Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
THINKPINK06 Posts: 1,427
2/18/14 8:32 P

sometimes

LIFEINTHEZONE SparkPoints: (14,474)
Fitness Minutes: (8,539)
Posts: 333
2/18/14 7:46 P

No

FLYPIGGIEFLY SparkPoints: (3,493)
Fitness Minutes: (3,814)
Posts: 35
2/18/14 3:12 P

I use weight machines and many I had to manually add so I don't track for each one I use now but I time the whole strength workout to track it just for time. It usually is about 100 calories I think but I strive for so many cardio calories before I add them just to be sure and closer to my goals. It took me a bit to figure if I even wanted to count them but I do feel like I'm getting some workout from it so I do track now.

SHARBEAR100 Posts: 100
2/18/14 2:52 P

I just noticed that if you enter individual strength exercises in the tracker it is showing calories burned now. Not sure how long that has been there, and not sure how I feel about that. I usually just enter General Strength and the amount of time I spend, without entering any calories burned. I added individual exercises today because I'm following a program and thought it would be cool to see it listed out.

I feel like it will throw off my calorie range if I use them. I'm used to just using the strength training as "extra" calories burned, which gives me room to slip on my calories every now and then. I'll have to think about this.

MNCYCLIST Posts: 6,302
2/4/14 7:36 A

I track strength exercises and SP tracks the calories and fitness minutes for me.

MPLANE37 SparkPoints: (65,234)
Fitness Minutes: (35,097)
Posts: 2,167
2/4/14 2:41 A

I have to agree with MOTIVATED@LAST.

ST is arguably more effective than cardio for long term fat loss. The simple reason is that ST saves the muscle and bone tissue from being broken down to compensate for the caloric deficiency. So as you lose weight, the energy requirements of your body does not drop a whole a lot, which means, you can eat a sustainable caloric range and keep the fat off over the long term.

I don't mean that cardio is useless. It is necessary for conditioning the cardiovascular system, and also to control the caloric deficiency. However, there is a general tendency to do cardio at the expense of ST. For *long term* fat loss, this is a *huge* mistake. Cardio without ST will scale down the body, drastically reducing the maintenance caloric need to sustain the body, which makes it impossible to stay on a reasonable maintenance diet keeping the fat off. As a result, fat gain becomes inevitable over the long term.

The problem with ST calories is that they are hard to know precisely (or even within a reasonable margin of error). A better approach is tracking the body fat % and lean body mass, which are more involved but far more useful as indicators of long term fat loss. You would want a high lean body mass, and a low body fat %. The high lean body mass will easily burn away the calories of a sustainable long-term maintenance diet without storing any fat.

Edited by: MPLANE37 at: 2/4/2014 (02:58)
VWMOMMY SparkPoints: (9,586)
Fitness Minutes: (5,309)
Posts: 294
2/3/14 10:52 P

Yes, I track them but I try to keep my ST at a fairly high intensity with fairly short breaks. I have found that if I don't keep up an adequate caloric intake then my body slows everything down and holds onto everything. I also feel run down and tired at those times. Counting my ST into my calories burned gives me a more accurate representation of how many calories I need to keep my energy and my weight loss going.

FIELDWORKING SparkPoints: (29,072)
Fitness Minutes: (61,453)
Posts: 735
2/3/14 3:49 P

Have you tried entering each exercise you do into the search box (i.e., plank, pushup, squat, lunge, etc.)? Then, you can enter your sets/reps/weights and how long it took to do each exercise.

JENNILACEY SparkPoints: (80,045)
Fitness Minutes: (84,503)
Posts: 2,489
2/3/14 3:23 P

You may have to hit the Search button to get out of the drop box and you'll see the 3 options near the bottom. One is for moderate to vigorous, one for moderate with no rests between sets and one for moderate with rests between sets.

FLYPIGGIEFLY SparkPoints: (3,493)
Fitness Minutes: (3,814)
Posts: 35
2/3/14 2:34 P

When I search for strength training its giving me several results but nothing for just not low med high intensity. I'm finding things like with resistance bands ect.

FIELDWORKING SparkPoints: (29,072)
Fitness Minutes: (61,453)
Posts: 735
2/3/14 12:33 P

I track them too and burn anywhere from 126 to 148 calories (per strength training session). So, for me that's an average of 252 to 444 calories burned from strength training each week (do strength 2 to 3 times per week). My average time for one strength training session is about 40 minutes.

I don't pay any attention to the calories burned from the strength training. I also keep track of my cardio calories in excel spreadsheet, so it's not hard for me to make sure that I'm going too far over on the calories burned doing cardio.

EABHA70 SparkPoints: (57,472)
Fitness Minutes: (30,392)
Posts: 1,114
2/3/14 12:22 A

I track them. I burn about 150 calories per session. Not a big deal, but I want my numbers to be as accurate as possible as I am still trying to figure out how much to eat to lose weight but also avoid low blood sugar (I have type II diabetes). Once that gets sorted, it may not matter as much.

TACDGB Posts: 6,136
2/2/14 11:31 P

I lift weights 4 days a week and yes I track that. It helps tell me how much I can eat.

FLYPIGGIEFLY SparkPoints: (3,493)
Fitness Minutes: (3,814)
Posts: 35
2/2/14 9:30 P

I'm not doing a circuit training and kind of just flutter from machine to machine. While I am not doing it as seriously as some, I do push to build up in weight. I am doing it to raise my metabolism and help ensure my cardio takes from Fat not muscles. Plus I know the healthier and stronger my muscles are I can build up to more intense cardio. I enjoy the weight machines. I've gotten into a routine where I will go for about 30 minutes on the bike and then if I do leg weights I can work the treadmill longer.

I'm thinking I will not count the calories as its better to be over than under in my goals. I'm not lacking in eating so I won't be way off balance in what I need to consume with my fitness routine. I don't push really hard its a gentle climb for me. I don't think it would be a high burn and difficult to adequately track.

MOTIVATED@LAST Posts: 14,528
2/2/14 8:10 P

Strength training doesn't burn a whole lot of calories in the same way that cardio does.

Instead, over a period of 48-72 hours after a ST workout, the body consumes protein to go into repairing the muscles, which means that this protein is no longer available to be burned as energy. One well-known study puts the calorie equivalent of this at about 150 calories/day, even on ST rest days.

Another indirect effect is that without ST, up to 25% of your weight loss can come from lost muscle, rather than fat. Muscle burns calories even at rest, while fat is relatively metabolically inactive. Over time, this lost muscle can slow down your metabolism, making your ongoing weight loss harder. ST will help you maintain your existing muscle mass.

The calorie burn from ST is not really about how many sets and reps you do, but more about how challenging you can make your ST - the more challenging, the more protein you will consume afterwards repairing muscles, even if heavier weights means you do fewer reps.

Heart rate monitors are calibrated for cardio or aerobic activity. While your heart rate will increase with ST, an HRM will not produce an accurate result for the anaerobic activity of ST.

In terms of coming up with a reasonable estimate of your body's needs, and recommending a suitable intake, it probably is worthwhile including some estimate of ST calories.

M@L

JENNILACEY SparkPoints: (80,045)
Fitness Minutes: (84,503)
Posts: 2,489
2/2/14 6:49 P

I do but my workouts are pretty intense with heavy free weights (some bodyweight and resistance exercises as well) with very little to no rest between sets. Even still, I try to be conservative because we really don't know how much we're burning and I'd rather underestimate than overestimate.

If you type "strength training" into your fitness tracker it should give you 3 options. One for low, medium and high intensity strength/weight lifting. I choose the medium option. I know I'm not working out at low intensity but I don't want to wind up overestimating with high intensity so I choose the middle ground. That way I shouldn't be way under or way over. I'm sure some workouts I work harder than others while others I'm more tired and don't burn as much. I feel this way I'm getting an average. It does account for at least an extra 100 cals/day.

Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 2/2/2014 (18:52)
FLYPIGGIEFLY SparkPoints: (3,493)
Fitness Minutes: (3,814)
Posts: 35
2/2/14 1:23 P

I updated my Spark App, which is all I use for tracking, and found that now you can add minutes and calories burned to strength exercises.

I like being able to count the minutes as yes some weight machines do get my heart pumping a little harder. But I'm not really looking to be serious about weights. I'm more doing it to condition and tone and to help aide in weight loss. I use the machines at my gym as opposed to the free weights. IE: chest press, seated leg curl, hip adduction, ect.

I'm not sure if I want to count the calories because I might find myself tapping out on the cardio portion faster seeing I'm closer to my calorie goal. I always figured any of weight related calories were just extra since Spark wasn't tracking them.

Do any of you track them? Are they significant enough to make a difference?

Page: 1 of (1)  




Other Fitness and Exercise Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
Too sleepy to go to the gym this morning... 2/11/2014 10:41:13 AM
I need advice please 4/3/2014 9:11:39 AM
Do you have a calories-burned goal? 2/20/2014 4:53:50 PM
Strength Training Recording on Android Tablet 1/2/2014 11:39:30 AM
gym routine - four machines x 15 minutes? 12/30/2013 3:29:32 PM

Diet Resources: wheat germ for hair | wheat germ health | wheat germ bread