Should I do 2 hours of cardio?
FlabToFitty
Posts: 70 Member
Hey guys I'm 5'6, 218lbs.
I do 1.5hours (one and a half) of cardio followed by strength training depending on what day it is (arm day/leg day etc)
Is 1.5hours of cardio enough to lose weight? I lose 1000 calories within that time.
I do this 5 days a week.
I'm thinking if I should do 2 hours.
Pls help!
I do 1.5hours (one and a half) of cardio followed by strength training depending on what day it is (arm day/leg day etc)
Is 1.5hours of cardio enough to lose weight? I lose 1000 calories within that time.
I do this 5 days a week.
I'm thinking if I should do 2 hours.
Pls help!
0
Replies
-
Seems like overkill to me. Also, you risk overtraining and injury when doing that much. I think you should actually dial it back.
If you want to lose weight look to your calorie intake. As long as you maintain your calorie goal (which includes your deficit required to lose weight), then you will lose weight.0 -
Exercise is for fitness and health. Calorie deficit is for weight loss. You can do all the cardio you want in the world, but if you match the calorie burn with the same calories eaten, you won't lose weight. I'll refer you to a thread I created on this.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10346155/cardio-isnt-for-fat-burning/p1
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 -
Nobody requires cardio to lose weight. But if you're going to do it. You don't need 2 hours of it a day. 30 min. To an hour is more than enough to build a deficit and gain health benefits from it.0
-
FlabToFitty wrote: »I lose 1000 calories within that time.I'm thinking if I should do 2 hours.
So I'd infer from these two points that you're not losing as fast as you think you should be?
Notwithstanding the points above if you're thinking of increasing your time that suggests to me that you see that as a way to burn more calories? I'd suggest that your problem is more that you're significantly overestimating your calorie expenditure during the 90 minutes you currently do.
What sort of cario do you do, and what makes you think you're burning 1000calories during the 90 minutes of that?
0 -
Should I do 2 hours of cardio?
0 -
It's a little tricky to saying "there is no fat burning exercise" Of course there is, the problem is there is no target fat loss on your body, you can't just lose fat in your stomach by doing crunches, running whatever! Although, you can lose overal body fat percentage which is usually the goal, and if not should be when losing fat. But as you'll see I WILL STRESS over and over know your maintenance calories.
It's an overall energy consumption, the body goes into fat stores when there is a deficit in energy regardless if from less food (less caloric intake) mixture of both or just an exercise energy deficit( being in a negative in calories from exercise) a deficit is a deficit regardless of how you are achieving it( though you fuel your body better when it has more food). Some people find just eating less is the best way for them, but statistically people in that category fail, as they tend to go back to not counting calories, not measuring their body and eating like they use to. So, don't forget consistency!
I can tell you I personally do a mixture of both eating less and cardio if I am trying to lose some fat. It should be noted that I do weight training too, so I will be a little different. Regardless, one pound of fat is potentially 3500 calories, so if you can have a negative 500 calories(if you're trying to lose 1 pounds a week, you could do half a pounds and make it even easier, 250 calories instead) everyday in some form or another the body should burn 1 pound of fat that is stored.( KNOW YOUR MAINTENANCE and keep updating as you go. ) I'm sure people will be like "you lose fluids, muscle and other stuff too." The ultimate goal is weight loss, not building tons of muscle... There are sacrifices in life when cutting weight, and putting on weight it's just how it is.
OP, I believe High Intensity cardio is the best for managing time and works better than JUST eating less food. Not to mention, If you do H.I.T with some weights it's even more calories burned as resistance has a longer after burn as the muscles are damaged and they require more energy to repair than running for 2 miles. You also get the opportunity to look better than JUST eating 500 less calories of food each day, a toned body looks great. If you could get toned from just eating less sign me up, but that is not how it works, we have to have resistance!
So yes, do your cardio, but also weight lifts if you can't lift do do some Calisthenics (body weight resistance like push ups, body squats) continue to watch your calories or take measurements.
I often see the real confusion coming from people exercising yet, still eat 3 double whoppers at Burger King, which are roughly 970 calories each or something similar! OUCH! So, I STRESS know your caloric maintenance, create a deficit with what is more convenient for you and you'll be fine!0 -
It's a little tricky to saying "there is no fat burning exercise" Of course there is, the problem is there is no target fat loss on your body, you can't just lose fat in your stomach by doing crunches, running whatever! Although, you can lose overal body fat percentage which is usually the goal, and if not should be when losing fat. But as you'll see I WILL STRESS over and over know your maintenance calories.
It's an overall energy consumption, the body goes into fat stores when there is a deficit in energy regardless if from less food (less caloric intake) mixture of both or just an exercise energy deficit( being in a negative in calories from exercise) a deficit is a deficit regardless of how you are achieving it( though you fuel your body better when it has more food). Some people find just eating less is the best way for them, but statistically people in that category fail, as they tend to go back to not counting calories, not measuring their body and eating like they use to. So, don't forget consistency!
I can tell you I personally do a mixture of both eating less and cardio if I am trying to lose some fat. It should be noted that I do weight training too, so I will be a little different. Regardless, one pound of fat is potentially 3500 calories, so if you can have a negative 500 calories(if you're trying to lose 1 pounds a week, you could do half a pounds and make it even easier, 250 calories instead) everyday in some form or another the body should burn 1 pound of fat that is stored.( KNOW YOUR MAINTENANCE and keep updating as you go. ) I'm sure people will be like "you lose fluids, muscle and other stuff too." The ultimate goal is weight loss, not building tons of muscle... There are sacrifices in life when cutting weight, and putting on weight it's just how it is.
OP, I believe High Intensity cardio is the best for managing time and works better than JUST eating less food. Not to mention, If you do H.I.T with some weights it's even more calories burned as resistance has a longer after burn as the muscles are damaged and they require more energy to repair than running for 2 miles. You also get the opportunity to look better than JUST eating 500 less calories of food each day, a toned body looks great. If you could get toned from just eating less sign me up, but that is not how it works, we have to have resistance!
So yes, do your cardio, but also weight lifts if you can't lift do do some Calisthenics (body weight resistance like push ups, body squats) continue to watch your calories or take measurements.
I often see the real confusion coming from people exercising yet, still eat 3 double whoppers at Burger King, which are roughly 970 calories each or something similar! OUCH! So, I STRESS know your caloric maintenance, create a deficit with what is more convenient for you and you'll be fine!
Thank you so much for your infomartive response will be taking it all on board, cheers!
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »FlabToFitty wrote: »I lose 1000 calories within that time.I'm thinking if I should do 2 hours.
So I'd infer from these two points that you're not losing as fast as you think you should be?
Notwithstanding the points above if you're thinking of increasing your time that suggests to me that you see that as a way to burn more calories? I'd suggest that your problem is more that you're significantly overestimating your calorie expenditure during the 90 minutes you currently do.
What sort of cario do you do, and what makes you think you're burning 1000calories during the 90 minutes of that?
The machines I use tell me how many calories I've worked off
0 -
FlabToFitty wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »FlabToFitty wrote: »I lose 1000 calories within that time.I'm thinking if I should do 2 hours.
So I'd infer from these two points that you're not losing as fast as you think you should be?
Notwithstanding the points above if you're thinking of increasing your time that suggests to me that you see that as a way to burn more calories? I'd suggest that your problem is more that you're significantly overestimating your calorie expenditure during the 90 minutes you currently do.
What sort of cario do you do, and what makes you think you're burning 1000calories during the 90 minutes of that?
The machines I use tell me how many calories I've worked off
And they tend to grossly overestimate.0 -
FlabToFitty wrote: »
The machines I use tell me how many calories I've worked off
I wouldn't rely on the machines estimates of your expenditure....what are you doing during your workouts? (Personally I'd have to run, non-stop, for about 80 minutes @ 6mph to burn 1000 calories)
0 -
1 hour is more than plenty. What does your diet look like, though? I'd be more concerned about that at this point, really.0
-
FlabToFitty wrote: »The machines I use tell me how many calories I've worked off
It's likely to be a significant overestimation. Thats 10 miles of running for me.
0 -
ValerieMartini2Olives wrote: »FlabToFitty wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »FlabToFitty wrote: »I lose 1000 calories within that time.I'm thinking if I should do 2 hours.
So I'd infer from these two points that you're not losing as fast as you think you should be?
Notwithstanding the points above if you're thinking of increasing your time that suggests to me that you see that as a way to burn more calories? I'd suggest that your problem is more that you're significantly overestimating your calorie expenditure during the 90 minutes you currently do.
What sort of cario do you do, and what makes you think you're burning 1000calories during the 90 minutes of that?
The machines I use tell me how many calories I've worked off
And they tend to grossly overestimate.BrianSharpe wrote: »FlabToFitty wrote: »
The machines I use tell me how many calories I've worked off
I wouldn't rely on the machines estimates of your expenditure....what are you doing during your workouts? (Personally I'd have to run, non-stop, for about 80 minutes @ 6mph to burn 1000 calories)MeanderingMammal wrote: »FlabToFitty wrote: »The machines I use tell me how many calories I've worked off
It's likely to be a significant overestimation. Thats 10 miles of running for me.
Okay thanks so then how else will I measure how many calories I burn?
0 -
It's a crap shoot. Eat back 50 to 75%. and track your weight closely. Adjust up or down your calorie burn intake.0
-
You should only do 2 hours of cardio if it helps you meet a goal. Otherwise, it's optional, as is all exercise if your only goals are weight loss.
As for calculating any realistic calorie burn, compare the machines to known MET values, accepted formulas, or other metrics. Machines vary quite a bit, some are accurate, some are not. Whether or not 600 calories per hour is even close depends on your weight and your output.0 -
FlabToFitty wrote: »ValerieMartini2Olives wrote: »FlabToFitty wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »FlabToFitty wrote: »I lose 1000 calories within that time.I'm thinking if I should do 2 hours.
So I'd infer from these two points that you're not losing as fast as you think you should be?
Notwithstanding the points above if you're thinking of increasing your time that suggests to me that you see that as a way to burn more calories? I'd suggest that your problem is more that you're significantly overestimating your calorie expenditure during the 90 minutes you currently do.
What sort of cario do you do, and what makes you think you're burning 1000calories during the 90 minutes of that?
The machines I use tell me how many calories I've worked off
And they tend to grossly overestimate.BrianSharpe wrote: »FlabToFitty wrote: »
The machines I use tell me how many calories I've worked off
I wouldn't rely on the machines estimates of your expenditure....what are you doing during your workouts? (Personally I'd have to run, non-stop, for about 80 minutes @ 6mph to burn 1000 calories)MeanderingMammal wrote: »FlabToFitty wrote: »The machines I use tell me how many calories I've worked off
It's likely to be a significant overestimation. Thats 10 miles of running for me.
Okay thanks so then how else will I measure how many calories I burn?
I never had a problems with machines in the early stages. Even now I can get away with elliptical/treadmill/indoor cycling burns that use my weight/age as input. What you need to rely on is your average weight loss rate, Going up to 2 hours a day if you dont plan on doing that forever is not a good thing. look at your results and identify if the exercise estimates are off, or your eating estimates are off.0 -
Calorie deficit=weight loss
You could do cardio 5 hours a day, but unless you eat less calories than you burn, you will not lose weight, and if you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight.0 -
Do your cardio after strength training. You'll get the most out of your strength training session. At least that's what I've found to be true, perhaps it's broscience nowadays. (Glycogen stores being depleted, etc.)
0 -
FlabToFitty wrote: »
Okay thanks so then how else will I measure how many calories I burn?
You could start by answering my earlier question about what your workouts consist of.
If, for example, you were walking on a treadmill without a significant incline and under 5 mph you could use Runner Worlds formula of .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) to get a reasonable estimate.
I'm not a fan or heart rate monitors as many of them overestimate too (many of them assume that there's a linear relationship between heart rate an caloric expenditure)
0 -
20yearsyounger wrote: »I never had a problems with machines in the early stages.
For me, I rarely find them accurate. I had to resort to a treadmill the other night as I'd picked up a mild injury at a race last weekend and needed to work it off. The lifefitness machine estimated 600 cals in about 20 minutes, rather than the hour I'd expect it to take.
Completely OTT.
Lifefitness bike then estimated nearly 300 cals for another 20 minutes.
0 -
People tend to say machines overestimate calorie burn but ive used a treadmill and elliptical with a hrm and they seem to be the same?
Are both wrong?0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »20yearsyounger wrote: »I never had a problems with machines in the early stages.
For me, I rarely find them accurate. I had to resort to a treadmill the other night as I'd picked up a mild injury at a race last weekend and needed to work it off. The lifefitness machine estimated 600 cals in about 20 minutes, rather than the hour I'd expect it to take.
Completely OTT.
Lifefitness bike then estimated nearly 300 cals for another 20 minutes.
yeah your first estimate seemed ridiculous. I guess I am lucky. I get roughly the same 100 cal per mile at the 155 setting at avg 6mph. When I started tracking at 180, I got 800-900 cal/hr on a bike/elliptical and lost on that.0 -
They are both wrong if you use those numbers, estimate your food correctly, but you are not getting the desired results. If you are getting the desired results, keep foing until you dont.People tend to say machines overestimate calorie burn but ive used a treadmill and elliptical with a hrm and they seem to be the same?
Are both wrong?
0 -
People tend to say machines overestimate calorie burn but ive used a treadmill and elliptical with a hrm and they seem to be the same?
Are both wrong?
People tend to say a lot of things that may or may not be true, depending on what they experience.
For the treadmill you could use standard formulas to compare for walking or running, though you would have to calculate the walk vs run time individually.
runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning
That link gives numbers at the bottom to calculate on speed and size.
For an elliptical figuring out if it's near correct would be harder, but if you know your heart rate at steady state running and actual calorie burn for running, you could use that as a gauge to see if the effort on the elliptical and calorie burn are close or way off.
It could be that your HRM and the machines you use are all close, it could be that they all estimate high, or maybe even low. It all boils down to the quality and power measures of each, along with the algorithms they use.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