Weight lifting doesn't burn fat
Options
Replies
-
Danicandothis wrote: »
That's what my doctor told me. I went in for a wellness check. I workout. I eat reasonably well and I'm not losing weight. She told me to increase cardio and do less weight lifting. I think she wrong.
Some background: i'm 5'1, currently 230lbs. 40 years old. I work out 4-5 days a week 3-4 days of weight lifting. An hour per session. 3 cardio sessions (Zumba) per week. I eat 1800 calories a day. I measure everything.
My math has me at about a 4,000 calorie deficit per week.
What am I missing?
Dani, what do you think about keeping track of your measurements? Are you noticing a difference in how your clothing fits?Since toned muscle is a lot smaller in size than an equal weight of fat, could you possibly be developing muscle along with fat loss so the weight loss numbers aren't what you would like right now?6 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is solely the fact that walking means always having one foot on the ground, while running will have at at times both feet off the ground.
OED:
Move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.
The latter part is what's definitive. It's absolutely possible to run slower than your fastest walking speed. The difference is not speed but the moment of suspension. In walking, both feet are on the ground at the same time for part of the stride. In running, the first foot leaves the ground before the second foot lands (even if only fractionally). So you're actually entirely off the ground, however briefly.
ETA note that the reason the OED wording is slightly vague is it's giving a generalised definition for all animals. Animals with more than two feet have any number of different running gaits. We only have one - one foot at a time with a moment of suspension between.4 -
Danicandothis wrote: »
That's what my doctor told me. I went in for a wellness check. I workout. I eat reasonably well and I'm not losing weight. She told me to increase cardio and do less weight lifting. I think she wrong.
Some background: i'm 5'1, currently 230lbs. 40 years old. I work out 4-5 days a week 3-4 days of weight lifting. An hour per session. 3 cardio sessions (Zumba) per week. I eat 1800 calories a day. I measure everything.
My math has me at about a 4,000 calorie deficit per week.
What am I missing?
Dani, what do you think about keeping track of your measurements? Are you noticing a difference in how your clothing fits?Since toned muscle is a lot smaller in size than an equal weight of fat, could you possibly be developing muscle along with fat loss so the weight loss numbers aren't what you would like right now?
I haven't. But I'm going to start
1 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is solely the fact that walking means always having one foot on the ground, while running will have at at times both feet off the ground.
OED:
Move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.
Thanks for proving my point.1 -
Note for weighing liquids: anything that's thin like water, close enough is good enough according to my last research on this. Milk, lemon juice and the like. Oil? Not so much.
Anyway, the metric is that 1 gram equals 1 ml.5 -
Danicandothis wrote: »
That's what my doctor told me. I went in for a wellness check. I workout. I eat reasonably well and I'm not losing weight. She told me to increase cardio and do less weight lifting. I think she wrong.
Some background: i'm 5'1, currently 230lbs. 40 years old. I work out 4-5 days a week 3-4 days of weight lifting. An hour per session. 3 cardio sessions (Zumba) per week. I eat 1800 calories a day. I measure everything.
My math has me at about a 4,000 calorie deficit per week.
What am I missing?
Dani, what do you think about keeping track of your measurements? Are you noticing a difference in how your clothing fits?Since toned muscle is a lot smaller in size than an equal weight of fat, could you possibly be developing muscle along with fat loss so the weight loss numbers aren't what you would like right now?
you dont have toned muscle. you either have muscle or have a toned appearance. its also hard to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time and its not going to equal out to where the scale hasnt moved5 -
Give yourself a few weeks of weighing all food and see what happens. If the exercise you are doing is making you happy and feels like a sustainable amount stick with it, otherwise try changing it up, try some new things, maybe switch out a zumba with an elliptical day or try running or run walk intervals. Definitely don't give up weights completely because although cardio will give you a bigger initial calorie deficit the weights are "playing the long game"...investing in a better metabolism later.
Speaking to general health, do you have any other issues you are concerned with? Have you looked through the symptoms of hypothyroidism/hashimotos, or PCOS? do you have a goiter/chicken bone feeling in your throat? If any of this sounds familiar it would likely be a good idea to request a blood panel from your doctor. I used to be able to drop weight very easily but it is a lot slower now regardless of my deficit. It can be so frustrating if you don't know what is going on....for me it was hashimotos. Knowledge is power.3 -
Another point on the logging. Don't use complete dishes in the database. Like the pasta, if you haven't put that recipe in yourself it could be anything as it will be user created. I just cook for myself so I tend to skip the builder and just enter the ingredients in my day, either all of them to cover several days (and not log that meal for the next however many days it's being eaten) or split it over a few days. All works itself out with the weekly average.2
-
.VintageFeline wrote: »Another point on the logging. Don't use complete dishes in the database. Like the pasta, if you haven't put that recipe in yourself it could be anything as it will be user created. I just cook for myself so I tend to skip the builder and just enter the ingredients in my day, either all of them to cover several days (and not log that meal for the next however many days it's being eaten) or split it over a few days. All works itself out with the weekly average.
It was a recipe I built. I don't trust a lot of the pre set things that can be searched. Too much left up to be inaccurate
1 -
.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is solely the fact that walking means always having one foot on the ground, while running will have at at times both feet off the ground.
OED:
Move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.
The latter part is what's definitive. It's absolutely possible to run slower than your fastest walking speed. The difference is not speed but the moment of suspension. In walking, both feet are on the ground at the same time for part of the stride. In running, the first foot leaves the ground before the second foot lands (even if only fractionally). So you're actually entirely off the ground, however briefly.
ETA note that the reason the OED wording is slightly vague is it's giving a generalised definition for all animals. Animals with more than two feet have any number of different running gaits. We only have one - one foot at a time with a moment of suspension between.
The first part is there for a reason.
You don't get to pick and choose what's relevant. I'm not looking for a debate where there's a clear answer and understanding. Running is primarily differentiated from walking by speed.
Do you run?
I don't. I've tried but it's not been my thing
1 -
At your height and weight, I don't think 1800 calories is really a deficit if you that doesn't include your exercise calories.
Wrist heart monitors are not as accurate at chest monitors for cardio output. 1800 cals a day seems more maintenance than loss.
Try eating 1200 base and eating back calories from a chest strap monitor.
1 -
Danicandothis wrote: »
.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »scarlett_k wrote: »Are you eating your exercise calories back? Fitbit doesn't work for many people. Hey, it gave me the same calories for a 14km run as for a 14km walk! And the running was already too high by about 350kcal! Running burns more than twice the calories as normal walking. Thus please be careful if you're eating your exercise calories back.
You expend the same amount of calories whether you walk or run the same distance, so that isn't wrong, although the calories may be inaccurate.
No running burns quite a bit more than walking.
I was interested in this, as I also thought the burn was the same (there used to be an old healthy living advert here that said so). After briefly looking at it, it seems the difference isn't so much between running or walking, but about speed. The faster you walk, the more you burn per mile. Same with running. But at say 12min/mile, it seems like running and walking burn about the same.
As I say, just a quick Google, but interesting nonetheless. I have to say, it seems to me that any generalised calorie burn for running and walking could be quite far out, as it'll vary massively with weight, fitness and training. An experienced walker or runner with good form will burn much less per mile than someone who is overweight, unfit and clumping along any old how.
The difference between running and walking IS speed.
Nope. The difference between running and walking is solely the fact that walking means always having one foot on the ground, while running will have at at times both feet off the ground.
OED:
Move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.
The latter part is what's definitive. It's absolutely possible to run slower than your fastest walking speed. The difference is not speed but the moment of suspension. In walking, both feet are on the ground at the same time for part of the stride. In running, the first foot leaves the ground before the second foot lands (even if only fractionally). So you're actually entirely off the ground, however briefly.
ETA note that the reason the OED wording is slightly vague is it's giving a generalised definition for all animals. Animals with more than two feet have any number of different running gaits. We only have one - one foot at a time with a moment of suspension between.
The first part is there for a reason.
You don't get to pick and choose what's relevant. I'm not looking for a debate where there's a clear answer and understanding. Running is primarily differentiated from walking by speed.
Do you run?
I don't. I've tried but it's not been my thing
Sorry, that was directed to the person who keeps derailing this conversation by trying to define running incorrectly.
I don't think he actually runs, because anyone who does knows it's not defined by speed but by gait.
Keep doing your weight training and Zumba!
I'm not a classes person and am too uncoordinated for Zumba. I think I'd end up tripping myself!7 -
Just to chime in with everyone saying 1800 could be maintenance because of her height. She's also 230lbs. My maintenance now, excluding exercise at 5'5 and 160lbs is 1800. I think the issue here is logging accuracy. Her TDEE is definitely more than 1800 when you add in the exercise.7
-
At your height and weight, I don't think 1800 calories is really a deficit if you that doesn't include your exercise calories.
Assuming accurate logging, this is almost exactly what MFP gave me as my current goal at 5'2 and 188 lbs for a half pound loss a week. OP is totally fine at a similar height, similar age, and current heavier weight. I've lost 20 lbs over the past seven months averaging 2000-2400 calories. And I'm fairly sedentary, too.
ETA: I mathed it out and I'd be at about a 4K deficit a week too if I managed to keep to 1800 calories. Which I don't generally, but like I said, I am still losing weight at around 2000. I wouldn't be shocked at all if the OP's tracking were off 500-600 calories between under logging and over crediting the weight lifting.4 -
Danicandothis wrote: »
.VintageFeline wrote: »Another point on the logging. Don't use complete dishes in the database. Like the pasta, if you haven't put that recipe in yourself it could be anything as it will be user created. I just cook for myself so I tend to skip the builder and just enter the ingredients in my day, either all of them to cover several days (and not log that meal for the next however many days it's being eaten) or split it over a few days. All works itself out with the weekly average.
It was a recipe I built. I don't trust a lot of the pre set things that can be searched. Too much left up to be inaccurate
Good. The database is full of horrible information. Enter your recipes, use the scale to weigh your foods. Stick with the 1800 for now, and see what happens over the next 4-6 weeks. Then consider dropping the calories by 100-200 if the weighing thing isn't making the difference for you. And yes, weighing your foods can make a significant difference.3 -
Danicandothis wrote: »Even if my calories are off on my fit bit I don't eat any of them back so shouldn't I still be in a calorie deficit even if the calories are overestimated
That leaves the issue of whether you're calculating your food intake accurately. Use a scale and remember the calories counts are only estimates. The caloric content of fruit can change depending on how ripe it is. With meat, it can depend on how the animal was fed and how much fat it has. Manufacturers are given some latitude in estimating calories.
You have to keep careful records and make judgments. There are many variables.
Weigh yourself frequently, every morning if possible.
4 -
Danicandothis wrote: »Even if my calories are off on my fit bit I don't eat any of them back so shouldn't I still be in a calorie deficit even if the calories are overestimated
That leaves the issue of whether you're calculating your food intake accurately. Use a scale and remember the calories counts are only estimates. The caloric content of fruit can change depending on how ripe it is. With meat, it can depend on how the animal was fed and how much fat it has. Manufacturers are given some latitude in estimating calories.
You have to keep careful records and make judgments. There are many variables.
These are minor issues. Close enough is good enough for meat and produce.5 -
OP, one piece of advice for accurate logging is to verify data base entries with the USDA data base. Use standard reference entries, not manufacturer data for items.
Here's a link: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list6 -
Fat Loss Wars: Cardio Versus Weight Training! By Shannon Clark November 04, 2015 •
We are going to give weight training a point in the fat loss wars due to the calorie burn after the workout is completed. Find out more right here as the battle for fat loss success heats up between cardio and weight training.
If you were to propose the following situation to the average gym-goer, it would probably play down something like this.
"When you want to do lose fat you do what?"
"And, when you want to build muscle, what happens then?"
They would respond that when they want to lose fat, they start doing more cardio. When they want to build muscle, well naturally, they weight train. Seems to make sense. Cardio burns off calories; weight training makes you gain weight.
s this really accurate though? Could weight training strictly be used for fat loss - with no cardio at all? You bet.
Falling for this common misconception is one of the biggest mistakes you could make and will not only hinder your progress, but will leave you not quite looking as you hoped.
Here's why.
WEIGHT TRAINING AND METABOLIC INCREASES FOR THE PERIOD FOLLOWING ///
With Cardio Training, You Might Get An Extra 40-80 Calories Burned. The first reason we are going to give weight training a point in the fat loss wars against cardio training is due to the calorie burn after the workout is completed.
Studies have demonstrated that after a weight training workout, the metabolism can be boosted for up to 36 hours post-workout, meaning rather than burning say 60 calories an hour while sitting and watching TV, you're burning 70. While you may think, 'Big deal - 10 extra calories', when you multiply this by 36 hours, you can see what a huge difference that makes in your daily calorie expenditure over that day and a half.
When you figure out that on a monthly rate, it becomes even clearer how regular participation in a weight lifting session will really increase your calorie burning and thus fat burning capacity.
With cardio training, you might get an extra 40-80 calories burned after a moderate paced session, and this will depend upon the exact intensity and duration of the workout.
In order to generate a high amount of post-calorie burn from aerobics, you'd have to be doing it for a very long duration of time, and typically individuals who are capable of doing such a thing, don't need to be concerned with fat loss in the first place.
Now, sprinting is a slightly different story and will create effects with your metabolic rate closer to that of weight lifting, so that's something to consider as well. With this, you must be sprinting hard in order for benefits to be seen though, which is something some people will struggle with10 -
Danicandothis wrote: »Yes. And I use my fit bit heart rate monitor to track my calories burned from workouts
From my personal experience when I was eating back my exercise calories I wasn't losing at all. So I started to eat only the suggested daily calorie intake and not the work out calories. Then I started to lose again. And few times in a month I do eat 100-200 calories up than daily target.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions