Anyone have a good gym workout routine (cardio)

hesn92

When I was doing cardio at the gym I just did a couple different machines for like 15-20 minutes each. I liked the elliptical the best. I set it to their "interval" program which alternated between an easy and a hard setting. I also did weights on the opposite days. If weight lifting is interesting to you, there is a thread on here with different weight lifting programs.

I have since quit going to the gym and I run outside now which is much nicer.

AnnPT77

TLBentley1 wrote: »

The Gym can be a tough place. When I first started I was intimidated by the machines and the people so I didn't spend much time there. I just hopped on the treadmill and maybe go for a lap or two in the pool and leave. Since then, I've gotten much better. I've really gotten into group fitness and doing boot camp style workouts but I still enjoy the gym.

Now on to your question, it really depends on what your goal is. If you're looking to burn fat find your max heart rate (220-(Your Age)). Then 60 to 70% of that is your target heart rate, this is where you burn fat. You can do interval running (AKA: run/walk). If you're wondering what that looks like it's when you can still talk but really don't want to. Set the treadmill to around 3 this will be your walking pace and taking it up to 4 or 5 during the run phase. If you're not in great shape run 30 seconds then walk for 1 minute keeping your heart rate at the lower end of your fat burning range then do it again. Keep that pace up for 30 min. You can adjust the intervals as you see fit. There are a few apps that can help you with intervals my favorite is C TO 5K by zen labs. Even if you're not training for a 5K it helps you build endurance.

Weight bearing exercises are really great for burning fat and most gym's offer a free personal training session to new members this can really help with getting to know your machines and how to use them properly. People tend not to take advantage of this because they're afraid that they'll be obligated to continue one the session is over. Signing up for training could be a win/win for both you and the trainer but honestly, the gym would prefer you learn how to use the equipment properly rather than risk you getting injured so they hire trainers to help you learn what to do. Once you're done with the trainer, pick up "Women's Health Big Book of Exercises". It has illustrations on how to use the machines and pre-written workouts to help you achieve your goals.

Good Luck;

Terri
Type 2 and Fit!

220-age is inaccurate for a large number of people. RPE (rate of perceived exertion) is a reasonable alternative if one cannot do some type of max test. (If I worked at 60-70% of 220-age, I'd never get any sensible training effect: That is well below my actual UT2/recovery zone.)

Perhaps confoundingly, "fat burning zone" is pretty irrelevant to weight loss. Anyone who is in a calorie deficit will make up that deficit primarily from stored body fat. It may happen during the exercise, it may happen hours later, it may happen while we're asleep, but the deficit will be made up, and it mostly comes from stored body fat.

Working out at a heart rate above the "fat burning zone" burns more calories per time interval, but a smaller percentage of that larger number comes from fat; assuming we're talking material differences in working heart rate, working out at the higher heart rate will burn a higher total number of calories from fat than working out at the lower heart rate. The trouble is that working at a higher rate is more tiring, and - especially in beginners - can sap energy from daily life activities via fatigue, and reduce TDEE so reduce weight loss rate (not to mention helping to convince the beginner that exercise really is miserable and exhausting).

"Fat burning zone" is relevant to endurance athletes for fueling and training purposes. No matter how many fitness blogs say otherwise, "fat burning zone" is not relevant for weight loss. Exercise calories contribute to a calorie deficit. The more calories burned, either (1) the faster one loses weight (not always a good plan), or (2) the more one can eat and still lose weight at any given rate. For weight loss, calories matter, "fat burning zone" doesn't.

The sweet spot for maximum calorie burn for weight loss is figuring out how much time one can happily devote to exercise without messing up one's overall life balance. Then one splits that time into a short warm-up, a cardio workout, and a short cool-down. The workout should be at whatever maximum steady state intensity one can sustain for that time period, while still being energized (not fatigued/exhausted) for the rest of one's day. As one gets fitter, one will be able to gradually increase intensity for that time period, and burn more calories (though that's offset partially by reduced body weight, if losing weight at the same time).

In actual practice, all steady-state cardio is not the workout I'd recommend to someone losing weight, because the best practice would be to devote some time to strength training, in order to preserve existing muscle and help the highest possible fraction of weight loss to come from fat rather than lean tissue. Weight training burns relatively few calories compared to cardio, however.

All of the above assumes one's goal is primarily weight loss, not primarily athletic training, general fitness, enjoyment, or what-have-you.