Like if one guy deadlifted 100 kg for 10 reps, then he got stronger and deadlifts 110 kg for 10 reps. Would he burn more calories then than before?
hmm, i was going to just say YES. But you qualified your question by stating the subject got stronger before deadlifting 110kg x10 - which suggests that calorific expenditure through effort was more or less equal to before
I was going to answer your question but you started your thread off sounding like a 16 year old girl so there is no way I can take you seriously.
Yeah thats my question, Equal effort but the subject got stronger. Still it's more weight being lifted so shouldn't it logically cost more calories to do? either it's from your body using a bigger total amount of muscle fibers, or it using stronger muscle fibers.
My answer is that it depends.
All other things being equal, a heavier weight implies more calories burned. However, there are a number of other considerations. It's possible to expend less energy with a heavier weight (e.g. if your technique improves significantly).
To maximize the number of calories you burn, you should be as inefficient as possible with the heaviest weight possible. This ends up applying more to cardio than weights.
Fg = G (m1*m2)/(d^2)
G= gravitational constant (6.67*10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2)
m1 and m2 = the masses object 1 and object 2 respectively
d=the distance (in meters) between the two objects
So to answer your question; maybe.
Generally, yes. Unless his form just got a lot better, or he specifically improved a lacking muscle, like hamstrings, which enabled him to actually perform much more efficiently, and exert LESS energy. However, a guy deadlifting 800 lbs will always burn more calories than a guy deadlifting 135, regardless of virtually all other factors. If you get my drift.
also, e=mc^2, where e is the energy exerted and m is the weight lifted. If c is a fraction of the speed of light squared, then we can calculate caloric expenditure
basically i dont know
This thread is dumb. If your trying to burn/conserve calories a 10kg difference in your deadlift is pointless given all the other things you do throughout your workout and day that burn calories. If you can deadlift 800 your burning a lot more calories sleeping than the guy who can only do 135lbs.
Insignificant detail is insignificant. If energy output in joules goes up (while ignoring any potential change in the conversion efficiency of chemical/contractile energy to mechanical energy) the caloric expenditure definitely goes up. Like others said if the lifter becomes more efficient in some way then perhaps not. But the difference is barely worth trying to count, the bulk of the effect that weight training has on individual caloric expenditure is through the preservation and promotion of lean body mass.
Maybe if you're doing EDT the difference might be significant to the point where it becomes interesting to note. I would not doubt that a deadlift of 850 versus 225 burns significantly more calories, but that knowledge is of no use to the guy whose stuck with 225, and the guy at 850 has no reason to do 225 for singles.
If he was lifting to failure on each time with the same relative intensity he would be expending ABOUT the same amount of energy because of the adaptation to a heavier weight.
BUT if we would be talking about a dumbbell bench press it would be more taxing to get into the position when weights become bigger. The bigger dumbbells would tax more than just your pushing muscles. You would experience a new stimulus to your body because you would have to incorporate new and now adequately stimulating ways (making micro damage to muscles and such) to get those suckers into the right position and out of it.
The increased utilization of stabilizer muscles might also become a calorie burning factor in the deadlift.
Most of the energy used by a powerlifter to lift a real heavy weight comes from lowering the weight. It is elastic. In other words, if you bounce a bowling ball on a trampolene, it will continue to bounce nearly as high for several reps.
Often, "strength" especially for several reps is the result of producing more elastic repetition.
However, weights often go up on big lifts because you are using more muscle to stabilize, stay tight, and move the weight. I mean I got sore glutes and quads from a HEAVY bench day when I was using 300 pounds, but when I was using 225 I had not learned to tighten all those muscles as much.
If you do reps and pause long enough between reps to eliminate the elastic component then heavier weight means more calories.
there is no NET energy burned in simply lifting+lowering the weight. There is no net work done. All of the calories burned are due to "inefficiency" and that can go up OR down as you ad weight.
If he got bigger as a result of the increase in strength then yes.
We're talking about 10 seconds of effort here. The amount of calories burned is going to be so negligible it makes no difference anyway.
If there was a difference, it would be like the 100kg lifter burned 1 calorie, and the 110kg lifter burned 1.00025 calories. Why in the world does this matter to you?
That would be only one set, the whole workout is obviusly going to burn calories.
Which is a completely different question from the one you asked.
What are you an idiot? i obviously asked if equal effort but more weight being lifted would result in more calories being burnt. The reason i choose deadlift has nothing to do with the question i could just as easily chosen a different exercise. If it does, getting stronger would obviously means that the whole workout burns more calories. Which is primarily what i am wondering.