Calories burned with squats?

[ch2s]

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

[kr0nic]

You really cant workout **** like that bro. Everybody is going to be different.

[Sim882]

Get a HR monitor, and use it to make an estimate.

It will depend on how much u exert urself, rest breaks, rep ranges, whether u lock out or not etc

[buffgrk]

doe's it really matter?, you don't do squats for weight loss

[Appetite]

doe's it really matter?, you don't do squats for weight loss

Tabbata?

http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=490160

[buffgrk]

lol..

[Ironlife]

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.

[JOHN GARGANI]

although almost impossible to determine how many, you WILL burn MORE if you do high repetition squats.....

[crupiea]

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.

[SpinFan]

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 175-180. 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.

[Al Swearengen]

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.

depends like everything else the intensiveness you are working at.

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 175-180.

that's intensiveness right there. i would imagine if one could even do it you could burn upward of 1k cals an hour or more with squats highly intensive squats that is.

[chia1]

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

No matter how strong you are, how much muscle you got, what is your power output, you need the same amount of energy to lift the same amount of weight.
With that said, we can use the formula below

Weight (kg) X Distance ( Meter ) = Joules

1 cal = 4.18 joules

so you can just calculate that

[JOHN GARGANI]

No matter how strong you are, how much muscle you got, what is your power output, you need the same amount of energy to lift the same amount of weight.
With that said, we can use the formula below

Weight (kg) X Distance ( Meter ) = Joules

1 cal = 4.18 joules

so you can just calculate that

if that formula is correct, I did a rough calculation example and squats can burn a lot of calories.......

[mrjimmy2308]

No matter how strong you are, how much muscle you got, what is your power output, you need the same amount of energy to lift the same amount of weight.
With that said, we can use the formula below

Weight (kg) X Distance ( Meter ) = Joules

1 cal = 4.18 joules

so you can just calculate that

hmm.. interesting, that seems pretty clear cut... does anyone else have any views on this?

And whats that device called... "bug" something... not sure? you wear it and it counts the calories your burning throughout the day??

[ch2s]

And whats that device called... "bug" something... not sure? you wear it and it counts the calories your burning throughout the day??

I just did a search for "bug calories" and found this:
http://www.bodybugg.com/

[mrjimmy2308]

I just did a search for "bug calories" and found this:
http://www.bodybugg.com/

haha yea thats the thing i was thinking of. Im assuming you could maybe just reset it before you did a rep or set.. then see how many you've burned. Of course you'd have to buy one... so depends how bad you wanna know!

[ch2s]

At $250-350 I'll forget it. I was just curious. But that formula posted above seems to say each 225 lbs squat (rep) burns 10 calories.

[mrjimmy2308]

At $250-350 I'll forget it. I was just curious. But that formula posted above seems to say each 225 lbs squat (rep) burns 10 calories.

whats the ROM for a squat in meters for a just below parrell... obviously depends on persons height? too many variables for that forumla to be accurate i think TBH

[LS2Stew]

if that formula is correct, I did a rough calculation example and squats can burn a lot of calories.......

Tale care with that calculation as our common "calorie" is actually a kilocalorie so a thousandth of the kg weight*meters moved equation.

[tms.1978]

fcuking overanalysing going on here. i'm sure a lab could work it out if anyone is bothered.

[David.Remley]

too many variables for that forumla to be accurate i think TBH

It is accurate. It's simple physics.

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.

[redbird_is]

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.

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.

The total calories burned when squatting wont be that much but you have to take into account the total effect of them.

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.

[-Fletch-]

With or without EPOC?

[chia1]

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 )

[141455675]

who cares?

[wrlord]

doe's it really matter?, you don't do squats for weight loss

What he said.

[squatphysicist]

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

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.

[4g64fiero]

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.

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.

[DanielBStern]

No matter how strong you are, how much muscle you got, what is your power output, you need the same amount of energy to lift the same amount of weight.
With that said, we can use the formula below

Weight (kg) X Distance ( Meter ) = Joules

1 cal = 4.18 joules

so you can just calculate that

Finally, a good non-meathead answer.

[DanielBStern]

No matter how strong you are, how much muscle you got, what is your power output, you need the same amount of energy to lift the same amount of weight.
With that said, we can use the formula below

Weight (kg) X Distance ( Meter ) = Joules

1 cal = 4.18 joules

so you can just calculate that

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?