Is running really the best way to lose weight?
Options
Replies
-
Everyone loves different things and I sooo wish we could just learn to go with that, and not downput someone else's choice.
I love running because I feel it's one of the most efficient ways to burn calories. (Try running for 10 minutes with a HRM vs walking, for instance.) I also get a great feeling of satisfaction pushing myself harder and running clears my head. I was also told by my cardiologist I needed to get more active to build cardiovascular endurance. Running has whittled my thighs and helped me drop nearly 30 pounds this year. Crossing the finish lines of my marathons (though it's been awhile!) are among my proudest moments. There are so many reasons why people run.
But see, I also love weight lifting. I also love yoga. I love hiking. I sometimes do the stairmill or rowing machine. It is possible to create a workout program that incorporates a range of activities.
Bottom line: I encourage you not to put down someone else's passion. The reasons they love it may be many faceted.0 -
No. You just need a deficit.0
-
walking/jogging/running did wonders for me. Now I am strength training along with jogging to maintain and tone. Good Luck
0 -
That's one thing I don't like about MFP...."everyone has an opinion and is a know it all...Can't we just say. Great...I'll think about that. I'll look into it. Glad it's working for you. Great Job"...There I said it!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.
Maybe, maybe not.
Link below has a study conducted in 1992 stating women were 'catching' men in terms of running. I did a quick search of Boston Marathon winners in '92 and '14. '92 female winner-->2:23.43; '14 winner--->2:18.57**//'92 male winner 2:08.43; '14 winner 2:08.37. This is one race and while well known doesn't really tell much of a story about VO2 max. The '14 female winner did set a course record(**) so times are moving down for female runners.
The link goes to show several studies where men have higher vo2 max number then women.
http://faculty.washington.edu/crowther/Misc/RBC/gender.shtml
My guess, and purely a guess, is men can maintain a lower level of BF(body fat) then women. Essential BF for men is 4%; women it is 12%. The demand muscle mass places on oxygen plays an important role. So I would think men would have slightly higher numbers overall then women. Last, who cares? Honestly, I just wrote this instead of going for more coffee. Peace.
0 -
I agree that creating a deficit is the only way to lose weight but sometimes it can be a bit deceiving when you look at numbers alone. Sometimes you need to look at what is in back of those numbers to figure it out.
I started dieting in 2011 and dropped 60 lbs mostly by cutting carbs out of my diet. I did very little exercise. I didn't use MyFitnessPal or any other tracking for that matter, just made healthier choices day-to-day in what I was eating and cut out the snacking.
In 2012 I added exercise in the form of cycling. It took a while to adjust. At first I wasn't eating enough to adequately support the activity level. I had to add extra carbs back into the diet. The next thing I noticed is that I gained a few pounds back but I felt great and I was much more fit. Although I can't prove it with measurements I attribute it to building muscle. I still looked trim and my legs were obviously more muscular. So I was satisfied that I was still on the right track.
I recently fell back into some bad eating habits so I'm now using MyFitnessPal to help out. After doing some reading in the forums I can see where some numbers may be skewed and misleading even if I'm careful about logging everything.
First of all the base calorie burn is figured somewhat arbitrarily and only allows for rough choices. I have to choose something between "sedentary" and "extremely active" for my lifestyle aside from the exercise that I do. Although I'm sure there are some statistics behind these check boxes we all know that metabolism varies widely across individuals and certainly across gender. So I have to wonder that if your base calories are being accounted for correctly and you are still not losing weight that maybe the base calorie burn rate is being set too high. That would mean you're not really at a deficit.
Another thing I noticed is that exercise calories burned are also somewhat general as are the descriptions of the levels of effort on MFP. I usually use Garmin devices to capture statistics on what I do (Garmin Edge for the bike, Vivofit for the gym). Different software applications make different calculations of calories based on the same data I collect. Sometimes they are 80 percent higher on some sites! I've learned to go with the lower calorie numbers as a rule and it's working out okay. I think the Garmin site can overestimate calories burned. One thing that helps it calculate more correctly is to use a heart-rate monitor which has been suggested by others. When I use an HRM I find that calorie calculations are much closer across different websites and software. I still tend to go with the lower numbers overall. After training diligently for a few years my body has learned to be more efficient with the calories that I put into it and I can exercise the same as someone else and burn less.
As far as the type of exercise you do I think that's really a personal thing. If you don't like to do it you'll make up excuses not to and then you won't be exercising. If you like HIIT than do it. I like the cycling because I enjoy being outside and it is also a social activity for me. And I can ride my bike for many hours at a time (don't enjoy running that long). It works rather large muscle groups that help burn calories. Yes, running does even better than that for sure but my knees don't like the percussion.
Hope this is helpful, sorry for being longwinded.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.0 -
That's one thing I don't like about MFP...."everyone has an opinion and is a know it all...Can't we just say. Great...I'll think about that. I'll look into it. Glad it's working for you. Great Job"...There I said it!
I agree in large part but when you put out a controversial hook in the title you will likely catch some disagreement. If you just want to say "I did it and here's how!" then you can put that in success stories and people will support you 100%. I do a fair bit of communication planning these days and the presentation is just as important as the content when you need to consider how people will respond.
To the OP, I apologize for the delayed congratulations but you have done very well and keep up the good work!0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
it's been a long time since I've researched but I've read several articles (probably 2-3 years ago) that indicated women's capacity to work is higher- meaning they can do 6 exercises fairly well at applicable weights vs a man working at the same intensity could only do say 4.
Shrug- I'm not to worried about it- I try not to get to bogged down in men vs women kind of things-I believe everyone should do the best they can- for who they are- and that's not a gender issue.
I mostly only get annoyed when people say women "can't" do x... then I'm like- please don't tell me what I can or cannot do. Which has everything to do with- I don't like being told what I can/can't do- and less to do about my plumbing.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
it's been a long time since I've researched but I've read several articles (probably 2-3 years ago) that indicated women's capacity to work is higher- meaning they can do 6 exercises fairly well at applicable weights vs a man working at the same intensity could only do say 4.
Shrug- I'm not to worried about it- I try not to get to bogged down in men vs women kind of things-I believe everyone should do the best they can- for who they are- and that's not a gender issue.
I mostly only get annoyed when people say women "can't" do x... then I'm like- please don't tell me what I can or cannot do. Which has everything to do with- I don't like being told what I can/can't do- and less to do about my plumbing.
I don't think anyone can tell you what you cannot do because I think you are stronger than 90% of the guys in my office! I wish my daughters had a role model like you and many of the other women here growing up. 0 -
Use more calories than you consume either by eating less, running more or a combination of the two.0
-
High Intensity Training has been the way to go for me In my first time joining the gym I did the 45 minute Spin Classes 3 times a week which helped me shred 30 kilos. the shorter interval sessions since moving on have also worked well for me building up sprint sessions on treadmill or bike etc.0
-
The only way to loose weight is thru a calorie deficit. Myself I have found that achievable by eating healthier and exercising, I enjoy running. Have recently starting strong lifts also. Also when at the gym I will do HIT on treadmill but I enjoy my longer runs also. (HIT helps me increase my average pace).0
-
Not sure what all these abbreviations are all about. It seems like someone trying to sell me something I don't need. Certainly, anaerobic conditioning will use energy less efficiently and thus promote greater energy use and quicker weight loss but I already have lots of fast twitch muscle. I would prefer exercise that conditions muscle with greater mitochondrial density for long term weight management and to improve insulin signalling.0
-
Calibandawg wrote: »Not sure what all these abbreviations are all about. It seems like someone trying to sell me something I don't need. Certainly, anaerobic conditioning will use energy less efficiently and thus promote greater energy use and quicker weight loss but I already have lots of fast twitch muscle. I would prefer exercise that conditions muscle with greater mitochondrial density for long term weight management and to improve insulin signalling.
so far in this thread: HIIT/HIT: high interval intensity training // VO2: maximum oxygen consumption // OP: original poster // BF: body fat // IMO: in my opinion // MFP: my fitness pal // LISS: IDK // IDK: I don't know and last BING // watch Groundhog Day search insurance salesman, pothole filled with water....enough said.
0 -
ryclark501 wrote: »Jennloella wrote: »A lot of HIIT programs give you visible results because they incorporate not only the cardio you need to get into a deficit, but usually also body-weight stuff like squats, push-ups, etc so you are killing two birds with one stone. Two fat birds. Lots of exercises burn lots of calories, I'm in agreement anything with weight bearing exercises gets quicker more exciting results. Even if the weight is just you.
I agree with Jennloella, A lot more exciting results. Cardio is going to burn calories while your doing it, while not making for any strength changes and helping keep your curves or promote them. Strength training is going to burn fewer calories while working out but you will be burning more after the work out is finished. Plus the more muscle you have the higher your resting metabolic rate will be, which in the end will help you keep it off. I hate cardio but I do it cause it teaches your body how to use oxygen as energy, ex. If something is chasing me that I feel I need to run from, my body will be fully versed in keeping endurance up..
This is my opinion, But... Do what you like to do and it will be easier to stay consistent,and that's key. After all moving in any direction is better than standing still..
If something is chasing me that I feel I need to run from, my body will be fully versed in keeping endurance up..Because Zombie won't wait for you to catch your breath!
Seriously though, excellent advice.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions