Does anyone know how many calories a burned with squats if you know the weight and ROM?

Thread: Calories burned with squats?

12152008, 12:09 AM #1

12152008, 12:32 AM #2

12152008, 02:27 AM #3

12152008, 02:35 AM #4

12152008, 02:39 AM #5
 Join Date: Jan 2007
 Location: Yorkshire UK
 Age: 30
 Posts: 1,081
 BodyPoints: 2933
 Rep Power: 381
My powerlifting and death/thrash metal log: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=141720221&p=843503391&posted=1#post843503391

12152008, 02:42 AM #6

12152008, 04:09 AM #7
 Join Date: Sep 2008
 Location: State / Province, Australia
 Stats: 5'10", 204 lbs
 Posts: 30,253
 Rep Power: 41120
Yes you do burn a lot of calories when doing heavy squats, i really dont know how much would be burnt as each person is different etc.
~~~~~~~~~~
''Bro, get yourself under control lol next thing we know Illy is gonna be 175 lbs, addicted to coke, involved in gang activity, and with a 365 max deadlift... ''Blizzard589
~~~~~~~~~~~~

12152008, 04:42 AM #8

12152008, 07:11 AM #9
 Join Date: Aug 2006
 Location: San Diego, California, United States
 Posts: 16,085
 BodyPoints: 1782
 Rep Power: 24677
I tried squatting while wearing my heart rate monitor and was suprised to see that my heart rate wasnt through the roof like it felt it was.
It got pumping much more on a 1 mile warm up run.
The total calories burned when aquatting wont be that much but you have to take into account the total effect of them.
The actual workload for starters plus all the warm ups. Then the muscle gained from doing them, then the after effect of the having more muscles.
Whether they burn alot of calories while doing them doesnt really matter because the benefit will really outweigh any other concern."To be a warrior is not a simple matter of wishing to be one. It is rather an endless struggle that will go on to the very last moment of our lives. Nobody is born a warrior, in exactly the same way that nobody is born an average man. We make ourselves into one or the other." Carlos Castaneda

12152008, 07:26 AM #10
 Join Date: Nov 2008
 Location: Massachusetts, United States
 Age: 33
 Stats: 5'7", 132 lbs
 Posts: 579
 Rep Power: 218
I agree that this is kind of a silly question. I wear a HR monitor and harder exercises like squats and deads get me up to 175180. On leg day I usually burn about 500 cals including a 10 min elliptical warm up and about 60 mins of lifting. But squats alone? The duration of a squat routine is going to be short, so squats on their own aren't going to burn that many cals.

12152008, 08:08 AM #11
 Join Date: Nov 2006
 Age: 50
 Stats: 10'0", 900 lbs
 Posts: 9,218
 BodyPoints: 34720
 Rep Power: 137482

12152008, 08:14 AM #12

12152008, 12:48 PM #13

12152008, 01:33 PM #14

12152008, 01:36 PM #15
I just did a search for "bug calories" and found this:
http://www.bodybugg.com/

12152008, 01:43 PM #16

12152008, 01:44 PM #17

12152008, 01:47 PM #18

12152008, 02:04 PM #19

12152008, 02:26 PM #20
 Join Date: Feb 2008
 Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
 Age: 37
 Stats: 5'11", 205 lbs
 Posts: 956
 Rep Power: 256
fcuking overanalysing going on here. i'm sure a lab could work it out if anyone is bothered.
Dream in lightyears,
Challenge miles,
Walk, step by step
"I did basic 3x5 workout and got good strength and size gains, so now I'm doing high volume"Anon
Beginners:http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=112574351
Bango's Arnold/Park thread:http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=112649251

12152008, 07:40 PM #21too many variables for that forumla to be accurate i think TBH
For everyone else, use google. It does great unit conversions.
Type in..
300 pounds * 4 feet in calories
..in the google search bar and it will do the unit conversion for you. Keep in mind what LS2Stewn said is accurate:
Whatever answer google returns, divide it by 1,000 to get how many kilocalories (what we typically call a calorie).
 Then multiply by how many reps.
Also, your body's metabolism will increase after squatting too, and burn more calories because of this increase, not just the energy used to move the weight.

12152008, 09:35 PM #22
That's because energy required for jogging is aerobic use of glucose / fatty acid oxidation. Squatting and heavy power work is anaerobic  plus it is performed at a completely different pace & duration than running.
Careful. When we're talking about calories, we're talking about energy expended. It requires significant energy to perform squats!
For comparsion, I found these values online:
Squats: 0.96 kcal/minute
Running (8 minute mile): 0.95 kcal/minute
Obviously, you can run for a longer time than you can squat (and thus more total calories can be burned)  but it would be a different story if you were running with 200 lbs on your back.

12152008, 09:38 PM #23

12152008, 10:14 PM #24
Oh and by the way guys, I forgot to add that you have to add the weight of your upper body ( above knees ) to be precise, and 1 Calorie = 1000 calorie, notice the capital letters .
And yes, it is a physics formula, can be applied universally as long as you have the 2 variables in SI units ( meter and kilograms )

12152008, 10:51 PM #25

12152008, 11:09 PM #26

10192011, 08:25 AM #27
RE: how many kcal do body squats burn
ok, the physics is as follows:
human muscle efficiency : 25%
Energy used: weight[kg] x 10 [g force] x height (~1 m)
Height is the difference in height you squat, you can measure that against the wall, for me it's about 1 meter
or 3.3 feet. you measure just few inches under naval point standing then roughly center of your body while in
the lowest position of your squat
For 155 lbs weight or 70.5 kg weight this makes:
70.5 x 10 x 1 = 705 Joules
Energy conversion efficiency of muscles is ~ 25%, thus
Kcal burned per situp: 705 x 4 joules = 2818 Joules or 0.68 kcal per squat
If you do situps faster, your energy efficiency will go down and you will burn even more calories as the body is less efficient at converting
energy. It's like pressing on the gas in the car, your mpg will go down.
If you do them slowly, your energy efficiency will go up and you might burn less. You can use dumbbells to increase body weight and distance moving up and down but start easy.
putting it as a formula where you can plug in your numbers this makes
kcal per squat = 0.0096 x weight [kg] x height [m]
in lbs and feet:
kcal per squat = 0.0013 x weight [lbs] x height [ft]
Remember, height is the height difference you squat, not your body height.
My weight is 155 lbs, and height distance is 3.2 ft. So if I do 50 squats every morning that makes ~ 31 kcal per day
or ~ 936 kcal per month. Keeping everything else same, I could loose 3 lbs per year from this routine alone, probably even
4 lbs if dividing the workout morning and evening and taking under consideration the increased metabolic rate after the workouts.
I use every other day 2 x 20 lbs dumbbells and push them overhead which increases the height distance to around 1.2 meters
and my weight obviously to 195 lbs and i burn ~ 1 kcal per squat or 50 kcal per 50 squats.
Anyways, when on the road, this is a viable option for doing some cardio that burns lots of calories.

01212013, 08:25 AM #28
FAWKING ROFLMAO strong everything brah I can confirm I am in physics II right now.
There is one thing missing from your physics, and that is duration. Holding a weight takes energy because you are countering the acceleration of gravity. Alas, we have already taken this too far. Remember, Kg is a unit of MASS. A more accurate representation would account for weight which is a composition of mass and acceleration. Measlies to who ever whips out a free body diagram of squats!
TL;DR
Weight=Mass*gravitational constant(9.8m/s^2)
The proper way to calculate this would be a summation of forces accounting for weight, not mass.
Haha goddamnit I just necrobumped the **** out of this thread looking up physics homework. Sorry about that.Last edited by 4g64fiero; 01212013 at 08:42 AM.
On r/c: Chasthetics

05222015, 06:26 PM #29

05222015, 09:41 PM #30
 Join Date: May 2015
 Location: United States
 Age: 33
 Stats: 6'1", 200 lbs
 Posts: 2
 Rep Power: 0
The thinking here is great, but the formula is wrong...
Joules = (kilograms x meters x meters)/(seconds x seconds)
Or, Joules is equal to kilograms times meters squared, divided by seconds squared.
So, for you builders out there who want to know how many calories you are burning, you have to first convert your pounds to kilograms, then multiple that by the distance converted in to meters and square it, then divide that product by the squared length of time you performed the movement in seconds.
I think a good approximation, however, is to assume that you move the bar 1 meter with each squat, and that each exertion lasts for one second. That way, calories equals kilograms divided by 4,180 (4.18 x 1,000 for kilocals, our standard measures of "calories").
So, if you squat 225 pounds once (assuming a 1 meter distance over 1 second):
225 lbs / 2.2 = 102 kgs.
(102kgs x 1m x 1m)/(1 second x 1 second) = 102 Joules
102 Joules / (4.18 x 1,000) = .02 Calories (or kilocalories, our common understanding of food calories)
Not as many as you would think.
Of course, this is not including your own bodyweight, which should be included... or at least a portion of it. Sooooo, if you are a 200lb person, lets assume 3/4 of your bodyweight should be included in your total effective squat weight.
Therefor:
102kgs (barbell weight) + 68 kgs (squatter's weight being squatted) = 170 kgs
(170kgs x 1m^2)/ 1s^2 = 170 Joules
170 Joules / 4180 (Joules per Kilocal) = .04 Calories.
Still not that much... intuitively too low. You have to squat 225lbs 25 times in order to burn one calories? Not possible. How can that be?
Well, I think this is why...
... it would take .04 calories of work applied directly to an object weighing 375 lbs (225 in barbell weight and 150 in person weight) in order to move it one meter in 1 second. However, the body doesnt work in force applied directly to an object. Work is done in muscles which attach to bones through ligaments, and therefor must contend with torque. Im guessing this unfavorable leverage increases the amount of actual work needed to move the same amount of weight. Its like trying to raise a fallen flagpole by pulling it up from close to its base as opposed to where the flag attaches. I think the biomechanics of leverage and torque are what screw you here, and are what make it difficult to estimate the number of Calories required to do a physical movement.
However, I am not an exercise physiologist, a biologist, or a physicist, so this is just a best guess.
Any thoughts?Last edited by DanielBStern; 05222015 at 09:52 PM.
Bookmarks