Moderate vs. intense exercise for weight loss
NotSoPerfectPam
Posts: 114 Member
Which is best for weight loss (and I'm not talking about that so-called mythical 'fat-burning' zone)?
I have been working out intensely - at about 90 percent of my max heart rate for the last three weeks. This results in some soreness and in my being famished afterward. But my fitness is really improving. The scale, so far, has not gone down (keeping daily cals around 1500)
Anyway.... I just went for less intense bike ride and burned, accd. to my heart rate monitor, still about 900 cals. I'm not sore and I'm not starving.
So I'm wondering if this is the way to go for weight loss - I have 50-60 pounds to lose.
Thoughts?
I have been working out intensely - at about 90 percent of my max heart rate for the last three weeks. This results in some soreness and in my being famished afterward. But my fitness is really improving. The scale, so far, has not gone down (keeping daily cals around 1500)
Anyway.... I just went for less intense bike ride and burned, accd. to my heart rate monitor, still about 900 cals. I'm not sore and I'm not starving.
So I'm wondering if this is the way to go for weight loss - I have 50-60 pounds to lose.
Thoughts?
0
Replies
-
exercise is for fitness, diet is for weight loss.0
-
The best thing for weightless is to be in a calorie deficit. And the best way to be sure you are in a deficit is creating it with your food intake. It is very difficult to exercise yourself into a daily deficit, day in-day out, for extended periods of time. Exercise is for health, and can help create that deficit, make it bigger, or allow you to eat more if you are following the NEAT method as set up for your goals with this app.
Just a personal anecdote, I found it easier to focus less on cardio and more on my intake. It is difficult to get an accurate burn from exercise.
If what you are asking is will you burn more calories from HIIT style of training vs. steady state-in a given amount of time, yes. You will burn more during a 20 minute HIIT session compared to 20 minutes steady state, but you can still get the same calorie burn with steady state if you lengthen the amount of time.0 -
exercise is for fitness, diet is for weight loss.
I agree that it is very difficult to out-train a bad diet, or let's say excess calories consumed.
I do some purposeful activity 5-6 days a week. It's a mix of activities. I walk at least 3 miles a day with the dogs, sometimes 5-8 miles on the weekend. I do spin classes which are interval-based. I just started running again. I play some racket sports with my other half. I lift weights.
But........... I still keep an eagle eye on not overeating and that means logging everything and measuring.
I've had no problems with losing weight. 16lb since 10th Jan.
0 -
I'm not trying to exercise and not watch my intake. What I'm asking is if it's easier not to overeat and watch your calories if you're not working out intensely.0
-
NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »I'm not trying to exercise and not watch my intake. What I'm asking is if it's easier not to overeat and watch your calories if you're not working out intensely.
It's personal. I find it easier to maintain moderate to no cardio and watch my intake. Others will be fine training at a higher level, especially if they understand their calorie burns/needs and are able to keep it in control. Find what is best for you.
0 -
NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »I'm not trying to exercise and not watch my intake. What I'm asking is if it's easier not to overeat and watch your calories if you're not working out intensely.
I think that depends on the person. Some people get hungrier when they exercise and some don't.0 -
One is regulating more to HIIT cardio the other steady state. If you're going the same duration, the one with high intensity will burn more calories. So it's likely you'll be more hungry, but if you're matching your calorie restriction correctly, weight loss should occur. It's easy to eat more than you need to after training so hard. Still have to count them calories accurately.NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »I'm not trying to exercise and not watch my intake. What I'm asking is if it's easier not to overeat and watch your calories if you're not working out intensely.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
The answer is - it depends. In terms of calorie burns - clearly more intense will build larger deficits. However, you also have a higher risk of injury (especially when overweight and if prior at a sedentary level). Then there is hunger signaling - intermediate intensity work seems to provide me with better control of hunger (I don't eat the kitchen) versus a really intense but shorter workout. I haven't seen (or looked) for research on that but imagine that it is quite an individual and contextual thing - it probably depends on the deficit one has, fueling during exercise, prior days, macros, etc....
My concern would be that the mental logic of "I'm doing this for the calories" might not last as long term habit. I'd suggest like others that having a non-dietary focus on exercise might make things more enjoyable and longer lasting.
The short answer to your question - it is likely personal.
Build up slowly, work on intensity as a tool for fitness, give yourself enough rest time to recover and heal.0 -
-
NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »Which is best for weight loss (and I'm not talking about that so-called mythical 'fat-burning' zone)?
So as upthread, exercise itself isn't the issue.
That said for me there was a psychological aspect when I was eating at a significant deficit. Eating at my goal left me feeling hungry and a bit irritated. Training, then eating back, so landing at the same net deficit meant I was more comfortable with eating at the deficit.
With that in mind, exercising off 400-500 cals per session worked well for me. Less than that didn't really have the same impact.
So that means moderate intensity for a longer period, because high intensity isn't sustainable for long enough to make a big enough calorie dent.I have been working out intensely - at about 90 percent of my max heart rate for the last three weeks. This results in some soreness and in my being famished afterward. But my fitness is really improving. The scale, so far, has not gone down (keeping daily cals around 1500)
Anyway.... I just went for less intense bike ride and burned, accd. to my heart rate monitor, still about 900 cals. I'm not sore and I'm not starving.
So different modes of exercise have different effects. You'll probably find most people who train will do some moderate intensityu, some threshold intensity and some high intensity, as they each have different benefits.
Using your cycling example. I did a 30km ride this morning in about an hour, and my GPS assessed that about 900 cals. I suspect that's a little high, it would be more like 700, but a couple of steep ascents may lead to more.
If I use my turbo trainer and do a high intensity session, I'll generally get about 400, but it feels a lot tougher.
0 -
If lower intensity helps you stay in a deficit then sounds like that is right for you.
I find lower intensity actually reduces hunger, like a nice walk outside. Maybe because blood is shifted to my arms and legs and away from my stomach?
But at the gym working at a lower intensity bores me...just marking time. Blah. So I prefer to work harder. Then I definitely want lunch when I get home (or whatever meal is next), but it doesn't make me starving hungry the entire day.0 -
hmm. I just realized perhaps I mis-titled the post. I am not relying on exercise for weight loss. I'm keeping in a calorie deficit - aiming for about 1500 calories a day, whether I exercise or not. I love exercising, specifically riding my bike, and it keeps me motivated and on track and I'm training to improve my speed and distance.
But, I think I may be exercising too hard for weight loss- I can ride my bike for two hours with my heart rate between 148 and 155 - I'm 46, so that's between 80 and 90 percent.
HOWEVER, when I do so, and keep at my calorie deficit, I am STARVING, fatigued and even dizzy, even if I eat back some of those exercise calories (though still netting way below what I could according to MFP)
But today, I rode my bike in the 75 to 80 percent HR range for about 80 minutes, and I was great. Not tired, not hungry (just had an apple). Anyway, it was like a light going off for me that I either can't train so hard, or I can't really diet like I'd like.
I was just wondering if others had the same experience.0 -
Are you eating back a large part of those cals?
I'd suggest small snack after the first hour - especially if you are feeling dizzy. That might solve all your issues.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Are you eating back a large part of those cals?
I'd suggest small snack after the first hour - especially if you are feeling dizzy. That might solve all your issues.
I don't eat back a large part of the calories, maybe 1/3.... A snack after an hour is not a bad idea...0 -
NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Are you eating back a large part of those cals?
I'd suggest small snack after the first hour - especially if you are feeling dizzy. That might solve all your issues.
I don't eat back a large part of the calories, maybe 1/3.... A snack after an hour is not a bad idea...
Well, possibly your deficit is going to by quite large if your only eating a third of 2+ hrs. You might decide not to eat a fixed amount (say 200-300 cals) from exercise cals rather than a percent.0 -
The connection between intense workouts (for me, interval training, hills, etc.) and diet is that on a day and the night before I know I'll be pushing hard, I watch carefully what I eat. I don't want cramps or to feel sluggish, and I need to have eaten good food for enough fuel to work hard. Then after a great run, I am not likely to eat a ton of chocolate and fried foods because I'm proud of myself.
On days I lift or run light, I perceive that food consumed won't be a determining factor, so I'm not as careful. So ... for me, intense workouts seem more effective for weight loss than long, slow rides.
But I'm a head case, so it's hard to know if there's actually anything to that. I think there is, and that keeps me moving in the right direction.0 -
NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »But, I think I may be exercising too hard for weight loss- I can ride my bike for two hours with my heart rate between 148 and 155 - I'm 46, so that's between 80 and 90 percent.
Wall of text follows; scroll down for the tl;dr!
If you can ride your bike for two hours with your HR in that zone, then it is not between 80 and 90% of your maximum HR. For a trained athlete, the lactate threshold—the intensity at which she or he can exercise for about an hour, tops—is usually around 85-90%. For the rest of us, it's often in the 80-85% range. If you were going at or near your lactate threshold, it would be very unpleasant and leave you exhausted from the effort itself after an hour or so. Most threshold workouts are only 20-30 minutes long, because outside of a race, it is hard even for professionals to motivate themselves to do more time at threshold.
There are several formulas for estimating maximum heart rate, but the one thing they all have in common is that they are highly inaccurate for many people. I last did a maximum heart rate test four years ago, when I was 44. The formulas all said that my maximum should have been somewhere around 172-178. In fact, it was 192. Yours is undoubtedly higher than you think!
My guess is that you're in the 70-80% range when you feel famished some time after a 2-hour workout, and in the 65-70% range for the workouts where you don't get that reaction. What you're probably encountering is glycogen depletion—what marathoners call "the wall" and cyclists call "bonking." A typical athlete stores enough glycogen in the muscles and liver for around 2 hours of moderately intense aerobic exercise; if that isn't supplemented, the brain will run low on its main energy source (glycogen from the liver) and begin to shut down non-essential activity. You feel fatigued and dizzy. Now, if you're in a deficit, your glycogen stores are going to be smaller than when you are eating at maintenance, so it's not surprising that two hours of vigorous exercise would leave you with very low glycogen levels.
If you are coming close to bonking, you might benefit from a recovery meal or beverage of 100-200 calories at a 4:1 ratio of carbs (to replenish glycogen) to protein (to help rebuild muscles). Most recreational athletes have no need for a recovery meal/drink, but it sounds like it might help you. Believe it or not, lowfat chocolate milk is pretty good (though the research supporting that claim was funded by a dairy industry group!). Another thing to do would be to eat a bit of easily digested carbs during the workout. If I'm going to be cycling for 2 hours or more, I usually start eating an hour into the event, and I aim to eat 200-250 calories per hour (about the maximum that most people can digest) for the rest of the event. (My record was about 1,750 calories, eaten during a 9-hour bike ride in the Berkshire Hills of Massachusetts.)
In terms of what to do: approaching this from a fitness standpoint, not weight loss, most coaches would recommend that at least 50% of your aerobic exercise should be below 70%. Some, like Phil Maffetone, would say that 80% should be that easy. The reason is that exercising in the 60-70% range for a long period produces a lot of significant aerobic improvements while minimizing the risk of injury. In particular, it improves your ability to metabolize fat while exercising. That doesn't matter for weight loss (all you need is a calorie deficit), but it does matter for preserving the liver glycogen that is the brain's main source of energy. So I'd suggest doing most of your exercise at the lower intensity, with some faster bouts mixed in for variety.
Sorry for the wall of text; as someone who does endurance cycling and moderate running, and who did both while losing 65 pounds, I've thought a lot about how to exercise in a calorie deficit!
Tl;dr: sounds as if the more intense rides are depleting your glycogen stores and you're bonking. Eating a bit of carb during the ride, or having a recovery meal/drink afterwards, would be a big help. But it's probably best to do most of your exercising at a lower intensity.0 -
NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »But, I think I may be exercising too hard for weight loss- I can ride my bike for two hours with my heart rate between 148 and 155 - I'm 46, so that's between 80 and 90 percent.
Wall of text follows; scroll down for the tl;dr!
If you can ride your bike for two hours with your HR in that zone, then it is not between 80 and 90% of your maximum HR. For a trained athlete, the lactate threshold—the intensity at which she or he can exercise for about an hour, tops—is usually around 85-90%. For the rest of us, it's often in the 80-85% range. If you were going at or near your lactate threshold, it would be very unpleasant and leave you exhausted from the effort itself after an hour or so. Most threshold workouts are only 20-30 minutes long, because outside of a race, it is hard even for professionals to motivate themselves to do more time at threshold.
There are several formulas for estimating maximum heart rate, but the one thing they all have in common is that they are highly inaccurate for many people. I last did a maximum heart rate test four years ago, when I was 44. The formulas all said that my maximum should have been somewhere around 172-178. In fact, it was 192. Yours is undoubtedly higher than you think!
My guess is that you're in the 70-80% range when you feel famished some time after a 2-hour workout, and in the 65-70% range for the workouts where you don't get that reaction. What you're probably encountering is glycogen depletion—what marathoners call "the wall" and cyclists call "bonking." A typical athlete stores enough glycogen in the muscles and liver for around 2 hours of moderately intense aerobic exercise; if that isn't supplemented, the brain will run low on its main energy source (glycogen from the liver) and begin to shut down non-essential activity. You feel fatigued and dizzy. Now, if you're in a deficit, your glycogen stores are going to be smaller than when you are eating at maintenance, so it's not surprising that two hours of vigorous exercise would leave you with very low glycogen levels.
If you are coming close to bonking, you might benefit from a recovery meal or beverage of 100-200 calories at a 4:1 ratio of carbs (to replenish glycogen) to protein (to help rebuild muscles). Most recreational athletes have no need for a recovery meal/drink, but it sounds like it might help you. Believe it or not, lowfat chocolate milk is pretty good (though the research supporting that claim was funded by a dairy industry group!). Another thing to do would be to eat a bit of easily digested carbs during the workout. If I'm going to be cycling for 2 hours or more, I usually start eating an hour into the event, and I aim to eat 200-250 calories per hour (about the maximum that most people can digest) for the rest of the event. (My record was about 1,750 calories, eaten during a 9-hour bike ride in the Berkshire Hills of Massachusetts.)
In terms of what to do: approaching this from a fitness standpoint, not weight loss, most coaches would recommend that at least 50% of your aerobic exercise should be below 70%. Some, like Phil Maffetone, would say that 80% should be that easy. The reason is that exercising in the 60-70% range for a long period produces a lot of significant aerobic improvements while minimizing the risk of injury. In particular, it improves your ability to metabolize fat while exercising. That doesn't matter for weight loss (all you need is a calorie deficit), but it does matter for preserving the liver glycogen that is the brain's main source of energy. So I'd suggest doing most of your exercise at the lower intensity, with some faster bouts mixed in for variety.
Sorry for the wall of text; as someone who does endurance cycling and moderate running, and who did both while losing 65 pounds, I've thought a lot about how to exercise in a calorie deficit!
Tl;dr: sounds as if the more intense rides are depleting your glycogen stores and you're bonking. Eating a bit of carb during the ride, or having a recovery meal/drink afterwards, would be a big help. But it's probably best to do most of your exercising at a lower intensity.
Sounds like you have done alot of research. I am 49 years old and have been doing intervals on the treadmill (although other MFP posters have told me I'm not doing HIIT which was my original goal). I do a 5 minute warm up at 4.0 setting. Today I did intervals at 3.0 incline. 60s at 7.5, 90's at 4.0. 5 minutes cool down. Total time 40 minutes, so 30 minutes in intervals
Max HR 173, avg 141. Looking at the Max HR calculator I'm afraid I might be overdoing it and don't want to have a heart attack. I felt gassed after it, but within a few minutes rest was able to do 40 minutes Cybex circuit training, stopped at the grocery store, had a high protein lunch and took the dog for a 1 mile walk around my hilly neighborhood (logged as 11 flights by Vivosmart HR ). I'm tired but feel good.
Is what I did today dangerous?0 -
Thanks bwogilvie - I suspected my HR monitor was not accurate, I tried to set it correctly, but the tests fail.
I always eat good protein and carb snack after a ride (often a pb&j sandwich) but I will try to eat something mid ride next time I go beyond about 90 min.
And it also sounds like maybe I should notch down the intesity. Thanks so much for all your advice.0 -
For me personally, as intensity ramps up my hunger factor goes up as well. I work out a decent bit, mostly on the bike or the elliptical for cardio. If I burn a set amount of calories, really up to probably 400-500 I hardly notice it in the hunger factor unless I work out hard and faster. Similar to going for a longer walk, I notice I'm hungry, but not post workout hungry.
Anything above that, and I'm hungry enough to want something soon after the workout usually. But if I up the intensity and toss in some high output intervals or really push it on the bike, that same 800-1000 calories goes from hungry to just HANGRY. The only difference I notice is that if the intensity is up I have a bit of a delayed hunger, as I don't feel it bad until I start cooling down reasonably well. Even at the lower time/calorie burn levels, if I push the intensity hard, the hunger factor seems different.
I try to mix it up as far as intensity and HR goes. It's really not my nature, but sometimes doing lower intensity sessions for a longer period of time helps you figure out how far you can push at those paces without fueling problems. But at times that can be boring, and in this area with traffic issues, keeping decent pace on a bike is out of the question. So on any given day unless I'm feeling lazy, I'll often push pace where I can, and at least get some time in with my HR up in the higher levels.0 -
In terms of quality of exercise, however, I find Mark sisson's primal type analysis a good fit... He says human bodies evolved to work in three broad ways: to go far slowly, to go fast in short bursts, and to lift heavy things regularly. I feel best, recover most fully, and seem to lose best when I make time to do all three throughout my week. So I walk a lot, take a few HIIT style dance classes, spend a few hours in yoga class and get in 2-3 weekly lifting sessions. I think my daily burns end up being very synergistic.
And everybody above is spot on when they say most weight loss comes from the food planning side. I could do all that activity above and stay fat if I didn't eat at a true deficit!0 -
@robertw486 That's why taco trucks count like EMT vehicles! Angels of mercy delivering manna from god to hangry eaters...0
-
I notice that hunger spike too after my biggest exercise. I recently did a 14 mile hike with a lot of elevation change averaging 19 minute miles. I was fine that day with what I had brought along; I was actually almost too tired to eat. But the next day I was like the hungry, hungry caterpillar! I was subbing at a middle school and just had to add a fourth meal to my day by buying a second school lunch in the cafeteria after eating the one I had packed mid morning.0
-
Thanks Scolaris and RobertW. Glad to know I'm not crazy. Hangry is definitely how I am the day after an intense workout. Between that and water retention because of muscle soreness I just feel that it might undermine weight-loss0
-
@robertw486 That's why taco trucks count like EMT vehicles! Angels of mercy delivering manna from god to hangry eaters...
All good food trucks should count as emergency vehicles!
Another observation from me, is that the type of workout and intensity also seems to impact the hunger for a day or two after. On a heavy lift type day, I might not really be much more hungry unless it was a really long and intense workout. But I'm more inclined to be hungry the next day or two. Some cardio type stuff is similar if I ramp the intensity up enough. I might be fine not eating all those calories back, but the next couple of days my hunger levels hover up above normal.
Being that we can only absorb food so fast, I tend to think that it's a matter of the body wanting replenishment until we have repaired muscle, refueled glycogen stores properly. And at times, you can only eat so much on a given day to do that. So now I somewhat prefuel and might stretch out my refuel calories as well. In the end it all balances out somewhat.0 -
for optimal fitness, a mix of both.
you can't recover from super-intense exercise every day. you can recover from low-intensity almost every single day. high intensity improves your VO2 max, lactic threshold, heart stroke pressure, and work capacity. low intensity improves your aerobic capacity, mitochondrial density, muscle capillarization, and heart stroke volume.
alternate higher and lower intensity workouts; you'll perform better in both due to improved recovery and you will train all aspects of a well-rounded cardiovascular system.
the calorie burn is about equal; high intensity will burn more calories in less time, but you can't do it nearly as long. low intensity will burn calories and you can go much longer, probably allowing you to burn more total calories than a session of high-intensity; it just takes longer.0 -
I would say both are fine. Higher intensities obviously burn higher calories per minute. But at a lower intensity, you can probably exercise for longer for more overall calories burned but at a less efficient rate.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions