I am fat...but I am trying! I am fat...but I am trying!

[SanMateo]

Hello everyone,

I am 18 years old, about 5 10, and about 230 pounds.

Now, let me first say this is not a New Years Resolution to get into shape, it is a 'get into shape to be healthy'.

So anyway, I am eating 1,500 calories or less a day, and I am starting to walk on the treadmill.

On Monday, January 5th, I walked for a hour and I lost 435 calories, and on Tuesday, January 6th, I lost 452 calories in a hour.

Now, I need input from YOU !

What other ways/exercises should I do to get into shape?

Should I be walking an extra each day to burn an additional 400 making it over 800 calories burned a day?

I know that the treadmill does good for the whole body, but should I be doing some kind of crunches?

I really want to burn fat, so that I am healthy, rather gain muscle at this time.

So, if anyone could recommend any additional ways to loose weight, such as crunches (if it will make me loose stomach fat or gain muscle), and anything else I should be doing?

Here is the equipment I have easy access to:
A bowflex
A treadmill

If you could give me some input that would be fantastic!

Thank you,

Andrew

 

[TonyaGray]

Fat Loss

Here is what you should do. Instead of walking for an hour on the treadmill, try jogging in intervals. Jog for 5 min and then walk for 5 min. Keep repeating this process for 1 hour and you will burn %25 more calories than walking alone.

 

[Korrie]

I'm wondering if at your height/weight, if 1500 cals(or less) is enough...esp w/ excerising....

 

[burneeed1]

Welcome! I have found it in my weight loss journeys that running / jogging seems to be the absolute best way to lose weight, I found it that at a steady rate during the run/jog seems to be the best way to go.

 

[maleficent]

Here is what you should do. Instead of walking for an hour on the treadmill, try jogging in intervals. Jog for 5 min and then walk for 5 min. Keep repeating this process for 1 hour and you will burn %25 more calories than walking alone.

I'm sure that this advice is well intentioned, however, do keep in mind that not everyone is capable of running... and to tell someone to run for 5 minutes can be a daunting task one that they might just give up before they even begin...

people have to start somewhere and then progress from there.. the starting point might be walking at 2.5 mph - or it might be running at 9mph...

Interval training is always a good way to go... however, the intervals should be kept shorter and able to be managed by the person doing them.

 

[SDPT]

I really want to burn fat, so that I am healthy, rather gain muscle at this time.

Why do you feel that you don't want to game muscle at this time? Strength training is a great way to burn fat.

So, if anyone could recommend any additional ways to loose weight, such as crunches (if it will make me loose stomach fat or gain muscle), and anything else I should be doing?

Crunches would be just like any other strength exercise. If perform correctly you will likely increase strength and muslce size and burn calories. If you want to do crunches to lose weight in the stomach area you will probably not have much success. Unfortunately you will be able to pick the places you will burn fat.

 

[FatSuzi]

Hey! So I'm about your weight, though 6" shorter (wah), and here's what I've found is comfortable for me. I walk, but I also do the Couch Potato to 5k thing. Basically, it's interval training. But it's not run for 5 (holy Jesus, I would dieeee), walk for 5. It starts out as walk for 3, jog for 1. Stuff like that. If you can do that, do it. If you have to repeat the week 1 schedule, go for it. It's really just about building up cardiovascular strength without overdoing it and wanting to die. Good luck!

 

[Sage]

One thing you need to consider when choosing your exercise program is the larger picture of fat burned.

Sure, slow, steady cardio exercise burns more fat then strength training. But, the fat burning only happens while you're doing the cardio and your metabolic rate will stay elevated less then an hour or so after. After that your body is back to is normal metabolic rate.

Where as if you strength train your metabolic rate goes up while training and stays up much longer afterwords. You burn more calories. Not only that, your muscle become more efficient at burning blood sugar. And as you build more muscle your base metabolic rate goes up 24/7.

So, if you're goal is fat loss and not increasing aerobic capacity I would strongly suggest you get on that bow-flex on a structured resistance training program.

Long, mind-numbing cardio workouts are the hard path to lasting weight loss in my opinion.

 

[Steve]

So it's either cardio OR resistance training?

lol

I love binary thinking.

And you haven't seen the most recent big review on EPOC, have you?

Where do you do your research?

 

[Sage]

So it's either cardio OR resistance training?

From a pure overall fat-burning effect resistance training is the winner. For the time spent to time exercise to fat-loss payoff resistance training is by far the winner.

I don't have all the studies to quote, but I think you will find there are plenty that validate that. I think you find you can also observe the same in others.

What I notice is someone want to loose weight through exercise. They start a cardio program. They flip the switch that monitors calories burnt, then go at it for hours at a time only to see less calories burnt then the last donut they eat.

Then they get discouraged and quit.

That is the wrong kind of thinking. It's not calories burnt while exercising that will make you thin, but rather the overall metabolic effect of your exercise program stimulates in your body.

It's not either or, binary thinking... do both. But if your goal is fat-loss I would strongly suggest that your overall exercise program be focused around resistance training. That is setting yourself up for success. My opinion is mind-numbing hour long cardio is setting yourself up for failure.

 

[Steve]

From a pure overall fat-burning effect I resistance training is the winner. For the time spent to time exercise to fat-loss payoff resistance training is by far the winner.

Explain please, keeping in mind the various populations who are reading this.

I don't have all the studies to quote, but I think you will find there are plenty that validate that. I think you find you can also observe the same in others.

I'm quite versed in the research, thanks.

You might consider this review, which was a meta-analysis done regarding EPOC.

From the big recent (2006) review

135kj is about 35 calories or so. yippee

"Because the EPOC is sensitive to work intensity, far less supramaximal than submaximal work is required to produce comparable EPOCs. The contribution of the EPOC to the net total oxygen cost of exercise following supramaximal exercise is therefore much greater than for submaximal work (*6%). Nevertheless, the EPOC remains a relatively minor component of the net total oxygen cost of exercise (*14%) even following exhaustive supramaximal protocols. Furthermore, when the EPOC differences between submaximal and supramaximal workloads are translated into energy equivalents, it is clear that such differences impact minimally on the energy balance of athletes. LaForgia et al. (1997) reported that the 135 kJ greater elevated postexercise energy expenditure for their supramaximal treatment could be easily replaced by ingesting only 75 ml of orange juice. Finally, supramaximal exercise, which is primarily the realm of athletes, is unlikely to be undertaken by untrained and overweight individuals who are seeking to maximize energy expenditure."

There's been a number of studies done specifically on weight training too, and for the most part they didn't amount to anything appreciable to the extent you're imagining.

What's the variation of people you've trained/worked with?

I'd be interested in hearing if you've trained someone carrying 200+ extra lbs of fat. If you did, I don't think you'd maintain such beliefs.

What I notice is someone want to loose weight through exercise. They start a cardio program. They flip the switch that monitors calories burnt, then go at it for hours at a time only to see less calories burnt then the last donut they eat.

And what, may I ask, do you believe a sanely controlled session in terms of volume in weight training burns, energetically speaking?

Then they get discouraged and quit.

That is the wrong kind of thinking. It's not calories burnt while exercising that will make you thin, but rather the overall metabolic effect of your exercise program stimulates in your body.

See above.

It's not either or, binary thinking... do both. But if your goal is fat-loss I would strongly suggest that your overall exercise program be focused around resistance training.

You like to lump people into one class where there's one way of doing things optimally for all interested in fat loss.

This isn't the case, I assure you.

I'm a huge advocate of weight training, too, mind you.

 

[Sage]

I'm quite versed in the research, thanks.

You might consider this review, which was a meta-analysis done regarding EPOC.

From the big recent (2006) review

135kj is about 35 calories or so. yippee

"Because the EPOC is sensitive to work intensity, far less supramaximal than submaximal work is required to produce comparable EPOCs. The contribution of the EPOC to the net total oxygen cost of exercise following supramaximal exercise is therefore much greater than for submaximal work (*6%). Nevertheless, the EPOC remains a relatively minor component of the net total oxygen cost of exercise (*14%) even following exhaustive supramaximal protocols. Furthermore, when the EPOC differences between submaximal and supramaximal workloads are translated into energy equivalents, it is clear that such differences impact minimally on the energy balance of athletes. LaForgia et al. (1997) reported that the 135 kJ greater elevated postexercise energy expenditure for their supramaximal treatment could be easily replaced by ingesting only 75 ml of orange juice. Finally, supramaximal exercise, which is primarily the realm of athletes, is unlikely to be undertaken by untrained and overweight individuals who are seeking to maximize energy expenditure."

There's been a number of studies done specifically on weight training too, and for the most part they didn't amount to anything appreciable to the extent you're imagining.

They seem to be forgetting the largest payoff of resistance training over low intensity, long cardio sessions... and that is overall increase in metabolic rate 24/7.

It's easy to be fooled with statistics if you're ignoring the overall picture.

Keeping the larger picture in mind (which is shaping your body and loosing body fat), increasing overall metabolic rate will trump calories burnt while exercising (resistance and/or cardio) every time (unless your are exercising 24/7). And when it comes to exercise that best raises metabolic rate I think you would agree Steve resistance training is the winner in that regard.

It's not either or, but so you don't set yourself up for discouragement, understand the whole picture when you are designing your exercise program.

The important thing to take away is that the hardest way for you to loose that fat is to loose it by the calories you burn while exercising. A much larger payoff is to improve the efficiency of the fat burning machine (your muscles), and increase the rate of the fat burning 24/7 (your metabolic rate).

Now Steve, if you want me to quote you some isolated study that says the same thing, well, I don't have it for you... that point of view comes from much observation and my humble understanding of the human body.

But you seem very versed in that area. I'm sure you'll find plenty that support that view (and visa versa).

 

[Steve]

They seem to be forgetting the largest payoff of resistance training over low intensity, long cardio sessions... and that is overall increase in metabolic rate 24/7.

It's easy to be fooled with statistics if you're ignoring the overall picture.

Keeping the larger picture in mind (which is shaping your body and loosing body fat), increasing overall metabolic rate will trump calories burnt while exercising (resistance and/or cardio) every time (unless your are exercising 24/7). And when it comes to exercise that best raises metabolic rate I think you would agree Steve resistance training is the winner in that regard.

I'm not sure what you're missing when I ask, "Please will you show me your data.?"

Or don't you really know and you're pulling this from your arse with a serious case of hearsay?

The important thing to take away is that the hardest way for you to loose that fat is to loose it by the calories you burn while exercising.

Show me the data.

A much larger payoff is to improve the efficiency of the fat burning machine (your muscles), and increase the rate of the fat burning 24/7 (your metabolic rate).

Are you saying by adding more muscle?

Now Steve, if you want me to quote you some isolated study that says the same thing, well, I don't have it for you... that point of view comes from much observation and my humble understanding of the human body.

Oh.

Okay, then what is your experience and education?

 

[Sage]

Are you saying by adding more muscle?

The value of proper training for a goal of fat-loss goes way, way beyond adding more muscle and/or calories burnt while exercising.

Making the "fat burning machine" more efficient goes way, way beyond simply adding more muscle. And in some cases it's not adding any muscle at all. Its causing adaptive stress in the body.

How the body adapts depends on the stress given the body...

...That can be in improvement in the aerobic system... the ATP/cp anerobic system... the vascular system transporting waist and fuel to the muscles themselves.... the recovery mechanisms... the conversion of fat to blood sugar... improved efficiency of the endocrine system... and so many more far more then we understand to date.

But rather then get caught up in all that, understand the underlying principle. And that is, the body becomes its function. The body adapts to whatever stress is given it.

But if it is never stressed beyond an adaptive threshold it will never change.

The problem with mind-numbing, low intensity exercise routines (ie exercise bikes, low resistance weights workouts) is they do not cross the adaptive threshold of the body (except if you are very out of shape, and/or in the very beginning of the routines)

So the only benefit of that training is the calories burnt while training. THAT IS THE LONGEST, SLOWEST, HARDEST PATH TO LASTING WEIGHT-LOSS.

A much better approach is to build the efficiency of "the fat burning machine", so that you are burning more fat more efficiently 24/7.

But if you are just getting started, don't get overwhelmed. Start out doing something you enjoy.

But don't stop there. Build on that!

Understand to change your body you eventually need to stress it beyond the adaptive threshold.

How to best do that is a discussion of endless debate. Don't get too caught up in the debate. Instead focus on the fundamental principles that all the "rules" are derived from. I've given 2 really valuable ones here (in my humble opinion). Start with those.

Steve, if you want some FDA approved, special interested funded, cherry-picked study that proves what I've just outlined, well you seem to be very versed in the "data" out there. I'm sure you could find some that prove that point. (And plenty of others that prove whatever point you want to make)...

 

[SonofJorEl]

Sage...please don't take this disrespectfully but my overall analysis of that post is that you typed a whole lot of stuff but didn't actually say anything..

You seemed to throw out a lot of statements that are buzzword types...but you offered nothing in terms of how to do it..

I guess you just confused me..

Could you provide some examples of how one can achieve what you're saying?

 

[Sage]

Hey SanMateo, sorry to confuse you. That post was in response to Steves question regarding "building the fat burning machine".

Examples of what I'm saying (These are just very rough generalizations OK):

Not so good: Walking for hours on end at low intensity.
why: Does not stress your system to the point where it needs to adapt.

Better: Shorter cardio session, intervals of 1-2 minutes high intensity, 3-5 minutes low intensity.

Best: Structured, periodized cardio training that systematically stresses your system using accurate feedback (like a heart rate monitor) and tracking your progress.


Not so good: Light resistance training using high reps that you can easily do.
Why: Does not cause enough stress to force the body to adapt.

Better: Shorter sessions, high resistance weight training where you won't be able to do more then 6-10 reps per set or so with that much weight.

Best: Structured, periodized resistance program where you are keeping good records etc. etc.

The fundamental principle is to stress the body to the point of adaptation. These are just generalizations though. Hope that helps get you started.

 

[Steve]

Sage...please don't take this disrespectfully but my overall analysis of that post is that you typed a whole lot of stuff but didn't actually say anything..

You seemed to throw out a lot of statements that are buzzword types...but you offered nothing in terms of how to do it..

I guess you just confused me..

Could you provide some examples of how one can achieve what you're saying?

My sentiments exactly.

Sage, stop trying to lecture and answer my questions. The only thing you're doing right now is providing us with *just enough* information to realize you have a baseline understanding of specificity and biological adaptation.

Which many do around here.

 

[Steve]

Hey SanMateo, sorry to confuse you. That post was in response to Steves question regarding "building the fat burning machine".

Examples of what I'm saying (These are just very rough generalizations OK):

Not so good: Walking for hours on end at low intensity.
why: Does not stress your system to the point where it needs to adapt.

Better: Shorter cardio session, intervals of 1-2 minutes high intensity, 3-5 minutes low intensity.

Best: Structured, periodized cardio training that systematically stresses your system using accurate feedback (like a heart rate monitor) and tracking your progress.


Not so good: Light resistance training using high reps that you can easily do.
Why: Does not cause enough stress to force the body to adapt.

Better: Shorter sessions, high resistance weight training where you won't be able to do more then 6-10 reps per set or so with that much weight.

Best: Structured, periodized resistance program where you are keeping good records etc. etc.

The fundamental principle is to stress the body to the point of adaptation. These are just generalizations though. Hope that helps get you started.

Blanket recommendations will get you no where.

Which was my original point.

And that for phsyique minded people, forcing adaptation on whatever level you want to discuss isn't *always* necessary. First and foremost is the matter of energy balance. You can do an exercise that puts one in a hypocaloric state without forcing adaptation.

These two 'forces' are not one in the same.

To boot, long, steady state stuff is sometimes all people can handle, hence the need to avoid blanket recommendations.

You seem to like preaching.

Too bad you don't seem to have a lot of applicable hands on experience. Put down the book and get in the field.

 

[Sage]

Blanket recommendations will get you no where.

Which was my original point.

And that for phsyique minded people, forcing adaptation on whatever level you want to discuss isn't *always* necessary. First and foremost is the matter of energy balance. You can do an exercise that puts one in a hypocaloric state without forcing adaptation.

These two 'forces' are not one in the same.

To boot, long, steady state stuff is sometimes all people can handle, hence the need to avoid blanket recommendations.

You seem to like preaching.

Too bad you don't seem to have a lot of applicable hands on experience. Put down the book and get in the field.

Steve, for me this is not about ego or making anyone right or wrong, its simply about helping this person get results.

As I stated in those general examples that THEY WERE OVER GENERALIZATIONS TO GET THE POINT ACROSS!

If walking is all someone can handle you make my point for me. They are already at the level of adaptation.

The principle I'm illustrating again and again is the value of exercise is NOT the calories burnt while exercising. Trying to loose fat that way is the slowest, longest, hardest path.

If someone struggling with fat-loss can just understand that one principle before they get started it will save them so much frustration, pain, and quite possibly quitting before they see results.

Steve you have to know this already. Just because someone else is saying it doesn't make it wrong.

 

[SonofJorEl]

Sage...let me use myself as an example..

I'm currently looking to lose weight...diet..

I've been a weightlifter for a long time..

So right now here's how I'm going about things..

1. Continuing to lift....but now I'm not looking at "stressing" my muscles like I would if I was intaking the necessary calories...

More or less lifting without looking to really "tax" myself...just stay at my present levels more or less (i.e. I could bench 225 15 times before...I want to be able to do it after I'm done dieting...)...full-body workouts MWF

Exercise-wise I'm doing steady state cardio...jogging and hitting the stepper...for basically 40 minutes total....M and Tue...

On Thursday I play in a men's basketball league (so more high intensity running in short bursts)..

Saturday mornings I play tennis for about 2 hours with my daughter as intense as basketball...but I get a good sweat going and my heartrate is definitely up..

Food-wise I've cut my calories back to create a caloric deficit...not drastically...but about a 700 calorie deficit a day..


But as far as workout goes....none of that is at a point where I'm just "killing myself"..

So...are you saying that I won't lose any weight?