I am completely confused about some of the statements I have read on various forums, relating to weight / fat loss and exercise.
"Walking will do nothing for fat loss but will contribute to your over all caloric burn"
"In order to lose fat you HAVE to lift weights"
"You can't reduce and gain muscle at the same time"
"Muscle burns more calories so you need to lift weights" (while dieting)
"If you really want to lose weight, skip the cardio"
And more recently advice on this board to another member to do more cardio to shed the rest of her fat.
OK - I get that more muscle burns more calories. It makes sense to me that you can't build and reduce at the same time. But the carido bit has me confused because it seems that there conflicting opions about the usefulness of cardio for fat/weight loss.
My goal is not to become a fitness model. I want to be slim, healthy and fit enough I can tackle what ever I choose to do. Some of what I choose to do involves needed stregth (back packing for example). But I am not looking to compete for prize body of the year.
I have been walking as my staple exercise and have recently added biking and a little jogging. I simply like cardio and have lost 20 lbs so far. BUT - one poster on another board commented that my walking was doing "nothing" for me and that my weight loss was mostly due to dieting.
I have been doing some strength training. Body weight resistance, squats, lunges, pushups, plank, monkey bars , various crunches, and 5-20 lbs dumbells depending on the exercise. My idea here is just to be more fit.
Some of the comments I read however leave me feeling as though I am short changing myself by not lifting more seriously. And that my cardio is just wasted time.
These comments are based on my experience only. I'm not speaking from a position of authority on the subject and in fact probably go against the prevailing wisdom in some cases. It's just what worked for me....other bodies are likely much different
Re. walking.....I walk a lot. Always have. But I can say pretty confidently that no matter how much I walked, I never got below my normal weight or more importantly, changed my appearance. Having said that, I would never eliminate walking from my exercise program because it seems to me like the body's internal calibration mechanism if there are injury/balance issues (particularly with the back). It also exercises most of the base muscles needed for other activities.
> In order to lose fat you HAVE to lift weights
Not in my case. I lift a fair bit but notice little difference in ease of weight loss/gain whether I am lifting or not. Diet is much more important
> "You can't reduce and gain muscle at the same time"
There is truth in this in my case. Putting on muscle first without worrying about the waistline was the most effective method for me. Extra food gives extra nutrients which give extra energy. Burn off the fat later.
> "Muscle burns more calories so you need to lift weights" (while dieting)
You know they say this and I don't doubt it's true....but I notice little difference in holding weight whether I am muscled or not.
> "If you really want to lose weight, skip the cardio"
I definitely disagree here. Some say forget distance running for HIIT. I've heard the science behind it, but weight loss = effort expended.. For me, jogging at a good pace for 10 K is probably the most difficult thing I do regularly so it is the best body shaper. I could see why you wouldn't want to do it if you had joint problems or were not cardiovascularly trained. So it is probably easier to get payback quicker with something like running intervals.
> "do more cardio to shed the rest of her fat."
agreed....if you want to shed fat, do cardio (and don't eat after dinner or drink sodas/fruit juices)
> Some of the comments I read however leave me feeling as though I am short changing myself by not lifting more seriously. And that my cardio is just wasted time.
cardio is never wasted time, for your health if for no other reason. It will give you more endurance in other activities....yes...even weightlifting. The more difficult it is, the more you will get out of it.
I have absolutely burned fat from walking, albeit I did a lot of walking (like 5 miles/day).
If you're trying to burn fat, in my experience, diet is 90% of the battle. I heard on a podcast recently that you "can't outtrain a bad diet". How true. How true.
__________________
"I have accepted the fact that there will never be a kairos moment for me, just an uneventful Miltonian plow-the-fields discipline." - Rick Rescorla
I am completely confused about some of the statements I have read on various forums, relating to weight / fat loss and exercise.
"Walking will do nothing for fat loss but will contribute to your over all caloric burn"
"In order to lose fat you HAVE to lift weights"
"You can't reduce and gain muscle at the same time"
"Muscle burns more calories so you need to lift weights" (while dieting)
"If you really want to lose weight, skip the cardio"
And more recently advice on this board to another member to do more cardio to shed the rest of her fat.
OK - I get that more muscle burns more calories. It makes sense to me that you can't build and reduce at the same time. But the carido bit has me confused because it seems that there conflicting opions about the usefulness of cardio for fat/weight loss.
My goal is not to become a fitness model. I want to be slim, healthy and fit enough I can tackle what ever I choose to do. Some of what I choose to do involves needed stregth (back packing for example). But I am not looking to compete for prize body of the year.
I have been walking as my staple exercise and have recently added biking and a little jogging. I simply like cardio and have lost 20 lbs so far. BUT - one poster on another board commented that my walking was doing "nothing" for me and that my weight loss was mostly due to dieting.
I have been doing some strength training. Body weight resistance, squats, lunges, pushups, plank, monkey bars , various crunches, and 5-20 lbs dumbells depending on the exercise. My idea here is just to be more fit.
Some of the comments I read however leave me feeling as though I am short changing myself by not lifting more seriously. And that my cardio is just wasted time.
Please set me straight!
LOL
losing weight is not as hard as many make out,
theres 3 things you need to do in my eyes, followed by the biggy...
1. cardio - personally, i would be looking at 5-6 sessions a week if you are serious about results
2. Eat well - I dont use the word diet, just eat healthily and regularly and you will be fine
3. Basic compound resistance - nothing major, could get away with 3 simple exercises minimum to add this in, 3 x a week.
Now the biggy....
Train HARD
ask yourself after each session, "Could I have done that faster/harder/more weight?" etc etc and remember that for the next session
I wanted to say this, but I feel like I say nothing else but this stupid law of thermodynamics thing these days.
Food = energy
living expends energy
If we take more energy than we expend it has to go somewhere. Our bodies store it.
If we take less energy thane we expend our bodies have to get the energy.
It really is THAT simple for the regular joe. I accept that you can make it more complicated to get things down to like 5% BF for competition.
But at the end of the day if I normally expend 2000 calories living and I am eatind 2100 calories a day, I am going to slowly put on weight. If I then continue to eat this 2100 calories and then start walking and my burn goes to 2200 calories, well hell I am going to start losing weight.
If we weight train as well, then our bodies attempt to adapt to the new work and are more likely to maintain lean tissue in favor of fat.
__________________ 2009: No races, No times. Slow year. So, now you're 96 cals short. You're now in starvation mode. Doomed. - LostDog
Blog entry: November 1, 2009, Pancakes LiveSTRONG daily plate log
Ok - I have read MissJanes articles (thank you!), and the other opinons and have made the following conclusion.
To lose weight quckly there is more that can be done besides steady state cardio as it is not the utmost in effective weight loss. However, depending on ones goals, steady state is just fine but it will take the body longer to produce results.
Does that sound about right?
And yes I do get that diet is a huge factor and the most important part of simple weight loss.
Since I am down 20 and not disatisfied with progress I think I will just keep doing what I am doing. It's working so far anyway!
Thanks MQ5 for asking - I too have been really confused. Personally for me, steady state is about all I CAN do in a deficit. I read about all these transformation contest winners (turbulence training) who do those workouts and in a big deficit and I just know I would zonk right away.It blows my mind the ones who can do HIIT in a deficit. Plus with my Gowear, if it is anywhere near accurate, I can do just fine by walking. I plan to add resistance training, but have not yet.
I am with you - if what you are doing works, keep doing it!!
I'd like to add that sometimes the workout you like the most is the most effective one even when it's not the most effective one. In other words you're more likely to stick with something you like.
__________________
"Time and patience are the 2 elements that most people don't include in their plans."
-Alan Aragon
"The scale simply tells you how much the earth loves you on a particular day."
-Ogedei (Keith)
I think you also have to look at how much weight you have to lose. If you have 10-20 lbs to lose and are a guy you might be able to do a very intense workout and big deficit for a month and get the weight off and not crash.
If you are female with 100 pounds to lose, in the big scheme of things, going all out for 30 days might not be the best plan if you are wiped at the end and unable to get back to any deficit for the next 30 days. Or if you go with a big deficit and hard workout, you can be a slug the other 23 hours of the day and not lose as much as if you didn't do the hard workout but instead had a walk and a moderate workout and remained active the rest of the 22 hours.
It is very much a YMMV and situational issue but the core science is the same - you have to be at deficit and most of your deficit is going to come from food as compared to a one hour workout.
With respect to intervals vs. steady state, for me, it comes down to time and recovery. If I have 30 minutes, 30 minutes of intervals will burn more than 30 minutes of steady state - but again, if on my deficit it makes me a slug for the rest of my waking hours, the net burn for the day might actually be less and I'd do better to walk fast for 30 minutes AND do laundry AND clean the kitchen AND vacuum rather than do intervals and veg out in front of the TV. Who knows, 40 pounds lighter and intervals might not have the same wipe-out effect and then they might be appropriate to add in.
I think these quotes are more meaningful when you look at the context of the original discussion. Listing them here as single sentences really distorts the original intent. I have read many of these pieces of advice and I'll try to put them into the right context....
Walking will do nothing for fat loss but will contribute to your over all caloric burn" : Walking burns a small number of calories as you do it. So does pulling dandelions. Walking does not raise your metabolism. When you are done walking, you are done burning the calories. Some people overestimate the calories burned and give in to their appetites thinking they have "earned it" and end up gaining weight. Sure, it is great for the individual who is just starting out on their weight loss and fitness journey and can't handle the more effective and intense methods. Walking burns about 200 calories and hour? That is less than 3 Oreos. The next step up would be steady-state cardio (SS), but again, SS does not produce the afterburn of increased metabolism. When you are done with the SS exercise, the calorie burning stops. HIT/Interval is the next step up and that is where the real fat-burning and longer lasting effects take place.
"In order to lose fat you HAVE to lift weights": I think the context of this is for those individuals who are looking for a serious sustainable fitness program. I don't think the context of the original statement meant that there is absolutely no other way to lose fat. I believe it was meant for those looking for more than just a beginners "get up and move", it is for those who have hit the plateau that eventually comes to walkers and runners.
"You can't reduce and gain muscle at the same time". The context here is probably around those looking for a crash course in either getting big or getting lean. To gain substantial muscular weight you need to feed it. To lose fat you need to have a calorie deficit. This statement does not apply to those on a continued balanced diet/cardio/resistance training program. The increase in muscle mass is what raises metbolism, so obviously one can burn fat while gaining muscle. I have experienced weight loss while my bodyfat percentage has gone down at a faster rate, meaning I have gained muscle and lost fat. It is not a crash overnight program, it is an ongoing deliberate process.
"Muscle burns more calories so you need to lift weights" (while dieting). Muscle mass is what raises metabolism. To get an overall increase in muscle mass you need to do resistance training (weights). The intent of the statement is that hour for hour, bang for the buck, rsistance training and the HIT/Interval cardio work gives the greatest results that also have afterburn effects that lead to more of a sustainable solution. Keep in mind that basis Steady-state cardio does nothing to build or even maintain much muscle. Long-distance runners don't have beach-body physiques, I know plenty that look like skeletons with a paunchy belly. However I personally know some that also use resistance training and overall body workouts that look fit and trim. If you don't use it, you lose it. If you lose muscle mass, your metabolism goes down too.
"If you really want to lose weight, skip the cardio". The context here can be taken wrong if you don't understand the original conversation it was used in. Sure, sitting on the couch lifting a remote 2,000 times will burn calories. Doing SS cardio will burn calories. But the intent of this statement was "if you really want to do the optimal type of training where you get the most effectiveness", then steady-state cardio is not the best optimal solution. You know why many people do it? It is easy and some are intimidated or afraid to lift weights and do something that is actually physically strenuous. That is why so many of these devices like the "tummer burner" and the "fat terminator" and the "grapefruit juice wonder-drink" are sold. People want a shortcut that works "in just 5 minutes a day". There is a magic silver bullet. It consists of a balanced routine of resistance training, HIT-Interval cardio, and proper diet.
And more recently advice on this board to another member to do more cardio to shed the rest of her fat. If you are doing the diet properly, and the HIT-interval cardio work, and the full body workouts of resistance training, then sure, adding cardio on top of that will burn off those additional calories. Taking the stairs instead of the elevator will too. But I question why you need to do additional cardio (I mean at a gym or a real cardio session) if you are doing the other 3 correctly with commitment and intensity. If someone says that isn't enough, I question how they are doing it. If you do resistance training 3 days, and HIT/Interval 3 days, you should probably rest the 7th day for rebuilding and recuperation. Then you come back strong again.
The pendulum keeps swinging! For so long people thought that cardio was the only way to lose weight. Now there are those who think cardio has nothing to do with it. It's funny how the information goes from one extreme to the other.
Like others have said its all about calories in v.s. calories out. Obviously cardio burns calories.
Statements like, "You'll never lose fat from cardio," and, "you can't lose fat without lifting weight," in the abscense of some further qualification are ludicrous. But, I'm glad that we are seeing the pendulum swing towards resistance training. It's really not ideal for someone who is carrying around 100 extra pounds to go hit the road for an hour a day. And resistance training offers something that this person can do.
I lost a lot of weight with hardly any cardio. But, thats because I had already injured myself years prior from overdoing the cardio with no supplemental resistance training. If it wasn't for this fact I'd have likely done nothing but cardio and never lifted a weight. It's what I liked, and what I was used to.
Please don't get the idea from my post that I think "cardio has nothing to do with it". Sure Steady-State cardio burns calories. I simply believe and have witnessed that it is not the optimum use of time if the goal is to lose weight and get fit. Since I don't have unlimited time to workout, I prefer to get er done and call it a day. And if my working out raises my metabolism so I keep burning, then I will take it. I don't think the pendulum is swinging away from cardio, but I do think the HIT/Interval methods of cardio are being recongized as being more effective.
1. don't overthink it 2. eat less 3. do more activity
Agreed, this is great advice for the majority of pudgy lumps of flesh that are sitting around scheduling their days based on the weekly TV schedules and the expiration dates of their fast food restaurant coupons. "Just do it" is about as brilliant a slogan as I've ever heard.
Walking/ jogging and other cardio for weight loss
, various crunches, and 5-20 lbs dumbells depending on the exercise. My idea here is just to be more fit. 
In other words you're more likely to stick with something you like.
Linear Mode
