Home body weight exercises or gym weight training?
littlebabekitty
Posts: 398 Member
My goal is to loose fat and tone and gain muscle. I am currently at 148lbs my goal weight is 130lb. I am 5'4".
I do not have a gym membership at the moment.
I would like to know if its possible to gain muscle at home at the same rate and quality doing body weight exercise to weight training at the gym.
Can I really gain muscle body training at home with no equipment but my body? Or should I sign up for gym?
I do not have a gym membership at the moment.
I would like to know if its possible to gain muscle at home at the same rate and quality doing body weight exercise to weight training at the gym.
Can I really gain muscle body training at home with no equipment but my body? Or should I sign up for gym?
0
Replies
-
It depends. If you are under-muscled for your weight (aka "skinny fat" or, having a body fat percentage higher than your BMI would suggest) then yes, you definitely can... but there's going to be a limit to how much you can gain. You won't see any body builders achieving competitive levels on body-weight only exercise programs.
On the other hand, body-weight exercises can definitely build strength, and stamina, burn fat, and improve definition, regardless of your starting point.
With a weight loss goal of 18 pounds, body-weight exercise is a very good place to start, then as you get to or near your goal you can get a better assessment whether you wish to be more "cut" looking.4 -
rodsteph777 wrote: »My goal is to loose fat and tone and gain muscle. I am currently at 148lbs my goal weight is 130lb. I am 5'4".
Gaining muscle and losing fat are pretty much incompatible goals, as you are required to be in a caloric surplus to gain muscle mass - which in turn, gains fat.
As for body weight training vs gym training - gym training is definitely alot more fun in the long term. You'll likely get bored of home training very quickly. The resistance offered by weight training also can't really be compared to that of calisthenics.
Is there any particular reason you don't want to go to the gym? Calisthenics/Home workouts are great for people who don't have the time or money for the gym. But it all depends on what suits you. The best form of training is the one you enjoy and can stay consistent with.
I hope this helps, feel free to contact me for any more tips/advice.
2 -
rodsteph777 wrote: »My goal is to loose fat and tone and gain muscle. I am currently at 148lbs my goal weight is 130lb. I am 5'4".
I do not have a gym membership at the moment.
I would like to know if its possible to gain muscle at home at the same rate and quality doing body weight exercise to weight training at the gym.
Can I really gain muscle body training at home with no equipment but my body? Or should I sign up for gym?
Yes you absolutely can while training at home. But often times it's just easier to progress with weights because you just add more. It also depends on your personality, some enjoy home workouts, some enjoy the gym. Neither is better or worse. Some at home resources are convict conditioning, you are your own gym, Al Kavadlo, GMB fitness, and nerd fitness.4 -
If you’re only option is at home training, you will need to get yourself some equipment.
I suggest this book as a read. Will give you a weekly workout program. The exercises have adaptations that you can do at home as long as you have a little variety of weights and an exercise ball. I found this book a great resource for any women starting exercise/ lifting.
The New Rules Of Lifting for Women.
2 -
For sure, the best option is the gym unless you can have your own gym at home. To build muscles to the maximum potential, you need to do progressive overload. You need weights that you can increase over time, that's how strength and muscles can be build to the maximum of it's potential. Not saying you can't do it with home exercises, but unless you have something to make things heavier, it will be tough because your body will adapt to your body weight and when the body adapts, your not stimulating any growth.2
-
I would say that you could get some good results but it would not be as good as a hypertrophy based weight training program. Bodyweight programs are great but size is not the primary goal whereas a hypertrophy based program is focused on the best techniques to maximize muscle growth. Even a powerlifting program does not give the same gains in muscle as a bodybuilding program.
However, as a beginner you can make fast and impressive gains for the first year or so on bodyweight alone.1 -
SimonNTaylor wrote: »Gaining muscle and losing fat are pretty much incompatible goals, as you are required to be in a caloric surplus to gain muscle mass - which in turn, gains fat.
That is not actually true. Muscle repair and generation are both part of your TDEE. What you need to build muscle is sufficient protein and micronutrients, work overload to spur the muscle growth/adaptation, and enough energy to meet your total expenditure. The body works on energy balance. Any actual -surplus- in calories becomes fat - only.
Further, your energy balance does not have to come entirely from dietary intake. Fat is a reserve of energy. If your dietary calories are below your TDEE, the body will burn fat to make up the energy difference. And the body will pretty well adapt to the demands that are placed on it. There are really only two circumstance in which the body will "refuse" to build muscle if you are supplying the components and doing the work. 1. is if your body fat is already near or below optimum essential levels. The body does not want to burn off fat that it needs to function. Body builders have an extremely difficult time trying to recomposition because they are already down to essential fat levels and the body resists what it sees as a threat to function. Regular people don't have that issue.
2. If one's dietary calorie deficit is too extreme, the body will attempt to stretch out it's fat reserves by reducing energy output, including shutting down non-essential functions. In such a case, the body's refusal to build new muscle will be signaled by a failure in the ability to do the work. If this happens when in a progressive lifting regimen, you'll either stall or actually lose ground in the amount of weight you can lift. But this degree of adaptive thermogenisis (aka: starvation mode) requires a pretty severe dietary deficit.
Most people can successfully recomp, burn fat to provide the energy for muscle gains, on a dietary calorie level close to their -sedentary- maintenance needs. The body doesn't strenuously resist burning fat to provide activity and recovery energy unless basic functions are being threatened.
The more fat one has stored up, the more easily the body will let go of it, so the rate of recomp is much higher for obese people than those who are near normal weight.
11 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »SimonNTaylor wrote: »Gaining muscle and losing fat are pretty much incompatible goals, as you are required to be in a caloric surplus to gain muscle mass - which in turn, gains fat.
That is not actually true. Muscle repair and generation are both part of your TDEE. What you need to build muscle is sufficient protein and micronutrients, work overload to spur the muscle growth/adaptation, and enough energy to meet your total expenditure. The body works on energy balance. Any actual -surplus- in calories becomes fat - only.
Further, your energy balance does not have to come entirely from dietary intake. Fat is a reserve of energy. If your dietary calories are below your TDEE, the body will burn fat to make up the energy difference. And the body will pretty well adapt to the demands that are placed on it. There are really only two circumstance in which the body will "refuse" to build muscle if you are supplying the components and doing the work. 1. is if your body fat is already near or below optimum essential levels. The body does not want to burn off fat that it needs to function. Body builders have an extremely difficult time trying to recomposition because they are already down to essential fat levels and the body resists what it sees as a threat to function. Regular people don't have that issue.
2. If one's dietary calorie deficit is too extreme, the body will attempt to stretch out it's fat reserves by reducing energy output, including shutting down non-essential functions. In such a case, the body's refusal to build new muscle will be signaled by a failure in the ability to do the work. If this happens when in a progressive lifting regimen, you'll either stall or actually lose ground in the amount of weight you can lift. But this degree of adaptive thermogenisis (aka: starvation mode) requires a pretty severe dietary deficit.
Most people can successfully recomp, burn fat to provide the energy for muscle gains, on a dietary calorie level close to their -sedentary- maintenance needs. The body doesn't strenuously resist burning fat to provide activity and recovery energy unless basic functions are being threatened.
The more fat one has stored up, the more easily the body will let go of it, so the rate of recomp is much higher for obese people than those who are near normal weight.
Thank you. It is very informative.0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »SimonNTaylor wrote: »Gaining muscle and losing fat are pretty much incompatible goals, as you are required to be in a caloric surplus to gain muscle mass - which in turn, gains fat.
That is not actually true. Muscle repair and generation are both part of your TDEE. What you need to build muscle is sufficient protein and micronutrients, work overload to spur the muscle growth/adaptation, and enough energy to meet your total expenditure. The body works on energy balance. Any actual -surplus- in calories becomes fat - only.
Further, your energy balance does not have to come entirely from dietary intake. Fat is a reserve of energy. If your dietary calories are below your TDEE, the body will burn fat to make up the energy difference. And the body will pretty well adapt to the demands that are placed on it. There are really only two circumstance in which the body will "refuse" to build muscle if you are supplying the components and doing the work. 1. is if your body fat is already near or below optimum essential levels. The body does not want to burn off fat that it needs to function. Body builders have an extremely difficult time trying to recomposition because they are already down to essential fat levels and the body resists what it sees as a threat to function. Regular people don't have that issue.
2. If one's dietary calorie deficit is too extreme, the body will attempt to stretch out it's fat reserves by reducing energy output, including shutting down non-essential functions. In such a case, the body's refusal to build new muscle will be signaled by a failure in the ability to do the work. If this happens when in a progressive lifting regimen, you'll either stall or actually lose ground in the amount of weight you can lift. But this degree of adaptive thermogenisis (aka: starvation mode) requires a pretty severe dietary deficit.
Most people can successfully recomp, burn fat to provide the energy for muscle gains, on a dietary calorie level close to their -sedentary- maintenance needs. The body doesn't strenuously resist burning fat to provide activity and recovery energy unless basic functions are being threatened.
The more fat one has stored up, the more easily the body will let go of it, so the rate of recomp is much higher for obese people than those who are near normal weight.
Thank you. It is very informative.
It's also not very correct.3 -
And why not?0
-
MarkusDarwath wrote: »And why not?
I actually wrote a huge response but my service crashed so apologies for the terse response.
The issue has to do with the basic biochem of AMPK, and it's relationship to MTOR, insulin, IGF-1, and various other substances which control muscle growth. Unlike almost every other cell in the body, skeletal muscle growth, and even regeneration, is tightly controlled by the body since it costs a lot of energy to sustain let alone grow. Muscle growth during a caloric deficit is anathema to our evolution as it is counterproductive to our survival during famine -- this is where adaptive thermogenesis comes into play but you are a bit muddled on the concepts involved there and mix it up with starvation mode, which occurs when the body is below 4% BF.
It does seem possible that in a mild deficit, with regular intake of food, that there can be some gain of muscle along with some loss of fat, but this hasn't been conclusively proven to my mind. I have seen some studies that seem to suggest that, in the short-term, untrained/deconditioned individuals may be able accomplish both simultaneously but the reporting is usual in group terms and I haven't actually seen a study that shows that it applied to individuals and to what magnitude the effects were. You can actually have a group that does both on aggregate but no individual actually did both, and I'll leave the proof of this to the reader, it's not really hard to figure out such data sets.
In generally, you need to feed your body in order to cause it release insulin and IGF-1 which lower AMPK levels. AMPK can be thought of as a fat thermostat for the body. When it goes up, more fat than carbohydrates are burned, and when it goes down the reverse occurs. However, AMPK also inhibits the attraction of MTOR into the skeletal muscle cells (this does not occur in other cells except brain and liver it seems). Once AMPK switches the body into fasted status (the higher fat burning ratio) MTOR is supressed and muscle synthesis stops. Using energy from fat, which we always do anyway does not supress AMPK, and as motioned, high AMPK actually increases the fat to carb burn ratio.
You can lose fat and build muscle over a period of time if you are in a slight caloric surplus a some times and slight caloric deficit at others is my take on the research since that is the only way it would seem to reconcile with the biochemistry that we understand at this point. In any event, even the studies that show that it is possible to do both don't show it happening at the exact same time but rather over the course of time with a slight deficit only. This coincides with my hypothesis.
However, this also corresponds more with recomp than a weight loss diet that most would partake in.
3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Muscle growth during a caloric deficit is anathema to our evolution as it is counterproductive to our survival during famine -- this is where adaptive thermogenesis comes into play but you are a bit muddled on the concepts involved there and mix it up with starvation mode, which occurs when the body is below 4% BF.
I disagree on the evolution thing. Until modern times, acquiring food has always required work, and in lean times it often required extra work. Of course I'm not talking about full-on famine, where our ancestors would have gone days without eating, but simply those times when food was less plentiful (bad growing season, or herds moved and had to be tracked farther.) If the body was too resistant to adapting to an increased work load it would have been less likely to get back to normal food volumes.
When I referred to "starvation mode" I meant the term in the more common vernacular of thermogenic adaptation to a severe calorie shortage. This happens well before BF gets low. Heck, we've all seen posts where a user's weight loss stalled out on a low calorie diet and they got it going again by eating a little more. There seems to be a threshold on dietary deficit at which the body becomes more stingy with it's fat reserves and energy expenditures, even when there is more than ample fat to burn for a long time. But I was never suggesting one could recomp at a large dietary deficit. You basically have to be in a calorie range where your exercise is what creates the deficit, and muscle gains are generally going to be small and slow (other than potential 'beginner gains' for those who haven't done strength training before)It does seem possible that in a mild deficit, with regular intake of food, that there can be some gain of muscle along with some loss of fat,
This is all I was talking about, and mainly wanted to dispute the idea that it's 'impossible' to gain muscle without consuming enough calories to also put on fat. Again, the trick is to be at or above maintenance for a sedentary activity level, but below TDEE. Generally speaking, the fatter one is the more they can burn without shutting down muscle generation just because they use more calories to achieve the same amount of work as a leaner individual, but in no case am I suggesting that one could burn 2+ pounds of fat per week while adding half a pound or more of muscle. In most cases for successful recomp, dietary intake is going to be less than 1000 calories shy of TDEE (if for no other reason than it's hard and time-consuming to do 1000 calorie workouts), and muscle gains equaling even 1/5 of the pounds lost in fat would be pretty amazing.However, this also corresponds more with recomp than a weight loss diet that most would partake in.
Yes. The op seemed interested in both fat loss and strength building, but the targets in either regard weren't huge, so I figured it might be an approach they would be interested in. It's definitely a slower process overall, but slower changes are usually more sustainable. There's also the benefit that smaller dietary calorie deficits are generally easier to stick with.
5 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Muscle growth during a caloric deficit is anathema to our evolution as it is counterproductive to our survival during famine -- this is where adaptive thermogenesis comes into play but you are a bit muddled on the concepts involved there and mix it up with starvation mode, which occurs when the body is below 4% BF.
I disagree on the evolution thing. Until modern times, acquiring food has always required work, and in lean times it often required extra work. Of course I'm not talking about full-on famine, where our ancestors would have gone days without eating, but simply those times when food was less plentiful (bad growing season, or herds moved and had to be tracked farther.) If the body was too resistant to adapting to an increased work load it would have been less likely to get back to normal food volumes.
When I referred to "starvation mode" I meant the term in the more common vernacular of thermogenic adaptation to a severe calorie shortage. This happens well before BF gets low. Heck, we've all seen posts where a user's weight loss stalled out on a low calorie diet and they got it going again by eating a little more. There seems to be a threshold on dietary deficit at which the body becomes more stingy with it's fat reserves and energy expenditures, even when there is more than ample fat to burn for a long time. But I was never suggesting one could recomp at a large dietary deficit. You basically have to be in a calorie range where your exercise is what creates the deficit, and muscle gains are generally going to be small and slow (other than potential 'beginner gains' for those who haven't done strength training before)It does seem possible that in a mild deficit, with regular intake of food, that there can be some gain of muscle along with some loss of fat,
This is all I was talking about, and mainly wanted to dispute the idea that it's 'impossible' to gain muscle without consuming enough calories to also put on fat. Again, the trick is to be at or above maintenance for a sedentary activity level, but below TDEE. Generally speaking, the fatter one is the more they can burn without shutting down muscle generation just because they use more calories to achieve the same amount of work as a leaner individual, but in no case am I suggesting that one could burn 2+ pounds of fat per week while adding half a pound or more of muscle. In most cases for successful recomp, dietary intake is going to be less than 1000 calories shy of TDEE (if for no other reason than it's hard and time-consuming to do 1000 calorie workouts), and muscle gains equaling even 1/5 of the pounds lost in fat would be pretty amazing.However, this also corresponds more with recomp than a weight loss diet that most would partake in.
Yes. The op seemed interested in both fat loss and strength building, but the targets in either regard weren't huge, so I figured it might be an approach they would be interested in. It's definitely a slower process overall, but slower changes are usually more sustainable. There's also the benefit that smaller dietary calorie deficits are generally easier to stick with.
Muscles are metabolically expensive and we spent a lot of our days foraging and eating insects and plants as well as hunting so it's not as if we needed to be massive beasts just to eat in times of need. If muscles where seen as more essential we would not have the mechanisms I discussed they would be just like every other cell in our bodies. However, the body does preserve a base amount of muscle through various mechanism since we do need a certain amount of strength to gather even foraged food and we can also preserve muscle for a fair amount of time before severe atrophy would cause issues.
Adaptive thermogenesis is not that powerful and only drops the caloric requirements by about 10-12% beyond what would be expected for a similar weight and body composition. So doesn't explain all of the stalling but it would explain some slowing of fat loss. Starvation response is far more drastic but still cannot stop fat loss but does slow metabolism greatly, somewhere around 20%
My post was correct what I saw as the misconceptions in yours. You stated that we could synthesize new muscle through making up the energy deficit strictly through fat and this is different than the oscillations of calories I spoke of as a possible means to achieve the goal of fat loss and muscle gain. I agree that given the proper time and conditions it is possible through the biology we understand rather than misconceptions of fat use. You were trying to clear up those in your post, which means you do have awareness about them as being myths, but you missed the underlying reason and seem to suggest more that we can support through the research. Although I agree I do not want people to misconceive that you could lose large amounts of fat and gain muscle together, which is something that was easy to believe from your original post.
3 -
You can absolutely reach your goals with body weight exercises. 3-4 years ago I went to a personal trainer for four months and during that time the only thing we did was boot camp style, body-weight workouts. I lost almost 30lbs in the process. Lots of burpees, and no running. However diet is going to be your magic key to make it all work. You can workout like a maniac, but if you don’t have proper nutritional plan in place, you will see limited results2
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »My post was correct what I saw as the misconceptions in yours. You stated that we could synthesize new muscle through making up the energy deficit strictly through fat
I do believe this is possible. You seem to have said that maybe it might be but the research is unconvincing. Tell you what, I know one individual is a terrible sample size, but I'll use myself as an experiment since I'm just getting started on my personal program. Just started working out yesterday, but started my diet goals a couple weeks ago so I've got the initial water loss out of the way. Current stats:
M / age 47 / 6'1" / 277# / 37%BF / 102.5# BF / 174.5# LBM
My ultimate goal is 220# @ 15% BF which would put me at 33# BF and 187# LBM... so in total I need to burn 69.5# in fat and put on 12.5# of muscle. My target date for this is 11/17/18.
My current TDEE excluding exercise and assuming an activity level between sedentary and lightly active calculates to 2699 using the Katch-McArdle equation. At my goal weight and composition it would be 2868. My present calorie target is 2500 and I've been pretty consistently below that with a 30/20/50 protein/carb/fat diet.
Body composition is calculated using the body fat % given by my BIA scale, which I understand is not laboratory accurate, but it should be close enough for what I'm doing.
I will try to remember to pull this thread back up every two or three months to update these stats and see what happens. I'll also post my weekly check-ins on my MFP blog page and make sure my food diary is open. Success in losing weight is pretty much a given, at least for a while. We'll see if my LBM goes up in pounds while my weight and BF% come down.
1 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »My post was correct what I saw as the misconceptions in yours. You stated that we could synthesize new muscle through making up the energy deficit strictly through fat
I do believe this is possible. You seem to have said that maybe it might be but the research is unconvincing. Tell you what, I know one individual is a terrible sample size, but I'll use myself as an experiment since I'm just getting started on my personal program. Just started working out yesterday, but started my diet goals a couple weeks ago so I've got the initial water loss out of the way. Current stats:
M / age 47 / 6'1" / 277# / 37%BF / 102.5# BF / 174.5# LBM
My ultimate goal is 220# @ 15% BF which would put me at 33# BF and 187# LBM... so in total I need to burn 69.5# in fat and put on 12.5# of muscle. My target date for this is 11/17/18.
My current TDEE excluding exercise and assuming an activity level between sedentary and lightly active calculates to 2699 using the Katch-McArdle equation. At my goal weight and composition it would be 2868. My present calorie target is 2500 and I've been pretty consistently below that with a 30/20/50 protein/carb/fat diet.
Body composition is calculated using the body fat % given by my BIA scale, which I understand is not laboratory accurate, but it should be close enough for what I'm doing.
I will try to remember to pull this thread back up every two or three months to update these stats and see what happens. I'll also post my weekly check-ins on my MFP blog page and make sure my food diary is open. Success in losing weight is pretty much a given, at least for a while. We'll see if my LBM goes up in pounds while my weight and BF% come down.
Good luck to you. What is your workout program?1 -
Still kind of building it. Trainer has me doing some machine circuit lifts at 4 reps of 15, or at least working with that as a target in order to get the weights dialed in.. then readjust in a couple weeks. I had visions of going hard and heavy on the rowing machine for cardio.... found out real quick that rowing is harder than I thought, so I'll have to work up gradually on that and substitute with the treadmill for a while. I really want to work up to doing HIIT on the rower and lifting somewhat heavy with the large muscle groups (bench and squat). Intending to alternate lifting and cardio days with 1 day off per week.1
-
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Still kind of building it. Trainer has me doing some machine circuit lifts at 4 reps of 15, or at least working with that as a target in order to get the weights dialed in.. then readjust in a couple weeks. I had visions of going hard and heavy on the rowing machine for cardio.... found out real quick that rowing is harder than I thought, so I'll have to work up gradually on that and substitute with the treadmill for a while. I really want to work up to doing HIIT on the rower and lifting somewhat heavy with the large muscle groups (bench and squat). Intending to alternate lifting and cardio days with 1 day off per week.
Rowing is definitely hard work! I take it you are just getting back into it, the first month will be a huge adjustment but then it gets easy. When I came back to the gym it took me about 6 weeks for me to feel really into the groove again. Keep us posted and kill it.
Also, feel free to shoot me a FR, I'm your age and I know how it is to get back into it in your 40's so we have a lot in common.1 -
rodsteph777 wrote: »Can I really gain muscle body training at home with no equipment but my body? Or should I sign up for gym?
Possible?
Yes but you'll never gain as much muscle as you are capable gaining of w/o doing some progressive weight lifting (either at home or in the gym) but, if that is not possible, doing body weight exercises is better than doing nothing at all.
Good luck!4 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »I had visions of going hard and heavy on the rowing machine for cardio.... found out real quick that rowing is harder than I thought, so I'll have to work up gradually on that and substitute with the treadmill for a while.
I really want to work up to doing HIIT on the rower and lifting somewhat heavy with the large muscle groups (bench and squat). Intending to alternate lifting and cardio days with 1 day off per week.
Not sure why you think you need to go "hard and heavy" or do HIIT on a rower to get a good cardio workout.
I am currently rowing 10k meters EVERY DAY on my Concept2 rower and I do so at a pretty moderate pace (as compared w/other rowers listed on C2's website) and I seldom do HIIT on my rower because it is so exhausting and burns so few cals.
FWIW, my normal 10k meter workout is done in 4x2500 meter sets w/a 5 min break in between each set which takes me between 12-12.5 mins per set at a rate of 700-800 cal/hr w/a stroke rate of 28-30 spm, which burns about 550-560 cals in 48-50 mins of effort (or about 1 hr 5 mins including rest time).
This provides me with an excellent cardio workout that makes me sweat and feel a burn w/o preventing me from speaking or collapsing from exhaustion.
Also, FWIW, when I do a "true" tabata type HIIT session which involves doing eight 20 sec max effort and 10 sec rest sets, I only burn about 45 cals in the 4 mins that takes, even though I'm rowing at a rate of 1100+ cals/hr (or 200+ watts) w/a stroke rate of 30-32 spm.
This is a totally exhausting exercise to test the limits of my physical endurance and aerobic (as well as anaeobic) capacity but it has no practical benefit for ordinary training purposes.
I can't speak and am no good for anything else for at 15-20 mins after doing this, which is why I seldom ever do it.
1 -
Not sure why you think you need to go "hard and heavy" or do HIIT on a rower to get a good cardio workout.
Reason one is to spend less time for the calorie burn. By the time I get to the gym and do whatever else I might be doing that day, I don't want to be spending a full hour on cardio. Reason two is that rowing also acts as a supplemental full-body strength exercise, and the harder you push on the stroke the more resistance you get.
But again, my thoughts of doing 30/10 intervals for 20 to 30 minutes were pushed waaayyy into the future yesterday when I kicked my own butt with 3 minutes of rowing and at least 4 breaks (wasn't going for intervals. Was just intending to get my feet wet with about 20 minutes of mild effort.)
0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »
Not sure why you think you need to go "hard and heavy" or do HIIT on a rower to get a good cardio workout.
Reason one is to spend less time for the calorie burn. By the time I get to the gym and do whatever else I might be doing that day, I don't want to be spending a full hour on cardio. Reason two is that rowing also acts as a supplemental full-body strength exercise, and the harder you push on the stroke the more resistance you get.
But again, my thoughts of doing 30/10 intervals for 20 to 30 minutes were pushed waaayyy into the future yesterday when I kicked my own butt with 3 minutes of rowing and at least 4 breaks (wasn't going for intervals. Was just intending to get my feet wet with about 20 minutes of mild effort.)
Your best time to $ is by going at a cadence that you can maintain for 20-40 minutes. As illustrated above, doing HIIT is going to leave you gassed/smoked for a very small caloric burn. Going at a sustainable pace for 20+ minutes will burn more calories and while it should leave you feeling slightly out of breath, it should also leave you feeling more energized the rest of the day.
The test of a good workout isn't that it leaves you feeling like you got run over by a truck for 3 days, but that 6 weeks/months later you're still going and you can chart progression.1 -
I think this is really a lifestyle question. The gym is probably best place to gain muscle but I wouldn't discount how good you could feel by working out with bodyweight type exercises at home (see book "You Are Your Own Gym" -Mark Lauren). Looks like you have little kids in the house and I found I could serve two purposes by taking kids to the nearest playground- they could play while I did chinups, pushups and other bodyweight exercises while they played, climbed, etc. This would culminate in some freeze tag (I'm usually "it) to get some good cardio for 20 minutes. You'll never regret the time you spend with little kids at the playground so who cares if the gains aren't optimal. This also works in the backyard or just about anywhere outside you can go with kids. I also had a double jogging stroller so kids could ride bike while I jogged to and from the playground. The fresh air and sunshine is always good even if chilly.2
-
The gym is the best place to gain muscle, even just using dumbbells only. If the gym is out of the question, good quality resistance bands in various ratings can help replicate many weight and machine exercises at home.
As for the benefit of HIIT vs steady state cardio they both have their place. Steady state cardio (jogging, etc.) is aerobic, meaning it uses oxygen and fat as fuel. It also conditions the heart and lungs better than HIIT because the left ventricle has the opportunity to fill up before the right ventricle empties making the heart stronger. HIIT is anaerobic, using stored carbohydrates as fuel. This allows strength and explosiveness to increase but isn't as beneficial to the heart and lungs as steady state. It's also a better fat burner due to the longer period of increased metabolism after exercising, even though it doesn't use stored fat as fuel like steady state does. But it increases the chance of injury. One HIIT session per week and the rest steady state should allow you to reap the benefits of both.
It is absolutely possible to gain muscle mass and lose fat at the same time or maintain muscle mass while losing fat but it's not easy. Using techniques like intermittent fasting and cycling caloric intake make it possible. If you raise your calorie (and carb) intake on weight training days 20% over TDEE and lower it 20% below TDEE on rest (cardio) days you can recomp and in fact gain muscle while losing fat. But your diet and training have to be on point. You're already using myfitnesspal to dial in your diet, so you're half way there.3 -
When I started losing weight with MFP, I got Jillian's 30 Day Shred, then Ripped in 30. I also tried some of The Firm workouts and Denise Austin. All started with 3lb hand weights. I eventually increased to 7.5lb dumbbells. I also did sets of push-ups and pull-ups at home. Then I learned free weights. You can do a lot with body weight and dumbbells at home.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions