zumba and weight loss

ishapradhan18

Hi guys! I've been doing zumba since 3 months but I've not seen any results yet. I have not controlled my food habit,though I don't eat junk food and I cook my own meal, also 6 days a week I do aerobics and zumba. Any suggestions?

jlahorn

Control your food habit? Working out while still consuming more calories than you expend will improve your fitness -- your cardiovascular health is probably better, it may be helping with blood pressure and cholesterol levels, etc, but it won't help you lose weight if you're not creating a calorie deficit.

SLHysell

Great saying I read on here the other day. "You get fit in the gym, you lose weight in the kitchen". In this case, the gym is zumba. Is your goal weight loss or fitness or both. In three months of zumba, you should be feeling better physically in terms of cardio fitness. You also should be feeling some toning of your muscles. No exercise will make you lose weight unless you are burning more calories daily than you are taking in.

yopeeps025

You cannot out run a poor diet with zumba.

Wronkletoad

^^ this
zumba folks in our gym took a poll and overstated their estimated burn by nearly 2x! that would screw things up enough!

the one movement they don't teach and is more effective for weight loss is "fork put downs". diet >> exercise for weight loss.

consider compound weights added in with whatever CV gains you might be getting from zoomba. that should also help!

good luck and enjoy!!

Lasmartchika

Control your food habit. Or else Zumba won't help. Eat at your deficit, then you'll start seeing results. I know cuz Zumba works for me while I'm eating at my deficit.

brightsideofpink

I love zumba! But lets get real about the numbers. Unless you're obese and doing a very very high intensity class, you're probably burning less than 400 calories for an hour long class. That can easily be wiped out with even a moderately higher calorie meal. Even things you think aren't terrible- like adding mayo and cheese to your sandwich. An hour gone in a few bites.

I eat my meals at my calorie limit. Then use Zumba burns for wine. Or a few oreos

angelexperiment

Therr is a diet that comes with the dvds. Its supposed to help.

Torontonius

Diet is 90% of the battle. The other 10% is exercise. Zumba is not an efficient or effective way to exercise. You would get much better return on your investment of time from a cardio perspective by running on a treadmill, and far more effective return from a muscle perspective doing weight training.

That said, Zumba is better than nothing at all, so get your diet in order and you'll lose the pounds.

brightsideofpink

Torontonius wrote: »

Zumba is not an efficient or effective way to exercise.

Why is it not effective? If you can sustain an elevated heart rate, that is an effective calorie burn. And just because its not the highest calorie burn/hour doesn't make it inefficient.

Effective is anything you can sustain, be it through motivation or physical ability, that burns calories.

Sugarbeat

Zumba is a lot more fun than a treadmill. I had to stop because of medical issues but I miss it! Its like any other exercise program, you get out of it what you put into it.

MinnieInMaine

It's a pretty common misconception that you need to exercise to lose weight. While exercise can help with fitness and be a helpful part of weight loss, just moving your body isn't going to cut it. You must get your eating under control. Good news is, you're already in the right place. Start logging your food every day and stay within your daily goal as often as you can and I bet you'll start seeing the results you want soon.

Torontonius

brightsideofpink wrote: »

Torontonius wrote: »

Zumba is not an efficient or effective way to exercise.

And just because its not the highest calorie burn/hour doesn't make it inefficient.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

Wronkletoad

Torontonius wrote: »

brightsideofpink wrote: »

Torontonius wrote: »

Zumba is not an efficient or effective way to exercise.

And just because its not the highest calorie burn/hour doesn't make it inefficient.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

um... what would make it efficient if not highest calorie burn per hour? Where is Torontonius wrong?

(but he got a "thin-skinned flag" from someone

KylaDenay

You need to eat less and start logging your food.

leggup

Let's say that you maintain your current weight at 2,000 calories. Let's say that zumba burns 500 calories each time you do it. Let's say you do zumba every day. These assumptions are just to make the math easier.

If you are doing zumba and you are not losing weight, you must be eating at maintenance. That means (with my fake numbers above), you must be eating 2,500 calories a day. The zumba calories are burned off, but you're not burning enough to create a deficit. A deficit can be created just by eating less. If you ate 1,500 and your maintenance was 2,000 and you did that for a week, you would be in a deficit of 3,500, about a pound. Does that make sense? You could also eat at maintenance and then use zumba to burn off calories to create a deficit. Does that make sense?

Step 1: Figure out how many calories you need to eat each day to lose weight. MFP can calculate them for you.
Step 2: Weigh and log your food and hit that calorie number.
Step 3: Lose weight!

jlahorn

A

brightsideofpink wrote: »

I love zumba! But lets get real about the numbers. Unless you're obese and doing a very very high intensity class, you're probably burning less than 400 calories for an hour long class. That can easily be wiped out with even a moderately higher calorie meal. Even things you think aren't terrible- like adding mayo and cheese to your sandwich. An hour gone in a few bites.

Actually, I use an HRM to measure my burn. I am 5'6" and 145 lbs. The lowest number I've ever seen for 50 minutes was 450 and the highest was 675, and those tracked with how much effort I put into the class. Granted, Zumba is not steady state cardio, so it's not the perfect application, but I doubt they're that far off.

Zumba is a much better overall workout than walking or running on a treadmill because it fully engages your arms and core. It incorporates squats, lunges, all kinds of stuff.

Sure, people can flutter their way lazily through a workout, and it would be pretty weak, but if you're doing it right, it can be pretty great exercise.

brightsideofpink

Wronkletoad wrote: »

Torontonius wrote: »

brightsideofpink wrote: »

Torontonius wrote: »

Zumba is not an efficient or effective way to exercise.

And just because its not the highest calorie burn/hour doesn't make it inefficient.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

um... what would make it efficient if not highest calorie burn per hour? Where is Torontonius wrong?

(but he got a "thin-skinned flag" from someone

Neither flag was from me.

Efficiency is commonly used in a range, as a relative measurement. Its a circular argument to say that only zero waste and highest production can be defined as 'efficient'. Everything from fossil fuel expenditure to water conservation comes with a measure of efficiency. Thats like saying a Vespa isn't efficient because some fuel is wasted in the conversion process. I'll concede that there are higher calorie burners out there, but that doesn't negate the usefulness of dance.

Webster's discussion aside, I still disagree that Zumba is not effective as an exercise. Why is it not effective?

RGv2

jlahorn wrote: »

A

brightsideofpink wrote: »

I love zumba! But lets get real about the numbers. Unless you're obese and doing a very very high intensity class, you're probably burning less than 400 calories for an hour long class. That can easily be wiped out with even a moderately higher calorie meal. Even things you think aren't terrible- like adding mayo and cheese to your sandwich. An hour gone in a few bites.

Actually, I use an HRM to measure my burn. I am 5'6" and 145 lbs. The lowest number I've ever seen for 50 minutes was 450 and the highest was 675, and those tracked with how much effort I put into the class. Granted, Zumba is not steady state cardio, so it's not the perfect application, but I doubt they're that far off.

Zumba is a much better overall workout than walking or running on a treadmill because it fully engages your arms and core. It incorporates squats, lunges, all kinds of stuff.

Sure, people can flutter their way lazily through a workout, and it would be pretty weak, but if you're doing it right, it can be pretty great exercise.

Let's ease back here a little.

Wronkletoad

sure. that's cool, but it's a but reductive to put it that way. the claim was "calories per hour". in that range. hence the objection / note.

Zumba is a much better overall workout than walking or running on a treadmill because it fully engages your arms and core. It incorporates squats, lunges, all kinds of stuff.

at least you didn't say "muscle confusion".

lunges, squats (ATG - real ROM squats), burpees, etc for the win!!!!! totally on board with that! yay!

wilsoncl6

I do Zumba with my wife on Saturday mornings. Better than going to the club and getting bumped on the dance floor for an hour or worrying about some alcoholic spilling their drink on you. It's a great workout dependent upon how much work you put in. I tend to treat it like football practice, all out effort for the amount of time allotted. I generally come out breathing heavy and soaked in sweat if you treat it like a HIIT workout.