results,stick with it!

davyjose

A lot of people find that very difficult today, and many people are heartened when they can see their hard work down on paper. It takes a long time to know if your going in the right direction.

Dragan

davyjose wrote:

A lot of people find that very difficult today, and many people are heartened when they can see their hard work down on paper. It takes a long time to know if your going in the right direction.

I would think that over complicating there lives with a maths formula that is completely off the mark makes less sense?

davyjose

Well if it was completely on the mark, would it make a difference? There has to be a mathematical formula to figure it out, and personally I wouldn't mind knowing it. I don't need to know it, but out of interest sake.
I agree enirely with you that there isn't a need to be over-obsessive about calorie counting, etc., and I'm not trying to say that people should spend 24/7 thinking about their diet exercise regime - 'enjoy life' is spot on. But it's funny, people do get motivation from the smallest things.

Dragan

davyjose wrote:

Well if it was completely on the mark, would it make a difference?

It will never be on the mark because off the top of my head, the following variables will all make a difference

1) Years training that particular movement - does CNS efficency mean that a better contraction in the target muscle burns requires less energy that a less effective contraction?
2) Muscle fibre density - a dense muscle is a deceptive muscle , more muscle fibres to contract should require more calories, yes?
3) Muscle size - the larger the muscle, the more calories it burns but this will be effected by point 1 and 2 ?
4) BMR at starting point - where does this exercise fall in the workout, what is the subjects resting BMR and have they done anything to bring it up before hand?
5) Diet that day - what sort of foods were they eating, anything that might have increased BMR and if so, by how much.
6) Temperature in the workout environment - will affect BMR
7) Hydration - will effect BMR

And that’s just 7 things because I only had 60 seconds or so to write this post.

davyjose

Dragan wrote:

It will never be on the mark because off the top of my head, the following variables will all make a difference

1) Years training that particular movement - does CNS efficency mean that a better contraction in the target muscle burns requires less energy that a less effective contraction?
2) Muscle fibre density - a dense muscle is a deceptive muscle , more muscle fibres to contract should require more calories, yes?
3) Muscle size - the larger the muscle, the more calories it burns but this will be effected by point 1 and 2 ?
4) BMR at starting point - where does this exercise fall in the workout, what is the subjects resting BMR and have they done anything to bring it up before hand?
5) Diet that day - what sort of foods were they eating, anything that might have increased BMR and if so, by how much.
6) Temperature in the workout environment - will affect BMR
7) Hydration - will effect BMR

And that’s just 7 things because I only had 60 seconds or so to write this post.

I'm no expert, but presumably many of these factors would be relevant to cardio-vascular exercises as well, and yet on every piece of cardio equipment I've ever been on, there are calorie counters.
If there's nothing wrong with asking how many calories have been burned after an hour on the treadmill (and personally I don't think there is anything wrong with asking that), what is wrong with asking how many calories have been burned after an hour of chest/leg/back exercises.

Dragan

davyjose wrote:

I'm no expert, but presumably many of these factors would be relevant to cardio-vascular exercises as well, and yet on every piece of cardio equipment I've ever been on, there are calorie counters.
If there's nothing wrong with asking how many calories have been burned after an hour on the treadmill (and personally I don't think there is anything wrong with asking that), what is wrong with asking how many calories have been burned after an hour of chest/leg/back exercises.

Actually i consistently tell people to ignore there meters on machines, as they don't mean a thing.

davyjose

Dragan wrote:

Actually i consistently tell people to ignore there meters on machines, as they don't mean a thing.

That's fair enough. Myself, I use it as a guideline.

t-ha

I know John Berardi used Metabolic Equivalent (MET) values in his calculations for his 'Massive Eating' articles. He used a MET value of 6 for high intensity weight training.

MET x weight(kg) x time(hrs) = calories.

So for someone weighing 100kg, working out for an hour;
6 x 100 x 1 = 600 calories.


Personally, like Dragan, I don't pay too much attention to these calculations or cardio machine calculations anymore. I've worked them out precisely before only to find they leave me short. I think the calorie cost of weight training is constantly under-estimated because in practice it's effects can be felt long after the session itself is over.

Better to use them simply as a starting point & then straight away start listening to your own body and making adjustments based on the results you are getting.

hardtrainer

If we assume doing nothing requires minimal calories,
then we can assert that doing something requires more calories.
Weight training = something = more calories used than doing nothing.


We should be more precise though.
I think it's reasonable to assume that in 1 hour os intense weight training, the average person will use up 450 calories (just in that hour. Also assuming that intensity x < intensity y, where x = average person and y = experienced lifter).

Since x can have a range of values, and so can y, lets just assume that doesn't matter. In fact, lets just rule out all of the other factors that come into play here and just pretend that we have an equation that covers everything.

so : (i) X (t) X (bw) X (e) X (mc) = calories used

where i = intensity, t = time, bw = body weight, e = experience (i.e. x or y value), mc = magic constant.

The problem I have with mathematical formulas (and as a scientist I have to deal with lots of them) is that they really don't tell you much more than you already know, since you have to input so much information in the first place. What they are good at doing is simplifying the output from a very large amount of data, but they still require a lot of input and calculation and all the time what you are losing is any true sense of what is going on. By their nature, they are an abstract way of dealing with real information.

As Dragan put it already, over complicating things does not serve any good in this sense. Eat right, lift heavy and learn to read your own body. If you do that, you will see results. Knowing what is happening, calorifically, using an abstract equation, is not going to help you see results any faster. The only time that I can think of, where a formula is necessary, is in working out your approximate calorific needs per day. But they are all very approximate, in which case just go with the estimates of calories used for various activities that you can find in most nutrition books etc.

g'em

hardtrainer wrote:

complicated stuff and something about a magic formula...

so if I lift 100kg for 11 minutes at a 5-0-1 tempo, then I switch over to 15 minutes of HIIT at 70% Max HR and consume 212g of isolated whey protein, and repeat this for 8 cycles over 72 hours, following it up with 55 mintues of LIT and 60 mintues of 5x5 80% RM one-arm DB switch grip wide stance snatches... when will I look like Ronnie Coleman (genetics and lack of male gonads notwithstanding)?

This thread is hilarious...

davyjose

g'em wrote:

This thread is hilarious...

Well everyone will say (and most have said) you need a calorific deficit to lose weight, or a calorific surplus to gain. It's all well and good to suggest trial and error, but if you don't know exactly what your doing, this can be a very time costly way of figuring it out. there are numerous posts on here from people asking where they are going wrong, because basically they don't know enough about what they're doing, so it stands to reason if you can figure out exactly what you've consumed, and exactly what you've spent (calorie-wise) you are better off.

g'em

davyjose wrote:

Well everyone will say (and most have said) you need a calorific deficit to lose weight, or a calorific surplus to gain. It's all well and good to suggest trial and error, but if you don't know exactly what your doing, this can be a very time costly way of figuring it out. there are numerous posts on here from people asking where they are going wrong, because basically they don't know enough about what they're doing, so it stands to reason if you can figure out exactly what you've consumed, and exactly what you've spent (calorie-wise) you are better off.

davy I appreciate what you're saying but the simple fact is this: if someone isn't making progress, I guarantee it's not down to these minutiae and tiny details.

It's down to the pints they have at the weekend, or not working out consistently enough, or eating too little/ too much, or just not giving 100% as far as diet, training and rest are concerned. It's not down to whether you're burning 200 vs 300 calories in one session in the gym.

There's too much worrying going on about the little things leaving the bigger picture all but forgotten. Train hard, eat clean, sleep lots. Do this for 6 months and then if you don't see progress we can worry about plateaus and the like.

davyjose

fair enough:D , although it was just out of interest.