does the calories i burn from lifting matter enough for me to account for it when counting calories?
does the calories i burn from lifting matter enough for me to account for it when counting calories?
does the calories i burn from lifting matter enough for me to account for it when counting calories?
Not really, weight lifting burns very little calories, like 50-100.
Are you fricking moronic? With 1min rests and lifting for an hour or so, you should burn 300 calories minimum if you actually push yourself. 50 calories burned when lifting is the most DYEL shit I've ever heard
Yeah one minute rests = 20-30 minutes of actual lifting and lifting is not burning anywhere close to 300 calories for thar short amount of time lmfao, you have to run at a decent pace to burn 300 calories in 20 minutes and you'll be breathing heavy and sweating all over unlike some fat shart like you kind of breathing a bit more than your usually walking up the stairs mode.
Maybe you guys never took physics but moving more weight requires more energy... meaning lifting heavy and with good reps burns a good amount.
Doing 500lb leg presses for 4x10 might make you not be out of breath as much as a quick sprint, but people who actually work out hard can easily do 300+ calories when lifting for an hour or so.
>Running at decent pace
doesn't even make sense considering someone who is 6'4 and 250lbs probably burns close to double what a 5'5 125lb in 20 mins. The calories shown on a treadmill for example are highly inaccurate just based on the fact that it doesn't know your height and weight.
You literally enter your height / weight into them you fat moron. Maybe your fatass is burning 300 calories in an hour of lifting, but it sure as shit isn't because the weight your pushing is "heavy" its your lardass.
Also i seriously hope you didn't make yourself obese just to do 500lbs 4×10 leg press lmfao.
I'm 10%-11% bodyfat moron and I got to be lean without cardio since I generally burn a good amount just by lifting weights
post body so i can laugh because now it's getting ridiculous
>Implying running isn't moving your bodyweight
Shut up nerd. All of that text just to say manlets are superior.
no way jose
No
>counting calories
stopped reading there
>stopped reading at the end of the post
Top fricking LMAO
It is extremely hard to tell just how many calories lifting alone burns for the amount of effort used, so just assume it's a hundred or so.
As for the actual metabolic process in regards to weightlifting, it's pretty simple.
>Muscle initially burns through creatine-phosphate
>Takes its own glycogen stores and burns through that next
>Converts the glycogen to glucose and then pyruvate
>Toss-up between lactic acid fermentation or citric acid cycle, depending on the location of the muscle, aerobic activity and muscle type.
>Once it runs out of its own glucose stores it soaks up glucose from the bloodstream.
>Typically weight-lifting invokes lactic acid fermentation due to the lack of heavy oxygenation. It's quick, but not efficient for energy. Lactic acid is dumped into the bloodstream for the liver to convert back to pyruvate and then make more glucose, which takes energy.
>Aerobic exercise will be mostly citric acid cycle. It's slow, but extremely efficient and can recruit fat metabolites for energy. Glycogen stores are burned through slower, and less blood-sugar is required to maintain the process. So long as the muscle is oxygenated and able to shuttle off the carbon-dioxide, it's able to keep going for a very long time.
Now the question is:
>Is the chemical energy required to refuel heavy-lifting muscles comparable to the amount of constant energy burn aerobic exercise gives?
I'd say they are, depending on the muscles at least.
Also there may be an issue with calorie-counting when it comes to weightlifting due to the process of measuring metabolism measuring either
>Oxygen intake
>Bodyheat
Oxygen intake is a problem in this case since weightlifting isn't typically an aerobic activity. Bodyheat not so much, but it doesn't usually account for liver gluconeogenesis.
No. You don't burn that many calories when lifting and it would just make things messier to track by introducing another variable which can have noticeably different values on any given day. In general, don't introduce burned calories into the equation, it won't help you a lot and it's easy to over-estimate
Average guy will burn 370 calories in 1hr 30 mins training.
So it's definitely significant. If you're cutting though you might want to leave it out because it's always better to underestimate how many calories you're burning than to overestimate it.