Running

Danp wrote: »

Even assuming that the C25K run burned twice the 100 calories you mentioned. Would you really consider 8 pound over the course of a year sped up weight loss? I mean are you really going to notice the extra 1/5th of a pound lost per week and think woah! this running is really helping me make progress? I highly doubt it.

This is the problem. People will run 3 nights a week and expect it to have a significant and noticeable impact and it just wont. 700 calories burned over those 3 running sessions is 1/5th of a pound assuming that the additional energy expenditure results in zero additional calories eaten. Add a slightly larger serving of veggies with dinner because your a little bit hungry and you're looking at 1/10th of a pound per week or less.

In your case, you said yourself that running was a good stress reliever which helped you moderate your calorie intake by not stress eating. It was managing your stress and thereby managing your calories in that helped you lose weight not the running in and of itself (beyond the negligible fraction of a pound). I mean if you found that playing video games was a stress reliever and helped you stop stress eating would you really recommend playing video games as a way to speed weight loss?

I burn a heck of a lot more than 700 calories running 3 times a week. And many people run five times a week. The saying is you can't outrun a bad diet - and that's true to a point, unless you're spending hours running every day, you can't outrun a whole Bloomin' Onion plus giant dessert every day - but you can outrun a couple slices of pizza or a serving of fries which you otherwise wouldn't fit in your calories. The general estimate is about 100 calories a mile, so my 15 miles or so a week - considered low mileage - equals a couple of pounds a month.

So, as with pretty much everything else...

There is no 1 right answer, and it largely depends on the person.

(This is the problem. People will run 3 nights a week and expect it to have a significant and noticeable impact and it just wont. 700 calories burned over those 3 running sessions is 1/5th of a pound assuming that the additional energy expenditure results in zero additional calories eaten. Add a slightly larger serving of veggies with dinner because your a little bit hungry and you're looking at 1/10th of a pound per week or less.)

I have been running for several years. I run 5 days a week and average 600 calories burned each run(some long and slow, others HIIT). Each week I burn between 3000 and 3500 calories running, and this doesn't include the calories burned after the runs are complete. Beginners will not see this amount of calorie burn. More important though are the overall health benefits of being active. If you don't run you should do something else. Bike, Elliptical, weights, Mountain climb, whatever.

As I used to be an emotional eater but now manage stress with exercise, I find EVERY exercise helpful for weight loss.

Good sleep is important as well. I'm sleep deprived today and am fighting the munchies hard.

rsclause wrote: »

garystrickland357 wrote: »

I think something seasoned runners know that new runners don't know is that the 1st mile always $ucks. Your body has to warm up, your mind has to stop telling you to quit, your knees have to stop complaining, the doughnuts have to get out of earshot... You get the idea.
If you're a new runner - it takes a long time before you ever get past the first mile or so. That means that each run is not really that much fun.
I love my runs now. When I was getting back into shape, not so much. I knew it would get better though. new folks have to give it time - assuming they want to be a runner.

My morning route takes my past Krispy Kreme doughnuts and when that Hot N Now sign is lit, it is like doughnuts screaming at me.

I know, right? We have a local doughnut shop that I run close to in the mornings. This past run the wind was blowing the smell of doughnuts my way - O.M.G. - I wanted to stop and eat a dozen.

Danp wrote: »

rheddmobile wrote: »

I burn a heck of a lot more than 700 calories running 3 times a week. And many people run five times a week. The saying is you can't outrun a bad diet - and that's true to a point, unless you're spending hours running every day, you can't outrun a whole Bloomin' Onion plus giant dessert every day - but you can outrun a couple slices of pizza or a serving of fries which you otherwise wouldn't fit in your calories. The general estimate is about 100 calories a mile, so my 15 miles or so a week - considered low mileage - equals a couple of pounds a month.

If you're running 15 mile per week then of course your're burning off more than 700 calories. We're not talking about someone running 15 miles per week, we're talking about someone starting out doing C25K, doing a very slow (walk/jog) 20 minute session so would be lucky to cover 4 or maybe 5 miles per week. The situations are completely different.

As to your second point, can you honestly tell me that you're consistently doing 15 mile per week and not increasing your calorie intake at all to fuel those runs? That you're knocking out 3x5 mile (or 5x3 mile or whatever) and not eating back a significant portion if not all of those additional calories??



So what you're saying is that running lets you eat an extra 300-400 calories on days while still maintaining the same calorie deficit? Therefore your rate of loss remains unchanged, thus running doesn't increase the speed at which you lose weight.

The alternative being you do not eat those extra 300-400 calories turning your correctly low base calories into an unhealthy very low base calorie intake.

Understand, I'm not trying to convince people not to exercise. There are clear health and fitness benefits to getting active. But telling people that running for 20 minutes 3 times per week will yield a noticeable increase in weight loss is just misleading.

Even if they resist the extra hunger from working out and manage to stay on the rails and not launch into a binge from feeling deprived, the additional calories burned just aren't enough to make a significant difference. Then, not seeing the expected accelerated drop in the scales they think 'why bother' and give up thereby missing out on the real benefits that come for exercise, being fitter and healthier.

Even if you do manage to become active enough that you're burning sufficient calories that it would have a marked impact on fat loss I highly doubt you could maintain that level of activity without a corresponding increase in calorie intake, which again renders the increase in rate of weigh loss back to negligible.

The situations are not completely different. No one runs c25k just to run the one minute intervals at the beginning of the program. The whole point of c25k is to become a runner. After finishing it, which takes only 8 weeks, you can run 30 minutes consistently, and increasing from that point is easy. Fifteen miles a week is a tiny amount to run, most runners run far more. I'm a 3-runs a week 50 year old with injuries, and I run 15 miles a week.

Also, of course I am fueling my runs. I'm currently in maintenance but when I was eating at a deficit I also fueled my runs. If you read the thread, you will note that I said in my very first post that speeding up weight loss by eating at an unsustainable deficit is not a good idea. People not under a doctor's supervision should aim to lose no more than about 1% of their weight per week at the maximum, and a more modest goal is a better idea for many people.

But that hardly means those calories are wasted. Losing weight by eating 1500 calories a day with a 500 calorie deficit is very, very different from losing weight eating 2000 calories a day plus 500 calories a day of exercise equaling a 500 calorie deficit. Run enough, and you don't have to eat like a person on a diet at all. Five hundred calories a day, very doable by someone who has only been running a few months, means a whole extra meal to most people in a deficit. Or a bunch of salad dressing and a small dessert. Or whatever the heck they want to eat.

When I ran my half marathon I literally couldn't physically eat enough to make up for the calories I burned. It was pretty groovy to eat a huge steak and a piece of pie and go to bed at a thousand calorie deficit and get up the next day and start eating to make up for it. I ended up losing two pounds in a week despite eating everything I wanted. Would I advise running marathons just to pig out? Depends on how much you like pigging out. But if it turns out you love running, AND you love food, the combination works amazingly.

Not to mention - I've been in maintenance eight months, and stayed within a two pound range all that time. BUT my waist is smaller, my body is tighter, my percentage of fat is down. That's because I'm working out hard on a daily basis, so my body is continuing to recomp even when I'm not in a deficit.