Running ?

agiovanniello662 wrote: »

.....running an hour a day to burn some calories.

That's quite a lot. Personally I run about 6 hours per week over four sessions as rest days are pretty important, and that also allows me to do different types of session to support my aims.

I'm reading everywhere online that running isn't great for weight loss.. Etc etc..

There is a study that gets receycled on a regular basis, and misreported. That's the source of the majority of the worst exercise, ages you... headlines you see.

The study is nonsense.

Notwithstanding that in many threads here you get non runners coming in and crayoning all over the thread about how they don't enjoy running therefore nobody should run...

You'll also get the wellmeaning stuff from non runners about it being bad for the joints etc. Not entirely helpful input.

I've been running and counting my calories and have lost a little weight. Does this mean I've lost muscle too and that I'm going to become 'skinny fat' ?

So weight loss is about calorie deficit, but there is benefit in combining running with other training of some kind, not least to avoid burnout and boredom.

The challenge with running is that it's lower body focused, so does little for your upper body. It's weight bearing, so good for leg strength and reducing the risk of lower body osteoperosis.

To counter the balance issue it's useful to do something that improves upper body condition as well. You could do it with multisport; combining running with cycling and swimming is a good option, or you could just do resistance training if you're that way inclined.

Most runners will cross train in some way, as it helps to maintain CV fitness whilst helping avoid the risks from being overly specific about training.

When I run I try to do as much interval training as I can and also mix it up by running up hill and down hill and at different intensities. I burn about 550 calories an hour ( according to the treadmill at the gym ). I know that's not a lot, but I just can't run really really fast...

That's a decent burn in an hour, although I'd observe that the machine may be overestimating. I ran a half marathon last weekend and as part of my recovery this week used a treadmill. I'd say for the distance I ran on the treadmill it probably overestimated by about 200% It would normally take me about 50 minutes and 6 miles to burn 600 calories, but it thought I'd done that in about 2.5miles.

Most of what you describe helps deal with boredom on a treadmill, but has little to benefit training effect.

You need to decide what your main goal is; Lose fat and retain muscle or be a better runner. They overlap to some degree, but they differ considerably. You can include running in your weight loss strategy, but that kind of training and routine will look different than a pure running performance program.

agiovanniello662 wrote: »

Does anyone have experience with the Fitbit? Can I take it seriously ?

So any step tracker works on the basis of estimating your steps, and assuming that each step covers a standard distance, the approximating a calorie expenditure based on that.

That's probably a fair enough assumption for most walking, as it probably nets off, but it really doesn't work for running. My running cadence stays pretty similar, regardless of what speed I'm doing.

Calorie expenditure for running is a function of body mass and distance. Personally, at 160lbs, I'll burn about 100 cals per mile, but if you're lighter then that's going to be a good bit less.

I don't really use treadmills unless I'm really stuck. The only reason I used one the other day was that I came off the race with an injury and wanted to try it out without the risk of it getting worse when I was out. So I use a GPS watch, that goves me a better approximation. As both that and my step tracker are Garmins the GPS overrides the step tracker.

agiovanniello662 wrote: »

I also bought a Fitbit today as I didn't trust the treadmill calorie burn. However as of today's workout, the treadmill underestimated my calorie burn.

Does anyone have experience with the Fitbit? Can I take it seriously ?

It's actually pretty simple. Running burns 0.63 Cal per mile per pound of mass.
So if you weigh 100 lbs, 1 mile burns 63 Calories.
If you weigh 200 lbs, 126 Calories. etc.

agiovanniello662 wrote: »

Okay. Does speed have anything to do with it?

You can run more miles/burn more calories in during the same time. Just think of it as calories per mile for now since that's mostly the reality. There are some small variances to this but nothing to worry about really. Nothing that matters for calories.

Running is a great form of exercise and can aid in weight loss. The problem sometimes comes in where people assume they are burning a lot of calories (I don't know how much you weigh, but 550 for an hour seems pretty high- I ran a half marathon and burned 1,192 calories for running 13.1 miles in 2.5 hours averages out to 91 calories a mile- my weight at the times was 128 lbs) and eat back more than they are actually burning. The accuracy on treadmills and machines in general tend to be higher. Having a heart rate monitor can help you get closest to an accurate calorie burn.

If you like to run and want to use it as your primary source of cardio, then feel free. Just try to cross train as well. This will not only help your endurance and strength, but will help prevent injury as well. On your non-running days try doing weights/body weighted exercises (if hitting the free weights seems intimidating at first, get your form down with squats and such using your own body weight or light free weights at first) and remember to hydrate and rest!

As long as you are putting in the effort to have a well rounded fitness experience, I don't think you will become "skinny fat". Do what makes you happy and what makes you feel good, and will get you into the gym.

This might be a good read for you:

community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/977538/halp-heavy-lifting-made-me-supah-bulky/p1

Good luck!

agiovanniello662 wrote: »

Yeah it's all true.. You're all right. I haven't ever tried proper weights stuff WHILST eating lower calories and properly tracking them. ( I always thought I was eating right, but didn't realise I was probably eating too much)..

I'll give it a go..

Also- what's the consensus on consuming 1000 Cals a day? All cool? Or too low? There is also lots of contradicting info around that topic...

The majority of national health organisations recommend no lower than 1200per day, net, for women.

If you're running for five hours per week you also need to think about fueling that, so probably more than 1200 per day, to avoid the feelinglike crap aspect.