GymAddict wrote (see)
I don't agree with your last paragraph MF, I have not read a single thing (and I have read widely on this subject) to suggest for a second that the body reacts in this way.
Bit of a pedant.
Doing less exercise overall will not help matters - you need to ensure that you are running approx same mileage if you want to burn the same amount of cals.
The crux of the argument with regards to the type of training you do and weight loss is whether you believe the total number (sorry, pedants are fair game) of calories burnt is all important or whether the source from which the calories are burnt is important.
If you only do hard intervals it's highly unlikely that any of your actual workout is fuelled by calories derived from fat. Does that matter? What are the implications of the type of calorie burnt on fat loss in a diet?
Moraghan wrote (see)
Funny how there is no definitive answer to this question and there is a great deal of room for debate, even within the sports science community. I think there are a few facts that you can't get around:
fact (1) If you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight
fact (2) distance covered determines how many cals you burn on any run, not how fast you do it, within reasonable limits. (I believe if you walk, you are doing less work as you do not propel yourself into the air as much and burn fewer cals per mile, but running is more or less the same action regardless of speed.)
fact (3) muscle burns calories when you are not doing exercise
So, you need to eat fewer calories than you burn. Doing exercise helps but can make you very hungry. Building muscle will put weight on but burn fat. Regardless of (3) you need to find the balance between (1) and (2) plus the right diet that allows you to have a daily calorie deficit and not feel hungry.
Personally, I find not feeling hungry is the secret. Can the exercise type help here? LSRs do seem to make me starving, so perhaps I should try shorter slow runs or even shorter fast runs. I once lost a stone in a couple of months simply by walking to work (3 miles each way) and didn't even think about diet, so maybe this is relevant.
Obviously diet choices help in terms of feeling fuller for longer on fewer calories, but this requires as much, if not more, discipline as introducing exercise into your routine, especially if you have a family and eat together.
MikeFrog wrote (see)
Well, at the risk of repeating myself, it MAY be that if the calories burned come more from glycogen, then there's a higher risk of "dietary non compliance" ie hunger and more calories IN
My view is slightly different I suppose. Whether you are hungry or not is irrelevant. Your statement reads as though "dietary non compliance" means the dieter has no choice in the matter.
The bottom line is that in any situation where the dieter eats more than they should to compensate for the workouts it's not the type of workout to blame it's the dieter's lack of discipline. Which is often the reason for being overweight in the first place. And so it goes.....
I used to have a theory about the reason why I am not at all hungry after very intense interval training on treadmill: I felt very nauseous for about an hour afterwards, and that's not from lack of food/carb after the exercise, as I would force myself to eat a banana. So, the feeling is very comparable to being drunk, i.e. a stress on the liver, and both of these physical feelings put my off my food completely. My theory therefore is that high intensity training would be better for weight loss, although it would mean that alcohol should be avoided completely for the duration of training weeks. Any thoughts?
The bottom line is if you eat to much,you get fat, I should know
and with any diet, weight loss does slow down after a while.
So be happy with your weight loss so far and keep doing what your doing and you'll get there in the end.
Thanks Posh I think you have summed it up nicely -
my weight loss has slowed down maybe I am becoming too impatient - i will just have to keep on doing what I am doing and I will get there in the end (after all its worked so far!)
Just come across this thread yesterday and have found it very interesting - especially the scientific aspect of it all. I find it a bit difficult to get my head around it all and have no idea what body type I am.
However I would absolutely go with what GymAddict says about stopping weighing yourself. I threw my bathroom scales out when my daughter became a teenager as I didn't want a contraption on the bathroom floor determining her mood for the day.
According to my doctor I have lost almost 6 stone in the past two years by exercising and eating healthily (not dieting). In those two years I have only been weighed 4 times - when I visit the doctor - and never get stressed about my weight. I might put the odd pound or two on, but I never notice it, and then it probably goes off again. Like GA I just go by my clothes.
Three or four runs a week along with circuit classes and pilates a couple of times a week works for me. Oh, and by the way, all my running is slow. Just started working on my speed.
Christie, it sounds from your last post as if you want to increase your speed. This would mean that it is worth chucking in a tempo run every week to see how it goes. I took up running again recently, and was struggling with 11-12 minute miles. I started on speedwork 5 weeks ago and now am running 10 min miles on my slow runs.
Unfortunately the only way to run faster is to run faster - it's hard work, but it works!
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |