Doing some research into different forms of exercise and energy systems and I realized something odd about the way we talk about energy.
When we eat, we take on macronutrients that are broken down into their smaller components, but on it's face the assertion is that:
Fat = 9 Calories/gram Carbs = 4 Calories/gram Protein = 4 Calories/gram
However, when you look at the Krebs cycle, one acetyl sugar molecule generates 32 ATP molecules. Contrast that against Anaerobic metabolism and the Cori cycle, 1 sugar molecule generates 2 molecules (at a cost of 6 ATP in the liver later).
There are all sorts of fitness calculators out there, most of the calculations are based on the Assessment of Physical Activity and Energy Expenditure: An Overview of Objective Measures book, most of which was put together through measuring oxygen in put versus carbon dioxide output (in conjunction with heat radiation. The clear problem with associating that with weight training and other anaerobic activities is that the other activities don't immediately create CO2 and don't immediately require O2. Some attempts have been made to make estimates based on lactate production in the blood stream, but I'm not confident in those results.
My question is, when there is anaerobic activity taking place, are we actually "burning" more base ingredients than we are exercising aerobically?
In other words, even if I'm only burning 100 Calories lifting weights, would I actually be burning the equivalent of 1,600 Calories based on the glucose I would have converted to ATP aerobially?