Running for weight loss

lucky1girl
lucky1girl Posts: 9 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Looking for some advice here- I am trying to drop some extra weight and started going to the gym at the end of January. I pretty much keep my workouts to a run/walk on a treadmill for 3 miles, 3-4 times per week. I've been able to get my time down to 45 minutes so I am improving, BUT- I've only lost 4 pounds. What am I doing wrong? I can feel my body getting stronger under all the fat but can I really be building that much muscle that my weight isn't changing? I tend to doubt it. My clothes don't fit any better yet either. I hear I should add some strength training but what should I do? My time is limited and I feel like running is more bang for my buck. HELP!

Replies

  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    How are you measuring your calorie burn from running?

    Are you weighing and measuring your food?
  • MegaMooseEsq
    MegaMooseEsq Posts: 3,118 Member
    Lots of different stuff here, so sorry my response is a bit scattered. First, four pounds in two months isn't terrible at all. How much do you weigh now? It's possible that's a perfectly healthy rate of loss and you don't need to change anything but your expectations.

    If you still have a lot to lose, you need to be focusing more on your diet than exercise. Running is a good way to burn calories, but it's very, very easy to balance out your workouts by eating more if you aren't paying attention.

    And no, you're almost certainly not building muscle by running while losing weight. Building muscle is actually much more difficult than people think, especially for women.

    If you want to start strength training (which is great for your body although it doesn't burn a lot of calories), check out this thread for suggestions: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/p1. Although lifting won't speed up your weight loss, that's okay too - maintaining as much muscle as you can will mean that you look better when you get to your goal weight, and will have a ton of benefits in how you feel, too.
  • GiddyupTim
    GiddyupTim Posts: 2,819 Member
    edited March 2018
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    What are you doing wrong? You're relying on exercise to lead to weight loss. Look at your diet/intake if you want to lose weight. Exercise can/might help, but diet is a much MUCH bigger factor in weight management.

    This is your answer here.
    Clearly, exercise is an important factor in weight management.
    They did a big study of successful weight-losers a while ago. To do it, they collected information from a whole bunch of people who had lost weight and kept it off for two years.
    Just about every one of them had started moving more and had kept that up. They might only walk for their exercise, but they were dedicated to it and diligent.
    But that was for maintenance.
    The problem with exercise for weight loss is that a good run makes you hungrier afterwards, not less.
    You lose weight by eating less. And, you have to commit to maybe enduring a bit more hunger to do it.
    The thing to watch is to make sure that your treadmill sessions don't lead you to increase your food portions when you eat. That's a pretty common effect.
    Good luck.
  • dougii
    dougii Posts: 679 Member
    It has pretty much been said above! If you want to lose weight a wee bit faster try not recording your exercise calories or record your run/walks as 1 calorie expended. That way you aren't eating any of them back and you're helping the calories in/out equation. Just make sure your energy level and overall wellness are not impacted because you aren't eating enough..... As to the scale get one that you have the room to store and still use. I have enough counter space to leave a small Quisinart out all the time; others enjoy slim models that can go between cook books, etc. Measuring and weighing food is the only way to get a decent guess as to the calories being consumed until you have a really good idea of serving size.
  • MegaMooseEsq
    MegaMooseEsq Posts: 3,118 Member
    lucky1girl wrote: »
    I have a fit-bit that I wear and is tracking my heart rate etc so I know what my calorie burn is when I work out. I am also tracking my food on MFP. It has my target at 1200 calories per day and I am OK at staying within this range. When I do work out I don't consume all of the calories that I've burned either. I am looking to buy a food scale to start measuring my food- thinking this might be part of the issue. (While I'm here- any suggestions on which scale to get?) I've cut out most beef and pork from my diet and am trying to eat a clean as possible.

    Most digital scales are fine. I have this one, although if you do more bulk cooking you might want one where the display pulls out (the small ones can be hard to read under a plate). Assuming that you aren't very small already, you should be losing weight at 1200 calories. It's not a slam on you - it can be very tough to estimate calories, especially without a scale. Get a scale and spend at least a week religiously weighing and logging everything that you put in your mouth. You can do this - good luck!
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    RustysTbone wrote: »
    A couple of things. I had to seriously cut the number of beers a night down from 3-4 to 1-2. That helped kick start a huge drop in weight. Also, if you are not actually sweating, and short of breath (you can't speak more than a few words while running) than you aren't really getting any benefit out of your workout. Yes, it's better than sitting on the couch eating Cheetos, but if you are looking for results then be honest with yourself.
     Calories matter.

    Also, losing weight healthily isn't a sprint, it's a marathon. Getting into a routine and setting goals is more likely to see results than hoping to lose X pounds in Y weeks. Besides, what happens when you hit X pounds? You stop working out and gain that weight back again?

    LOL, FIFY
  • MegaMooseEsq
    MegaMooseEsq Posts: 3,118 Member
    edited March 2018
    kellynrwood wrote: »
    I would suggest dropping down to 2 miles and adding strength training, and maybe cross training instead of one of your run days. When I was training for a marathon I was running exclusively(due to having limited time) and found that it was much harder to lose weight than when I incorporate strength training and biking. The more muscle you have the higher your metabolism, and the more fat you will burn during your cardio. Also, if you haven't been to your doctor to make sure it's not a medical issue that is a must. Running can be a decent way to take off weight, but it isn't the magic bullet that we sell to non-runners.

    I am a big fan of strength training, especially for women, but the problem here is that we simply do not gain muscle fast enough for strength training to be a good weight-loss strategy. This article is a great primer, but TL;DR version is that a women might hope to gain 12 pounds of muscle over the course of their first year lifting weights IF they are eating at a surplus (i.e. not losing weight) [ETA: and eating sufficient protein] and if they are doing a structured progressive program. I don't mean to contradict your experience here, but it seems likely that you started losing weight because you were running less - I've read from many, many marathoners that it is difficult to impossible to lose weight while training at that volume because you're simply too tired and hungry to maintain a deficit or to maintain your normal level of activity.
  • dewd2
    dewd2 Posts: 2,445 Member
    lucky1girl wrote: »
    I have a fit-bit that I wear and is tracking my heart rate etc so I know what my calorie burn is when I work out. I am also tracking my food on MFP. It has my target at 1200 calories per day and I am OK at staying within this range. When I do work out I don't consume all of the calories that I've burned either. I am looking to buy a food scale to start measuring my food- thinking this might be part of the issue. (While I'm here- any suggestions on which scale to get?) I've cut out most beef and pork from my diet and am trying to eat a clean as possible.

    Don't be so sure about that. HR is NOT a good indicator of calories burned.
    lucky1girl wrote: »
    My run is rather intense- so yes, I'm sweating it out for sure. I played sports most of my life so I'm no stranger to running. I did have a life change about 3 years ago and that's when I gained about 50 lbs. This is what I'm fighting to take off.

    From the sounds of it though, I might underestimating how much food I am really taking in and perhaps maybe need to be a bit more honest with myself. Thanks for calling me out MFP fam! :)

    The intensity of your workout has little to do with how much you burn. How far you run is the only important thing. If you run further at a faster rate then, yes, you will burn more. But if going hard makes your runs shorter, you will burn less. Plus, going hard all the time is not the best plan to avoid injury and burnout.

    Agree 100% with the diet. I train for marathons and have no problem gaining weight if I don't watch my calories.

    Good luck.
  • lilac_bunny
    lilac_bunny Posts: 137 Member
    If you like running, try doing some sprint training. I do this once or twice a week as part of my bigger workouts, running 30s on/ 30s off at a faster pace than I can sustain for a longer run. I started off doing 6 and have built up to doing 10.
    Also using the incline function really increases intensity.
    I do lifting, HITT, and mobility work as well. I feel like the lifting has been the biggest reason for my reduction in hip waist and (sadly) bust measurement lol. Lots of people have commented on how my legs look much more toned.
  • spiriteagle99
    spiriteagle99 Posts: 3,743 Member
    Increasing your distance will burn more calories, as long as you don't end up eating more than you are burning. It is easy to do, because you get hungry when you exercise a lot. Logging everything you eat will let you know how much is enough, and how much is too much. FWIW, I am marathon training, running 45-55 miles a week, and I still manage to eat more than I burn some weeks.
  • goatg
    goatg Posts: 1,399 Member
    spiriteagle99 wrote: »
    Increasing your distance will burn more calories, as long as you don't end up eating more than you are burning. It is easy to do, because you get hungry when you exercise a lot. Logging everything you eat will let you know how much is enough, and how much is too much. FWIW, I am marathon training, running 45-55 miles a week, and I still manage to eat more than I burn some weeks.

    That’s an average of 8-9 miles per day, assuming one rest day .... not remotely hard to imagine eating more.

    Especially if you work out in the morning (sometimes I feel like evening workouts would make calorie counting more simple, at least for me).
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    btente wrote: »
    Running produces a lot of cortisol and is highly catabolic.

    I guess the next question would be, how does that influence the outcomes that the originator is looking for?
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    edited March 2018
    lilac_bunny wrote: »
    If you like running, try doing some sprint training. I do this once or twice a week as part of my bigger workouts, running 30s on/ 30s off at a faster pace than I can sustain for a longer run. I started off doing 6 and have built up to doing 10.
    Also using the incline function really increases intensity.
    I do lifting, HITT, and mobility work as well. I feel like the lifting has been the biggest reason for my reduction in hip waist and (sadly) bust measurement lol. Lots of people have commented on how my legs look much more toned.

    Given where the OP is right now with conditioning, sprint work would not be recommended. Easy mileage volume is the way to go.

    Though in reality the answer to the OP's question has already been provided. The bulk of weight loss happens in the kitchen, not in the gym.

Categories