Really don't like cardio
melissagnb
Posts: 2 Member
Good morning everyone. I absolutely dislike doing cardio. Would it be possible to lose weight significantly by eating 1200 a day and doing toning/strenght exercices? Is cardio more efficient for weight loss?
0
Replies
-
Cardio is for health, it doesn't help lose weight per se, it just lets you eat more food. You can probably eat more than 1200 calories though! Try http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/0
-
In a nutshell yes, because in general you can sustain cardio exercise for longer. People can run marathons which can take 3,4,5,6, etc. hours. You arent going to do strength training for that long.
By running for an hour you can burn around 1,000 calories. Again you are unlikely to get anywhere near that from a strength training session.0 -
Wow, you burn 1000 cals an hour running? Hmmmmmmmm....In a nutshell yes, because in general you can sustain cardio exercise for longer. People can run marathons which can take 3,4,5,6, etc. hours. You arent going to do strength training for that long.
By running for an hour you can burn around 1,000 calories. Again you are unlikely to get anywhere near that from a strength training session.0 -
Wow, you burn 1000 cals an hour running? Hmmmmmmmm....In a nutshell yes, because in general you can sustain cardio exercise for longer. People can run marathons which can take 3,4,5,6, etc. hours. You arent going to do strength training for that long.
By running for an hour you can burn around 1,000 calories. Again you are unlikely to get anywhere near that from a strength training session.
Ok if I ran for an hour at a pace of 9 minutes per mile, then I would burn 850 according to MFP (it is always slightly more than that because MFP doesnt take into account elevation and other potential factors). I am 6 foot 1 in height and weigh around 12.5 stone. I run a lot so I can manage to go a bit quicker than that so for me it would be closer to 1,000. 9 minutes per mile is a reasonable pace for a good size percentage of people though.
You will most likely measure and weigh different to that so it will differ for you, although you will probably surprise yourself by the amount you can burn from jogging. Just try putting in some figures in MFP for starters or better still, get a phone app such as Runkeeper which tracks your run and tells you your calorie loss.0 -
Wow, you burn 1000 cals an hour running? Hmmmmmmmm....In a nutshell yes, because in general you can sustain cardio exercise for longer. People can run marathons which can take 3,4,5,6, etc. hours. You arent going to do strength training for that long.
By running for an hour you can burn around 1,000 calories. Again you are unlikely to get anywhere near that from a strength training session.
Ok if I ran for an hour at a pace of 9 minutes per mile, then I would burn 850 according to MFP (it is always slightly more than that because MFP doesnt take into account elevation and other potential factors). I am 6 foot 1 in height and weigh around 12.5 stone. I run a lot so I can manage to go a bit quicker than that so for me it would be closer to 1,000. 9 minutes per mile is a reasonable pace for a good size percentage of people though.
You will most likely measure and weigh different to that so that will differ. Still, I was surprised by the amount I could burn from jogging when I started.
I would beg to differ that a 9 minute mile over 60 minutes is reasonable for "most people".0 -
Wow, you burn 1000 cals an hour running? Hmmmmmmmm....In a nutshell yes, because in general you can sustain cardio exercise for longer. People can run marathons which can take 3,4,5,6, etc. hours. You arent going to do strength training for that long.
By running for an hour you can burn around 1,000 calories. Again you are unlikely to get anywhere near that from a strength training session.
I want to know technique, I'm lucky to hit 600 in an hour.
Also, OP. Focus on diet for weight loss. Logging accuracy is key. Make sure you're drinking lots of water, getting plenty of protein (on a deficit I believe 1g per pound of LBM aim for 100g ish), fat and fiber. Even at sedentary, you should be able to eat more than 1200, if logging properly. My rest days are around 1550-1650 and I'm losing close to a pound a week at 5'5" 127 lbs. Some form of resistance training would be nice, as it helps to retain muscle and minimize loss while eating at a deficit. Cardio is not necessary.
Find things you enjoy, no need to torture yourself. 0 -
I enjoy both cardio and weights. But not the kind of cardio that you get indoors. Go buy a f*cking bike, it'll change your life and your perspective of cardio.0
-
Wow, you burn 1000 cals an hour running? Hmmmmmmmm....In a nutshell yes, because in general you can sustain cardio exercise for longer. People can run marathons which can take 3,4,5,6, etc. hours. You arent going to do strength training for that long.
By running for an hour you can burn around 1,000 calories. Again you are unlikely to get anywhere near that from a strength training session.
Ok if I ran for an hour at a pace of 9 minutes per mile, then I would burn 850 according to MFP (it is always slightly more than that because MFP doesnt take into account elevation and other potential factors). I am 6 foot 1 in height and weigh around 12.5 stone. I run a lot so I can manage to go a bit quicker than that so for me it would be closer to 1,000. 9 minutes per mile is a reasonable pace for a good size percentage of people though.
You will most likely measure and weigh different to that so that will differ. Still, I was surprised by the amount I could burn from jogging when I started.
I would beg to differ that a 9 minute mile over 60 minutes is reasonable for "most people".
Apologies, I did edit my post to say a 'fair percentage of people'. I was just using the pace I started off at around 18 months ago. I was about 14.5 stone at the time and only went running casually prior to that. I started training for a race and so took note of my pace.0 -
I enjoy both cardio and weights. But not the kind of cardio that you get indoors. Go buy a f*cking bike, it'll change your life and your perspective of cardio.
That's easy to say, but for some of us biking isn't an option 365 days a year.0 -
Cardio doesn't burn fat.
Period.
Caloric deficit does.
High intensity (heavy) lifting helps preserve muscle whilst losing fat.0 -
I enjoy both cardio and weights. But not the kind of cardio that you get indoors. Go buy a f*cking bike, it'll change your life and your perspective of cardio.
And give you phenomenal legs 0 -
Don't forget walking is cardio too.0
-
I want to know technique, I'm lucky to hit 600 in an hour.
Obviously it's all subjective to your height/weight/sex. Apologies, I was calculating the burn rate with the pace I would go for an hour on (about 6 min 45 second minute miles) which of course isnt going to apply to all.
Still, 600 calories in an hour is not shabby either.0 -
Yes, you can lose weight eating 1200 calories per day without cardio. Cardio is more efficient for weight loss, but not entirely necessary. Good luck to ya! :flowerforyou:0
-
If you don't like cardio, don't do cardio. You don't need to do it to lose weight.0
-
Weight loss is all about your ''diet''
If you don't like Cardio then don't do it. I hate it and haven't done it in... huh.. so long I actually can't remember
Do what you enjoy and stay at a deficit0 -
Wow, you burn 1000 cals an hour running? Hmmmmmmmm....In a nutshell yes, because in general you can sustain cardio exercise for longer. People can run marathons which can take 3,4,5,6, etc. hours. You arent going to do strength training for that long.
By running for an hour you can burn around 1,000 calories. Again you are unlikely to get anywhere near that from a strength training session.
Ok if I ran for an hour at a pace of 9 minutes per mile, then I would burn 850 according to MFP (it is always slightly more than that because MFP doesnt take into account elevation and other potential factors). I am 6 foot 1 in height and weigh around 12.5 stone. I run a lot so I can manage to go a bit quicker than that so for me it would be closer to 1,000. 9 minutes per mile is a reasonable pace for a good size percentage of people though.
You will most likely measure and weigh different to that so that will differ. Still, I was surprised by the amount I could burn from jogging when I started.
I would beg to differ that a 9 minute mile over 60 minutes is reasonable for "most people".
Apologies, I did edit my post to say a 'fair percentage of people'. I was just using the pace I started off at around 18 months ago. I was about 14.5 stone at the time and only went running casually prior to that. I started training for a race and so took note of my pace.
If you started out running an average of a 9 minute mile for 1 hour, that's impressive. Depending on what you mean by "starting out" I guess.0 -
Cardio is about raising your heart rate. You can do weight training and raise your heart rate by doing circuit training, going quickly from one exercise to the next.
There are so many different ways to get cardio as well that people don't think about. Personally I hate machines or running, but love Zumba and Kickbox.
some other fun ways to get heart rate up
Hula Hoop
Jump Rope
Dancing
Walking places instead of driving
Body Pump classes usually are circuit training so cardio is involved.
I find most people who say they don't like something are thinking very narrow. Just make sure you get your heart rate up 2 times and week and you will be good.0 -
Wow, you burn 1000 cals an hour running? Hmmmmmmmm....In a nutshell yes, because in general you can sustain cardio exercise for longer. People can run marathons which can take 3,4,5,6, etc. hours. You arent going to do strength training for that long.
By running for an hour you can burn around 1,000 calories. Again you are unlikely to get anywhere near that from a strength training session.
Ok if I ran for an hour at a pace of 9 minutes per mile, then I would burn 850 according to MFP (it is always slightly more than that because MFP doesnt take into account elevation and other potential factors). I am 6 foot 1 in height and weigh around 12.5 stone. I run a lot so I can manage to go a bit quicker than that so for me it would be closer to 1,000. 9 minutes per mile is a reasonable pace for a good size percentage of people though.
You will most likely measure and weigh different to that so that will differ. Still, I was surprised by the amount I could burn from jogging when I started.
I would beg to differ that a 9 minute mile over 60 minutes is reasonable for "most people".
Apologies, I did edit my post to say a 'fair percentage of people'. I was just using the pace I started off at around 18 months ago. I was about 14.5 stone at the time and only went running casually prior to that. I started training for a race and so took note of my pace.
If you started out running an average of a 9 minute mile for 1 hour, that's impressive. Depending on what you mean by "starting out" I guess.
There is an annual 10-mile race fairly close to where I live. I got convinced into doing the one in October 2012 by some friends... well partially I convinced myself as I had been meaning to lose a couple of stone for a few years. So I did a month's worth of training. My first run was for about 6.5 miles which took me about an hour, give or take a 2 or 3 minutes, so around 9 minutes per mile. I finished the race in under 1 hr 25 mins so just under 8.5 minutes per mile.
So my assumption on it being achievable for a fair amount of people was based on my experience, as prior to that, I was a bit overweight and wasnt particularly healthy.0 -
Eat at a deficit to lose fat, strength train to build and maintain muscle and do cardio to strengthen your heart... it all matters.0
-
i hate cardio too, I won't do it. I do lift weights 3 times a week and find that gets my heart rate jacked! I will do cardio when I've lost another 50-60 pounds, but I don't enjoy the cardio that my large body size allows me to do right now (walking, biking, swimming) and can't wait to play basketball, do sprints, hike, etc when I get skinnier!0
-
Good morning everyone. I absolutely dislike doing cardio. Would it be possible to lose weight significantly by eating 1200 a day and doing toning/strength exercises? Is cardio more efficient for weight loss?
Perhaps give circuit or HIIT training a try; you incorporate short bursts of cardio in with your strength. Therefore, you get both aspects of cardio and strength in one workout. I do this 3 to 4 days a week and have gained strength and improved my speed for running. I was a 12.30 min mile now 10.30 min mile. I also can sustain a 4 mile run, and before I could do only 2 miles. I took several months off from running and did circuits or HIIT and recently started up running again. I also have a deficit, however, not as low as yours, mine is at 1400 and then I eat a good part of my exercise calories back. In 3 months I have lost 18 lbs.
However, if you do not want any cardio, yes you can sustain a loss with a calorie deficit. Plus, with strength exercises you will also boost your metabolism. I know several people who only do strength and have progressed beautifully. It is all in what works for you in the long run. Find what works for you and stick with it. This is a lifestyle change and the best way to stick with something is to incorporate things you like doing. However, you should at least try new things for a couple of weeks to see if you like it.
Good luck! :drinker:0 -
Thanks to everyone that has been replying 0
-
Weight loss is all about your ''diet''
If you don't like Cardio then don't do it. I hate it and haven't done it in... huh.. so long I actually can't remember
Do what you enjoy and stay at a deficit
Let me amplify on the above.
When i was a kid I would exercise hard and felt exhilarated afterward. In my thirties, running was OK but became a chore. Now, when I run it hurts and takes me a day to recover.
That is why exercise is NOT the answer to permanent weight loss. When you stop exercising on a regular basis, the weight comes back. And the older you get the more it hurts.
Diets don't work long-term as well.
Learn to live with hunger. After a time, you will find that that sensation that you THOUGHT meant you had to eat something becomes just the sensation of knowing that your stomach is empty.
It is something that doesn't strike you like a lightening bolt. You have to modify your behavior and over time your brain will re-wire and you will plateau. You have to force yourself to work and live a little bit hungry at times during the day for this to happen.
I have found the best way is to skip breakfast and eat your first meal at noon. Do this over a week, and you will notice a change.
Right now as I type this, it is 9:30 in the morning and I have been up for a couple hours. My last meal last night was at 7 pm, and I ate half of a pizza that I augmented with mozzarella cheese.
I know my stomach is empty, but I don't have the urge to eat anything. I might go downstairs and make some toast, but then again I might not. I am thinking about what I might do today and this weekend.
Food is not an obsession with me.
I don't know what I will have for lunch, and haven't planned anything for dinner. I might finish off the pizza tonight.
Don't know.
Don't really care.
I am concerned with other things.
I now have the genetics of a naturally thin person!
You can too.
Wish there was a Like button :flowerforyou:0 -
Yepp!Eat at a deficit to lose fat, strength train to build and maintain muscle and do cardio to strengthen your heart... it all matters.0 -
Weight loss is all about your ''diet''
If you don't like Cardio then don't do it. I hate it and haven't done it in... huh.. so long I actually can't remember
Do what you enjoy and stay at a deficit
Let me amplify on the above.
When i was a kid I would exercise hard and felt exhilarated afterward. In my thirties, running was OK but became a chore. Now, when I run it hurts and takes me a day to recover.
That is why exercise is NOT the answer to permanent weight loss. When you stop exercising on a regular basis, the weight comes back. And the older you get the more it hurts.
Diets don't work long-term as well.
Learn to live with hunger. After a time, you will find that that sensation that you THOUGHT meant you had to eat something becomes just the sensation of knowing that your stomach is empty.
It is something that doesn't strike you like a lightening bolt. You have to modify your behavior and over time your brain will re-wire and you will plateau. You have to force yourself to work and live a little bit hungry at times during the day for this to happen.
I have found the best way is to skip breakfast and eat your first meal at noon. Do this over a week, and you will notice a change.
Right now as I type this, it is 9:30 in the morning and I have been up for a couple hours. My last meal last night was at 7 pm, and I ate half of a pizza that I augmented with mozzarella cheese.
I know my stomach is empty, but I don't have the urge to eat anything. I might go downstairs and make some toast, but then again I might not. I am thinking about what I might do today and this weekend.
Food is not an obsession with me.
I don't know what I will have for lunch, and haven't planned anything for dinner. I might finish off the pizza tonight.
Don't know.
Don't really care.
I am concerned with other things.
I now have the genetics of a naturally thin person!
You can too.
Wish there was a Like button :flowerforyou:
This is fantastic! I have been implementing intermittent fasting in one form or another for the last few years and I can tell you the big takeaway for me has been... it's ok to be hungry once in a while.0 -
As an idea, for me at around 12.5 stone too, looking back I did an hour's running at an average of around 9mins/mile and burned just over 750 calories according to my motoactv.
That felt reasonably intense for me doing that, though 'managable' - I was running with a friend and generally my pace was a little better, but meant I'd slow down to let him catch up.
(Sadly this was last year and I'm a bit out of practice now
).
So, either one of us is drastically different as far as running efficiency goes, or one of our calculators is out.
To me the 750 feels congruent with other stuff.
My usual advice is to look to 'starting strength' or similar weight program - I find the 3x5 of each exercise particularly not-nasty.
As you only have to do five movements at a time, you know it's going to be over soon, etc.
But yes, on the above; for fairly steady-state cardio, put me on an offorad motorbike, mountain bike. playing tennis maybe or similar and I'll want to keep going for a fair bit longer.0 -
In a nutshell yes, because in general you can sustain cardio exercise for longer. People can run marathons which can take 3,4,5,6, etc. hours. You arent going to do strength training for that long.
By running for an hour you can burn around 1,000 calories. Again you are unlikely to get anywhere near that from a strength training session.
are you running like 100MPH../?????0 -
OP - if you do not like cardio then ditch and go with a program of compound lifts and maybe one cardio session per week, like HIIT..
I do an upper/lower split and one cardio session a week...is working for me...0 -
In a nutshell yes, because in general you can sustain cardio exercise for longer. People can run marathons which can take 3,4,5,6, etc. hours. You arent going to do strength training for that long.
By running for an hour you can burn around 1,000 calories. Again you are unlikely to get anywhere near that from a strength training session.
are you running like 100MPH../?????
About 9mph0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions