Unsure if what I’m doing is pointless
TheSma11Print
Posts: 165 Member
Hi everyone. My goal is to shred fat. I’ve taken up joggingrecently, in particular I’m doing C25K. I’m really really enjoying it and I even bring my dog with me while doing it sometimes. She’s a husky so loves running.
Alongside this I’m on a calorie deficit - MFP reccomend 1200 but I have been eating back some calories I’ve burned working out because honestly I’m finding I’m pretty starving if not.
Anyway I understand the only way to really get rid of fat is through weight training, and honestly I’ve always hated weight training, like absolutely hate it. I don’t know what I’m doing I find it tedious and I give up every time I try. So I only really enjoy a cardio workout.
Am I just going to have poor or no results from doing what I am right now? I.e lose muscle and just be left with fat still.
Alongside this I’m on a calorie deficit - MFP reccomend 1200 but I have been eating back some calories I’ve burned working out because honestly I’m finding I’m pretty starving if not.
Anyway I understand the only way to really get rid of fat is through weight training, and honestly I’ve always hated weight training, like absolutely hate it. I don’t know what I’m doing I find it tedious and I give up every time I try. So I only really enjoy a cardio workout.
Am I just going to have poor or no results from doing what I am right now? I.e lose muscle and just be left with fat still.
0
Replies
-
You are supposed to eat back all of your exercise calories.3
-
-
You don't have to weight train. You will lose fat with a calorie deficit.
Weight training will change the way your body looks at the end, though. Is that the issue? You have a body goal that requires weight training?
I've found it helps to go to the weight room with a program and a plan. I began with Stronglifts 5x5. I downloaded the app, and just followed what it told me to do. About 45 minutes, three days a week, and only 5 lifts to learn. Completely do-able, even if you don't like weight training.9 -
The running will mostly just be burning off whatever energy stores that your liver has in it. Diet will definitely be your main focus here, 1200 you should definitely be losing on though. Are you weighing all your food?1
-
TheSma11Print wrote: »
Anyway I understand the only way to really get rid of fat is through weight training
Where did you get that from? It's totally false. Fat loss comes from a calorie deficit, no exercise needed. Building some muscle can certainly change your shape and body composition, but weight training does not cause fat loss.
You should also probably be eating more than 1200 calories, plus your exercise cals. What does MFP tell you if you put in your stats and lose 1lb per week?
7 -
You will lose fat by using more energy than your body burns whether or not you're doing weight/resistance training. Weight training will not cause fat loss.
What weight training does is preserve the muscle you already have while you're in a calorie deficit. In addition to the health benefits of having sufficient muscle, many people -- including women -- find they prefer the way their body looks when they give some attention to retaining or even gaining some muscle. I get it how you feel, I didn't like it myself when I started. Finding a progressive plan that made me feel like I actually knew what I was doing helped *a lot*. It also helped to know that resistance training is a great help for running fitness. Working my legs and core, for example, has made me feel stronger on runs and I've been much less injury-prone.
1,200 is a really low calorie goal. Did you choose a goal of 2 pounds per week of weight loss? It's generally as low as a woman should go, so if you want to be active you'll really want to focus on eating back your exercise calories if you want to continue growing as a runner.5 -
Redordeadhead wrote: »TheSma11Print wrote: »
Anyway I understand the only way to really get rid of fat is through weight training
Where did you get that from? It's totally false. Fat loss comes from a calorie deficit, no exercise needed. Building some muscle can certainly change your shape and body composition, but weight training does not cause fat loss.
You should also probably be eating more than 1200 calories, plus your exercise cals. What does MFP tell you if you put in your stats and lose 1lb per week?
Just things I’ve been reading online really.
So much emphasis on weight training = fat loss because the more muscle you build the more fat you lose. I dunno I’m glad I asked on here to get some real answers.
I’m doing 2 pounds per week. 1 = 1400 cals. I’m worried that won’t do much for me.
0 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »You don't have to weight train. You will lose fat with a calorie deficit.
Weight training will change the way your body looks at the end, though. Is that the issue? You have a body goal that requires weight training?
I've found it helps to go to the weight room with a program and a plan. I began with Stronglifts 5x5. I downloaded the app, and just followed what it told me to do. About 45 minutes, three days a week, and only 5 lifts to learn. Completely do-able, even if you don't like weight training.
Thank you I’ll take a look
0 -
yulin696969 wrote: »The running will mostly just be burning off whatever energy stores that your liver has in it. Diet will definitely be your main focus here, 1200 you should definitely be losing on though. Are you weighing all your food?
Ah, so running is completely pointless for weight loss and muscle building?
Maybe I need to be more strict weighing my food!
0 -
TheSma11Print wrote: »yulin696969 wrote: »The running will mostly just be burning off whatever energy stores that your liver has in it. Diet will definitely be your main focus here, 1200 you should definitely be losing on though. Are you weighing all your food?
Ah, so running is completely pointless for weight loss and muscle building?
Maybe I need to be more strict weighing my food!
Completely useless for weight loss? Nope.
Muscle gain, definitely useless.3 -
TheSma11Print wrote: »
How much weight are you trying to lose?0 -
TheSma11Print wrote: »
How much weight are you trying to lose?
Sorry if this sounds really stupid but What I’m really trying to do is lower my body fat percentage.
I’m around 30% at the moment. I dunno I guess I’m not too precious about how much I weigh just as long as I start to see inches coming off me if that makes sense? Maybe I do need to incorporate some weight training.0 -
Weight training and calorie deficit got me from 240 to 1652
-
TheSma11Print wrote: »yulin696969 wrote: »The running will mostly just be burning off whatever energy stores that your liver has in it. Diet will definitely be your main focus here, 1200 you should definitely be losing on though. Are you weighing all your food?
Ah, so running is completely pointless for weight loss and muscle building?
Maybe I need to be more strict weighing my food!
No, running can absolutely be part of creating a deficit. That is what creates weight loss. The point is that it is relatively easy to eat enough to "cancel out" the calorie burns of running and that is where people run into problems -- when they *just* focus on running and expect to lose weight from that alone.
Running will not build muscle. If you want to build muscle, you'll need resistance training for that.
If you enjoy running, there is absolutely nothing "pointless" about it. It's a great way to increase your fitness. It can be part of creating a calorie deficit. It's just not going to create weight loss outside of that particular context. I know you said you don't really care about weight, but if you want less fat on your body, you are talking about weight loss.4 -
Caring about your health and fitness is never pointless.
But, unless you have more than 60 lbs to lose a 2lb a week loss is to much.2 -
Running (as with other kinds of exercise) is also beneficial in many other ways, both physically and mentally.5
-
TheSma11Print wrote: »Redordeadhead wrote: »TheSma11Print wrote: »
Anyway I understand the only way to really get rid of fat is through weight training
Where did you get that from? It's totally false. Fat loss comes from a calorie deficit, no exercise needed. Building some muscle can certainly change your shape and body composition, but weight training does not cause fat loss.
You should also probably be eating more than 1200 calories, plus your exercise cals. What does MFP tell you if you put in your stats and lose 1lb per week?
Just things I’ve been reading online really.
So much emphasis on weight training = fat loss because the more muscle you build the more fat you lose. I dunno I’m glad I asked on here to get some real answers.
I’m doing 2 pounds per week. 1 = 1400 cals. I’m worried that won’t do much for me.
I mean this in the kindest way possible, like a concerned internet Auntie (I'm old enough
): Please find better online sources.
Muscle gain is very slow. For women, a quarter pound a week of muscle mass gain would be a really good result, under ideal circumstances (which include both progressive weight training and surplus calories, among other things, not calorie reduction). Then, research suggests a pound of muscle tissue only burns something around 2-4 calories per day more than a pound of fat. Muscle is a minimal fat-loss contributor. (If there's any effect, I'm betting it's that strong people move more, so burn more calories that way. ).
What do you mean that 1400 would "not do much for you"? Losing weight too fast is a health risk (and appearance risk), and 2 pounds a week is likely to be too fast for any woman currently under about 200 pounds. If loss is too fast, not only do we lose more muscle than minimally necessarily (especially important for those of us who don't want to strength train to preserve what we've got, or to gain it back later).
We can also experience appearance consequences like thinning hair (usually doesn't happen until weeks to months later, when it's too late to make changes to avoid it), brittle nails, haggard appearance, and more. At worst, it can cause serious health problems, with gall bladder, or the life-altering heart problems one formerly healthy young woman here reported : https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10761904/under-1200-for-weight-loss/p1).
Am I saying that will happen to you? No. But losing too fast increases the risk.
Look, I'm an average height li'l ol' lady, 5'5" - decades older than you, which normally would mean lower calorie needs. When I was first losing weight, 1200 calories plus all my exercise calories was way too low for me. It made me weak and fatigued (and I'm an athlete, not a feeble woman). Later, I lost 50 pounds in less than a year, mostly on 1400-1600 calories plus eating exercise calories. I can't tell you what your exact calorie needs are, but the idea that mega-fast progress is worth health/appearance risk, or that nothing can happen with weight loss if you eat more calories . . . well, maybe give that a rethink.
I understand being impatient and wanting to lose fast - we all do. The question is what you're willing to risk, to do it. You might get lucky.TheSma11Print wrote: »yulin696969 wrote: »The running will mostly just be burning off whatever energy stores that your liver has in it. Diet will definitely be your main focus here, 1200 you should definitely be losing on though. Are you weighing all your food?
Ah, so running is completely pointless for weight loss and muscle building?
Maybe I need to be more strict weighing my food!
No, running is not pointless. It will help you burn calories, so you can eat more calories and still lose at a reasonable rate, so get better nutrition while losing, and that's very worthwhile. If running is challenging for you, it may even cause some muscle improvement, and certainly will improve your cardiovascular system (which is usually beneficial in terms of circulation, so may help you keep a glowing complexion, youthful skin, etc., in addition to, y'know, warding off some kinds of health problems).
But yeah, eating somewhat (not lots) fewer calories than you burn is how weight is lost successfully.
Most of us want to be healthy, and look nice, besides, which is where things like nutrition and exercise come in.
Wishing you all the best! :flowerforyou:7 -
If you really don’t want to lose weight, why are you eating at a deficit at all. If you want to be more fit, less fatty, stronger, walking and running are both very good exercises. They build muscles in your legs. They are weight bearing so they make your bones stronger, as well as muscles. But if you want to look toned and muscular all over, you need to address your upper half as well. Core exercises like planks could help. Google arm exercises. Yoga is a good overall exercise. I think Pilates is too, but I don’t know from experience.
6 -
corinasue1143 wrote: »If you really don’t want to lose weight, why are you eating at a deficit at all. If you want to be more fit, less fatty, stronger, walking and running are both very good exercises. They build muscles in your legs. They are weight bearing so they make your bones stronger, as well as muscles. But if you want to look toned and muscular all over, you need to address your upper half as well. Core exercises like planks could help. Google arm exercises. Yoga is a good overall exercise. I think Pilates is too, but I don’t know from experience.
Running, yoga and Pilates doesn't build muscle.
Good for cardiovascular heath, though.1 -
yulin696969 wrote: »corinasue1143 wrote: »If you really don’t want to lose weight, why are you eating at a deficit at all. If you want to be more fit, less fatty, stronger, walking and running are both very good exercises. They build muscles in your legs. They are weight bearing so they make your bones stronger, as well as muscles. But if you want to look toned and muscular all over, you need to address your upper half as well. Core exercises like planks could help. Google arm exercises. Yoga is a good overall exercise. I think Pilates is too, but I don’t know from experience.
Running, yoga and Pilates doesn't build muscle.
Good for cardiovascular heath, though.
So you're saying that regular recreational runners, yoga practitioners (including those handstand people?), and Pilates devotees don't have more muscle than people who just sit on the couch. And yes, I mean mass, not just strength.
Clearly, if muscle mass is the main point, or even strength, then weight training is the efficient and by far most effective route. But I think you're being a little black and white, here.9 -
yulin696969 wrote: »corinasue1143 wrote: »If you really don’t want to lose weight, why are you eating at a deficit at all. If you want to be more fit, less fatty, stronger, walking and running are both very good exercises. They build muscles in your legs. They are weight bearing so they make your bones stronger, as well as muscles. But if you want to look toned and muscular all over, you need to address your upper half as well. Core exercises like planks could help. Google arm exercises. Yoga is a good overall exercise. I think Pilates is too, but I don’t know from experience.
Running, yoga and Pilates doesn't build muscle.
Good for cardiovascular heath, though.
So you're saying that regular recreational runners, yoga practitioners (including those handstand people?), and Pilates devotees don't have more muscle than people who just sit on the couch. And yes, I mean mass, not just strength.
Clearly, if muscle mass is the main point, or even strength, then weight training is the efficient and by far most effective route. But I think you're being a little black and white, here.
That's exactly what I'm saying. People who regularity do those things are more lean and shredded looking because their body fat is generally lower than couch potatos. If running built muscle, wouldn't marathon runners be built?1 -
yulin696969 wrote: »
That's exactly what I'm saying. People who regularity do those things are more lean and shredded looking because their body fat is generally lower than couch potatos. If running built muscle, wouldn't marathon runners be built?
Dude have you seen the calves of long-time runners??15 -
makinemjellis wrote: »yulin696969 wrote: »
That's exactly what I'm saying. People who regularity do those things are more lean and shredded looking because their body fat is generally lower than couch potatos. If running built muscle, wouldn't marathon runners be built?
Dude have you seen the calves of long-time runners??
Yes I have and I'd hardly say that they are big, just shredded. If you're talking about SPRINTERS we might be having a different conversation here, but OP is doing 5ks. Calve size is extremely dependent on genetics and is one of the hardest muscles to build in the entire body.
If you always do the same thing you will not get stronger -- does not matter if it is running, doing 10 push ups every day, doing 25 ten pound curls everyday or doing 25 squats with 75 pounds weight every day progressive exercise builds strength and size0 -
yulin696969 wrote: »yulin696969 wrote: »corinasue1143 wrote: »If you really don’t want to lose weight, why are you eating at a deficit at all. If you want to be more fit, less fatty, stronger, walking and running are both very good exercises. They build muscles in your legs. They are weight bearing so they make your bones stronger, as well as muscles. But if you want to look toned and muscular all over, you need to address your upper half as well. Core exercises like planks could help. Google arm exercises. Yoga is a good overall exercise. I think Pilates is too, but I don’t know from experience.
Running, yoga and Pilates doesn't build muscle.
Good for cardiovascular heath, though.
So you're saying that regular recreational runners, yoga practitioners (including those handstand people?), and Pilates devotees don't have more muscle than people who just sit on the couch. And yes, I mean mass, not just strength.
Clearly, if muscle mass is the main point, or even strength, then weight training is the efficient and by far most effective route. But I think you're being a little black and white, here.
That's exactly what I'm saying. People who regularity do those things are more lean and shredded looking because their body fat is generally lower than couch potatos. If running built muscle, wouldn't marathon runners be built?
You're comparing runners to lifters. Compare them to couch-sitters.
Cardio is not all one thing that has zero effect on muscle. Recreational (steady, not wannabe) runners will have more muscle mass than the all-couch crowd, especially if you let the decades play out. You can argue that the latter isn't mostly building, it's preserving, but the effect is there, and it's not just "cardiovascular".
High rep, low resistance exercise is neither efficient nor optimal, in muscular terms. Essentially, running is a very high-rep bodyweight exercise. It's not very progressive - barely progressive at all. Beginners can increase mass.
It's not much, but it's not zero.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523889/8 -
yulin696969 wrote: »makinemjellis wrote: »yulin696969 wrote: »
That's exactly what I'm saying. People who regularity do those things are more lean and shredded looking because their body fat is generally lower than couch potatos. If running built muscle, wouldn't marathon runners be built?
Dude have you seen the calves of long-time runners??
Yes I have and I'd hardly say that they are big, just shredded. If you're talking about SPRINTERS we might be having a different conversation here, but OP is doing 5ks. Calve size is extremely dependent on genetics and is one of the hardest muscles to build in the entire body.
If you always do the same thing you will not get stronger -- does not matter if it is running, doing 10 push ups every day, doing 25 ten pound curls everyday or doing 25 squats with 75 pounds weight every day progressive exercise builds strength and size
Obviously mass increase and strength increase are not identical.
People who start from zero, and reach 25 squats with 75 pound weights, will have increased strength along the way (via NMA at least), and potentially mass (guessing that depends on body comp at the start, among other things). They won't progress further, though, if it's not progressive.
If you want to get big, yeah, absolutely, lift weights, and do it progressively.
OP cares about none of this, though, I'd bet.
:drinker:7 -
yulin696969 wrote: »makinemjellis wrote: »yulin696969 wrote: »
That's exactly what I'm saying. People who regularity do those things are more lean and shredded looking because their body fat is generally lower than couch potatos. If running built muscle, wouldn't marathon runners be built?
Dude have you seen the calves of long-time runners??
Yes I have and I'd hardly say that they are big, just shredded. If you're talking about SPRINTERS we might be having a different conversation here, but OP is doing 5ks. Calve size is extremely dependent on genetics and is one of the hardest muscles to build in the entire body.
If you always do the same thing you will not get stronger -- does not matter if it is running, doing 10 push ups every day, doing 25 ten pound curls everyday or doing 25 squats with 75 pounds weight every day progressive exercise builds strength and size
But someone going from doing nothing to doing something isn't doing the same thing.
I had 5" of quad muscle circumference loss following major injury and regained the first 3" purely from learning to walk again.
Yes running isn't going to continue building muscle past a certain point but you are going off to an extreme.
Ditto cycling - I had noticable leg muscle growth (including calves) from taking up cycling but that tapers off as the stimulus gets less novel. Do cyclists have legs as big as people who lift seriously - no. Do they have bigger leg muscles than people who don't lift or cycle - yes.
You are presenting a very black and white scenario when the truth is it's shades of grey and very personal to where people start from.
The basics of the OP's misunderstanding can be answered simply - no people don't have to weight train to lose weight / lose fat. No just having a few pounds of extra muscle isn't a significant contributor to losing weight / losing fat.
Yes both cardio and weight training (using your muscles) is a great thing to do for health but people tend not to stick to things they dislike.6 -
TheSma11Print wrote: »Hi everyone. My goal is to shred fat. I’ve taken up joggingrecently, in particular I’m doing C25K. I’m really really enjoying it and I even bring my dog with me while doing it sometimes. She’s a husky so loves running.
Alongside this I’m on a calorie deficit - MFP reccomend 1200 but I have been eating back some calories I’ve burned working out because honestly I’m finding I’m pretty starving if not.
Anyway I understand the only way to really get rid of fat is through weight training, and honestly I’ve always hated weight training, like absolutely hate it. I don’t know what I’m doing I find it tedious and I give up every time I try. So I only really enjoy a cardio workout.
Am I just going to have poor or no results from doing what I am right now? I.e lose muscle and just be left with fat still.
If you enjoy running, come and join us in the monthly running challenge thread. https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/21182-monthly-running-challenges. We can give you lots of support for both running and weight loss.
In my opinion, running is excellent for those of us who like to eat - you should be eating back at least half of the calories burned that MFP allocates you.
Running will make it easier to lose weight (in that you can eat more), is great for mental health (runner’s high is a real thing), and will give you lovely shapely legs if you stick with it long enough, as well as improving your health, stamina and life expectancy.3 -
Strength training combined with diet will definitely help you change your body composition to have a higher percentage of muscle to fat. Strength training also helps preserve lean muscle mass when you are eating in a deficit. But strength training doesn’t have to mean weight training. @AnnPT77 mentioned yoga, I was in a lululemon once and the sales lady had HUGE ripped arms and shoulders. Asked her what she did, nothing but yoga. She does a lot of inversions.
My recommendation, since you mention you find weight training tedious, would be to try a short program of heavy compound lifts and see if you like it better. A lot of women have been taught that tons of reps and exercises on machines or with light weights are what women should be doing. But you can get a lot of mileage out of a very short strength session if you are lifting heavy and doing deadlifts, squats, military press, pushups, and pull-ups. You won’t look like a bodybuilder on such a simple program, but bang that out three times a week for thirty minutes and it will definitely make a difference over no lifting.
If even that sounds like torture, just find some other activities which work for you - such as the aforementioned yoga inversions. There are a lot of different paths to the top of the same mountain.6 -
TheSma11Print wrote: »Hi everyone. My goal is to shred fat. I’ve taken up joggingrecently, in particular I’m doing C25K. I’m really really enjoying it and I even bring my dog with me while doing it sometimes. She’s a husky so loves running.
Alongside this I’m on a calorie deficit - MFP reccomend 1200 but I have been eating back some calories I’ve burned working out because honestly I’m finding I’m pretty starving if not.
Anyway I understand the only way to really get rid of fat is through weight training, and honestly I’ve always hated weight training, like absolutely hate it. I don’t know what I’m doing I find it tedious and I give up every time I try. So I only really enjoy a cardio workout.
Am I just going to have poor or no results from doing what I am right now? I.e lose muscle and just be left with fat still.
To get back on topic and answer your questions:
The only reason what you are doing would be pointless would be your reason for doing it. If you are exercising to lose weight, that would be pointless without addressing your diet. You don't get rid of fat from exercise, you get rid of fat from diet (as others have said).
Exercise burns some calories but is primarily for fitness and body composition. If you hate weight training, don't do it. Find something you like. But if you don't do anything besides running, the only muscles you will develop are your legs (Yes, running builds some muscle, depending on your state of training but you will limit out at some point. This is only important if you want more muscular legs. I've seen some pretty shapely legs on women who run. ) For body composition and muscle tone, it would be prudent to do some upper body training a couple of days per week. There are alternatives to weight training.
The bigger concern, and the one that could affect losing muscle is the 1200 calories per day. That is only an appropriate choice for very short, very small women. My guess is you set your weight loss goal too high. Like 2 lbs per week? What are you stats? You say you want to lose body fat and it sounds like you want to retain muscle. An overly aggressive calorie deficit will cause you to lose both. A lower deficit appropriate for your stats will retain muscle and cause you to lose primarily fat.
So, height and weight would help people to advise you more appropriately.
2 -
Why not try something like this:
https://youtu.be/iTD_AYc0-Hk
I like this workout because it gets everything done in 30 min. Running is not pointless. But if you want to build strength and muscle, you need strength training.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions