Is running really the best way to lose weight?
Replies
-
-
I run 2-3 miles a day, 4 times a week. Burn about 300-350 calories per run. I eat about 1300 a day (I dont really count my calories)and i am losing weight. So far i've lost 15 pounds in 2 months and it is all thanks to running and portion control.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
Given the religious fanaticism about it on this site, I'd be very surprised...
That said, most of the people who band on about it on this board, really don't seem to be doing HIIT.
[/quote]
QFT. Most of the people I see talking about doing HIIT aren't actually doing HIIT.0 -
I am a regular bike and gym guy, but I also sit on my rear end all day in front of a computer, sometimes 12 to 14 hours a day. My weight is never the same for too long. When I work out regularly my weight goes down. When I don't, it goes up. I can go up or down 5 to 10 lbs in a couple of months.
I lost the most weight by playing intense racquetball 3 times a week (9 lbs in 4 weeks) in the middle of the holidays last December.0 -
digginDeep wrote: »digginDeep wrote: »digginDeep wrote: »Your analogy is completely flawed. You put on weight because you ate too much. This is not the fault of running. If you ate similar levels on any other activity, then the same rule would apply.
So your HIIT would be completely useless for weight loss, if it came with a 20" cheese pizza side order.....
Name me 5 other exercises that you could realistically do and burn between 800-100 calories in an hour.....
Like I said in the post, I was tracking my calories. I was eating 1500 calories a day (I'm 5'1'' and 27 years old) I was measuring mostly but weighing some of my food. I log EVERYTHING. So I'm confident to say my diary is acurate. And I've never had a 20'' cheese pizza in my life... side or main dish!
Women in general have more enduranceChief_Rocka wrote: »No, a calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight. You can run, or do any other type of exercise, and remain fat.
I am curious what the thinking is behind this... I can honestly say I have never heard this particularly premise suggested before.
As for endurance, that is mostly from experience. Out-of-shape-me and some friends went roller blading a few years ago. The girls didn't go as fast but we lasted longer then the boys! And I saw the same thing on other occasions like hiking.
Interesting. I guess you never know. But I watch a lot of marathons, and a woman has never won one of the elite ones- NYC, London, Chicago, Olympics, etc.
I didn't say women were better than men!! Training has a lot to do with the results! [/b]But naturally, women are bound to have endurance (and that does not mean going faster, only longer) otherwise, we wouldn't survice 12 hours of labor to give birth. But let's not start a debate about that. I have nothing to support my point, only what I've witnessed with normal (non-athlete) people.
This is just amazing forum gold. You win the internets.
Do you lurk around the forum to make people miserable on purpose or are you just that unpleasant?-5 -
digginDeep wrote: »digginDeep wrote: »Your analogy is completely flawed. You put on weight because you ate too much. This is not the fault of running. If you ate similar levels on any other activity, then the same rule would apply.
So your HIIT would be completely useless for weight loss, if it came with a 20" cheese pizza side order.....
Name me 5 other exercises that you could realistically do and burn between 800-100 calories in an hour.....
Like I said in the post, I was tracking my calories. I was eating 1500 calories a day (I'm 5'1'' and 27 years old) I was measuring mostly but weighing some of my food. I log EVERYTHING. So I'm confident to say my diary is acurate. And I've never had a 20'' cheese pizza in my life... side or main dish!
Women in general have more enduranceChief_Rocka wrote: »No, a calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight. You can run, or do any other type of exercise, and remain fat.
I am curious what the thinking is behind this... I can honestly say I have never heard this particularly premise suggested before.
As for endurance, that is mostly from experience. Out-of-shape-me and some friends went roller blading a few years ago. The girls didn't go as fast but we lasted longer then the boys! And I saw the same thing on other occasions like hiking.
Interesting. I guess you never know. But I watch a lot of marathons, and a woman has never won one of the elite ones- NYC, London, Chicago, Olympics, etc.
I didn't say women were better than men!! Training has a lot to do with the results! But naturally, women are bound to have endurance (and that does not mean going faster, only longer) otherwise, we wouldn't survice 12 hours of labor to give birth. But let's not start a debate about that. I have nothing to support my point, only what I've witnessed with normal (non-athlete) people.
Then perhaps you should avoid generalized statements as if they were proven. Just saying...-2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
I've done a HIIT including Tabata protocols (yes throwing up is not always optional!), but I've never actually done HIIT for weight loss but rather other benefits for training my body.
I don't think they are better for fat loss than running, but they do have a lot of benefits. Caveat, I haven't done Tabata protocols in a few years but I still do some HIIT protocols as part of a running program since they help train aerobic and lactate thresholds.0 -
I run because I'm addicted to the runner's high.0
-
Running a calorie deficit will help you lose weight.0
-
Running may not be the "best" way to lose weight, but it is the best way for ME to lose weight. Because I love running. If HIIT works that way for you, that's awesome, stick with that.0
-
Actually, long term, there is data showing HIIT is better for weight loss than running (Steady State Cardio). See article linked below.
I am not the one saying this. I lost a good chunk of weight running and training for half marathons, till my body started fighting back. My hip becomes very painful with extended walking or running. I still haven't recovered over a year later. Did a 4 mile walk this morning and my hip started flaring up again. Had an Xray done on Monday and the hip itself is in good shape, no arthritis and radiologist says joint is health. Just some issues with inflammation so I am seeing a PT on Tuesday.
biolayne.com/training/guest-post-the-science-of-hiit-cardio-by-chris-eric-martinez-the-dynamic-duo/
0 -
I found the best way for me to lose fat is slight calorie deficit and 5 days a week of hypertrophy work. Zero cardio or HIIT necessary.
The best way to lose weight for every person is calorie deficit. Adding in exercise is great for health, but it should be something we can stick to.0 -
I do 30 minutes of vigorous step ups and burn almost 600 calories for my weight I am at now. You lose weight at a deficit, exercise only speeds it up a little plus it's just good for you whether you lose weight or not.0
-
Actually, long term, there is data showing HIIT is better for weight loss than running (Steady State Cardio). See article linked below.
I am not the one saying this. I lost a good chunk of weight running and training for half marathons, till my body started fighting back. My hip becomes very painful with extended walking or running. I still haven't recovered over a year later. Did a 4 mile walk this morning and my hip started flaring up again. Had an Xray done on Monday and the hip itself is in good shape, no arthritis and radiologist says joint is health. Just some issues with inflammation so I am seeing a PT on Tuesday.
biolayne.com/training/guest-post-the-science-of-hiit-cardio-by-chris-eric-martinez-the-dynamic-duo/
Results of those studies are pretty much what I would expect, do both HIIT and LISS for best results. I would like to see an actual head-to-head of HISS, like a serious runner would do, compared to HIIT. In those cases I think HIIT would lose because the difference in caloric burn during the activity would be too much for the HIIT to make up with the slightly higher EPOC rates. Not only that but serious running programs includes strides, sprinting, fartleks, hill training etc that make it much more like HIIT.
Good luck in your recovery, glad to see there are no joint issues.0 -
I found the best way for me to lose fat is slight calorie deficit and 5 days a week of hypertrophy work. Zero cardio or HIIT necessary.
The best way to lose weight for every person is calorie deficit. Adding in exercise is great for health, but it should be something we can stick to.
Certainly cannot argue with your results!
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I found the best way for me to lose fat is slight calorie deficit and 5 days a week of hypertrophy work. Zero cardio or HIIT necessary.
The best way to lose weight for every person is calorie deficit. Adding in exercise is great for health, but it should be something we can stick to.
Certainly cannot argue with your results!
Thank you! :flowerforyou:0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
Given the religious fanaticism about it on this site, I'd be very surprised...
That said, most of the people who band on about it on this board, really don't seem to be doing HIIT.
QFT. Most of the people I see talking about doing HIIT aren't actually doing HIIT.[/quote]
And don't need to.
0 -
And I second this motion...all those in favor, say aye...Chief_Rocka wrote: »No, a calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight. You can run, or do any other type of exercise, and remain fat.
0 -
Running is great if you enjoy running and can do it regularly.
Hiking, swimming, biking, walking and other such activities are fine as well.
Find something you like, do it, eat right and BING!
You're losing weight!0 -
If you are in a calorie deficit, running is the best way to boost weight loss, increase metabolism, and reduce chance of heart disease.0
-
I'm losing about 900grams per week and I don't do ANY gratuitous exercise. But I weigh and record everything I eat and I KNOW just how many calories are going into my system. When I started weighing and recording it was immediately obvious that I had been severely underestimating the calories that I had been consuming.
Running and other exercise will burn more calories for sure (and have other benefits) but, until you can get your calories under your expenditure, you will not lose weight.
Weigh and record everything you eat and that will give you the food facts to assist you to establish a reliable weight-loss program.
Recording the exercise calories is not so easy but, if you establish a fixed exercise regime, you set up a predictable exercise calorie expenditure. Having a predictable exercise calorie expenditure removes any variability in calories and it is much easier to work with a predictable expenditure than one which varies. Then, because you KNOW what calories you are eating, you can adjust your food calories down until a net deficit occurs.
You will know when a net deficit happens because your weight will start to go down.
When your weight gets near your target weight, you can adjust your exercise regime to maximise the other exercise benefits.0 -
HotMamaInWorks2 wrote: »digginDeep wrote: »digginDeep wrote: »Your analogy is completely flawed. You put on weight because you ate too much. This is not the fault of running. If you ate similar levels on any other activity, then the same rule would apply.
So your HIIT would be completely useless for weight loss, if it came with a 20" cheese pizza side order.....
Name me 5 other exercises that you could realistically do and burn between 800-100 calories in an hour.....
Like I said in the post, I was tracking my calories. I was eating 1500 calories a day (I'm 5'1'' and 27 years old) I was measuring mostly but weighing some of my food. I log EVERYTHING. So I'm confident to say my diary is acurate. And I've never had a 20'' cheese pizza in my life... side or main dish!
Women in general have more enduranceChief_Rocka wrote: »No, a calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight. You can run, or do any other type of exercise, and remain fat.
I am curious what the thinking is behind this... I can honestly say I have never heard this particularly premise suggested before.
As for endurance, that is mostly from experience. Out-of-shape-me and some friends went roller blading a few years ago. The girls didn't go as fast but we lasted longer then the boys! And I saw the same thing on other occasions like hiking.
Interesting. I guess you never know. But I watch a lot of marathons, and a woman has never won one of the elite ones- NYC, London, Chicago, Olympics, etc.
I didn't say women were better than men!! Training has a lot to do with the results! But naturally, women are bound to have endurance (and that does not mean going faster, only longer) otherwise, we wouldn't survice 12 hours of labor to give birth. But let's not start a debate about that. I have nothing to support my point, only what I've witnessed with normal (non-athlete) people.
um, no...
actually yes- women typically have a higher VO2max which means they can often get more work done in a work out than a man. So there is some truth to this.
0 -
HotMamaInWorks2 wrote: »digginDeep wrote: »digginDeep wrote: »Your analogy is completely flawed. You put on weight because you ate too much. This is not the fault of running. If you ate similar levels on any other activity, then the same rule would apply.
So your HIIT would be completely useless for weight loss, if it came with a 20" cheese pizza side order.....
Name me 5 other exercises that you could realistically do and burn between 800-100 calories in an hour.....
Like I said in the post, I was tracking my calories. I was eating 1500 calories a day (I'm 5'1'' and 27 years old) I was measuring mostly but weighing some of my food. I log EVERYTHING. So I'm confident to say my diary is acurate. And I've never had a 20'' cheese pizza in my life... side or main dish!
Women in general have more enduranceChief_Rocka wrote: »No, a calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight. You can run, or do any other type of exercise, and remain fat.
I am curious what the thinking is behind this... I can honestly say I have never heard this particularly premise suggested before.
As for endurance, that is mostly from experience. Out-of-shape-me and some friends went roller blading a few years ago. The girls didn't go as fast but we lasted longer then the boys! And I saw the same thing on other occasions like hiking.
Interesting. I guess you never know. But I watch a lot of marathons, and a woman has never won one of the elite ones- NYC, London, Chicago, Olympics, etc.
I didn't say women were better than men!! Training has a lot to do with the results! But naturally, women are bound to have endurance (and that does not mean going faster, only longer) otherwise, we wouldn't survice 12 hours of labor to give birth. But let's not start a debate about that. I have nothing to support my point, only what I've witnessed with normal (non-athlete) people.
um, no...
actually yes- women typically have a higher VO2max which means they can often get more work done in a work out than a man. So there is some truth to this.
Not so sure... topendsports.com/testing/norms/vo2max.htm#
I know for our Canadian Forces testing standards for the VO2Max test for men was higher than for women by a lot and it was based on the 50th percentile for population testing. However, according to the chart, for untrained it's not much different and VO2Max is not always a great predictor of performance.
That being said, my wife was in labour for 18 hours and I don't even want to do anything that feels good for that long. I have nothing but respect for women and what they have to endure and I don't think women's athletics are encourage enough! Note: I have 4 daughters and I encourage them to be athletic.0 -
My problem when I started running was I was hungry all the time and thought I could just eat that big bag of malteaser 'because I had run 5k', when I got my eating under control, the weight started coming off!!!
You can do a an interval routine with running, you may end up spewing at the end of it, but hill sprint repeats are a 'great' one (you learn to love to hate them)!0 -
Your analogy is completely flawed. You put on weight because you ate too much. This is not the fault of running. If you ate similar levels on any other activity, then the same rule would apply.
So your HIIT would be completely useless for weight loss, if it came with a 20" cheese pizza side order.....
Name me 5 other exercises that you could realistically do and burn between 800-100 calories in an hour.....
Like I said in the post, I was tracking my calories. I was eating 1500 calories a day (I'm 5'1'' and 27 years old) I was measuring mostly but weighing some of my food. I log EVERYTHING. So I'm confident to say my diary is acurate. And I've never had a 20'' cheese pizza in my life... side or main dish!Chief_Rocka wrote: »No, a calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight. You can run, or do any other type of exercise, and remain fat.
Running 3 times a week, having aquafit class once a week, eating 1500 cals a day... I think I had my calorie deficit! It just wasn't giving me results. Women in general have more endurance and so I think practicing an activity that works on strenght is beneficial.
It is physically impossible to GAIN weight over a period of time if you are truly eating at a deficit - unless you never poop or have some serious water retention issues!!
If you're truly at a deficit, then you burn all the calories in your food, and then some extra from your body's carb/fat reserves (hopefully not your protein reserves). Your body can't use up all your food and then 'create' some extra weight - where would it come from?!
Of course you're never truly 'empty' so there are some natural fluctuations in weight. Hormonal fluctuations (especially for us girls) can also cause variable water retention, but overall, if you're eating at a real deficit, you will lose weight over time. You won't gain it.
To answer the question in the title of the post - running is only the best way to lose weight if a) you are also eating at a deficit, and b) you enjoy it. If you're not burning more calories than you consume, you won't lose weight. If you don't enjoy it, so find something else.
I like running and walking and HIIT and team sports and swimming and spinning. Mixing it up keeps exercise from being boring.0 -
Your analogy is completely flawed. You put on weight because you ate too much. This is not the fault of running. If you ate similar levels on any other activity, then the same rule would apply.
So your HIIT would be completely useless for weight loss, if it came with a 20" cheese pizza side order.....
Name me 5 other exercises that you could realistically do and burn between 800-100 calories in an hour.....
Like I said in the post, I was tracking my calories. I was eating 1500 calories a day (I'm 5'1'' and 27 years old) I was measuring mostly but weighing some of my food. I log EVERYTHING. So I'm confident to say my diary is acurate. And I've never had a 20'' cheese pizza in my life... side or main dish!Chief_Rocka wrote: »No, a calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight. You can run, or do any other type of exercise, and remain fat.
Running 3 times a week, having aquafit class once a week, eating 1500 cals a day... I think I had my calorie deficit! It just wasn't giving me results. Women in general have more endurance and so I think practicing an activity that works on strenght is beneficial.
With all due respect I dont think you did actually. Women have more endurance? Is this your reasoning? Calorie deficit = weight loss. There isnt a special formula for women based on your made up endurance factor....0 -
Your analogy is completely flawed. You put on weight because you ate too much. This is not the fault of running. If you ate similar levels on any other activity, then the same rule would apply.
So your HIIT would be completely useless for weight loss, if it came with a 20" cheese pizza side order.....
Name me 5 other exercises that you could realistically do and burn between 800-100 calories in an hour.....
1 swimming
2 elliptical
3 squash
4 rowing machine
5 stationary bike
all 5 have netted me 1000+ calorie burns per hour on my 50lbs weight loss journey.
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth......
Those are legitimate activities for burning a large number of calories. Calories burned has to do with both the body composition of the person doing the work and INTENSITY. It really isn't fair to dismiss it unless you have the facts related to the workout.
No they arent. Check the figures. The average expected burns for those sports are significant on almost any weight/height are notably lower.0 -
digginDeep wrote: »Your analogy is completely flawed. You put on weight because you ate too much. This is not the fault of running. If you ate similar levels on any other activity, then the same rule would apply.
So your HIIT would be completely useless for weight loss, if it came with a 20" cheese pizza side order.....
Name me 5 other exercises that you could realistically do and burn between 800-100 calories in an hour.....
Like I said in the post, I was tracking my calories. I was eating 1500 calories a day (I'm 5'1'' and 27 years old) I was measuring mostly but weighing some of my food. I log EVERYTHING. So I'm confident to say my diary is acurate. And I've never had a 20'' cheese pizza in my life... side or main dish!
Women in general have more enduranceChief_Rocka wrote: »No, a calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight. You can run, or do any other type of exercise, and remain fat.
I am curious what the thinking is behind this... I can honestly say I have never heard this particularly premise suggested before.
As for endurance, that is mostly from experience. Out-of-shape-me and some friends went roller blading a few years ago. The girls didn't go as fast but we lasted longer then the boys! And I saw the same thing on other occasions like hiking.
Goodness me..... So the women havent got more endurance then.
It is scientifically and historically proven in sports that men are physically stronger than women on average. This is not to boast, but a fact. I think I would choose to go with this evidence rather than the fact you "saw the same thing on other occasions like hiking".
Your comparison bears no sense. If the other person is doing a more intensive exercise, it is naturally understandable that they will burn out quicker. Surely you know this?0 -
IMO running is great for cardio, not that great for weight loss. Main reason is that if you are overweight, running will put a hell of a strain on your joints perhaps leading to injury, almost certainly leading to frustration and demoralisation!
For me swimming, stationary bike, elliptical is much more effective. Kettle bell is better yet!
And do intervals! Intervals are the best!0 -
I find it interesting that females often win 100 + mile endurance trail / road races. They say ultra marathons are the greater equalizer and I think the results reflect that.
That said, I only find myself really losing weight and fat during the weeks before race training when I am mixing lots of lifting with running.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions