running = weigth loss?

dreamr

Hey I’m a fairly fit 20 yr old girl; I’d probably run (or jog really) 6k in about 40 minutes. And I’d do this about twice a week. But this seems just to keep me fit, and I’d really prefer to loose some weight. Like I don’t want to anorexic or anything, its just I’m a size 14, and I’d like to be a 10.

So basically what I’m asking is should I up the running, do it for longer and more frequently? Or do you think weights would help me loose more weight faster….

I’m just looking for advice, I’m hitting my local gym later this week, so I’d like to be a little prepared. :rolleyes:

rubadub

dreamr wrote: »

Or do you think weights would help me loose more weight faster….:

Weights are great for making you lose FAT and to put on a little muscle, do not worry it would take years of serious training and enough steroids to kill a horse before you got "too big", like femal bodybuilders, with a lot of hard work you would just look what many women would call "toned". Most men are stuggling very hard to get anyway big and find it very hard, women simply do not have the testosterone to put on muscle easily. If ever the day did come where you were "too big", just stop lifting and the muscle goes

Muscle weighs 3 times as much as fat so do not worry about what the scales say, a female poster here, g'em, is a top powerlifter and is a fair bit shorter than me (male) but weighs more than me, but is a size 12 I think.

check out www.simplefit.org for exercises you can do at home and www.exrx.net if you do decide to invest in wieghts or join the gym, which I highly recommend, avoid the weights machines in the gym.

BossArky

dreamr wrote: »

Hey I’m a fairly fit 20 yr old girl; I’d probably run (or jog really) 6k in about 40 minutes.

I’m just looking for advice, I’m hitting my local gym later this week, so I’d like to be a little prepared. :rolleyes:

I don't mean this to be harsh, but your time for 6k does not suggest that you are fairly fit.

Start off aiming for 5 mins per km i.e. 6km in 30 mins (if on a treadmill set it to 12kmph).

To do this you will have to up your intensity. Shaving 10 mins from your time will increase your cardio workout and perhaps help burn a few extra cals.

Use the time you save to hit the weights for another 30 mins or so: squat / deadlift / bent over rows / lunges / lat pull down / bench press / shoulder press.

Tidy up your diet.

bustershark

Running is excellent for weight loss and obviously improved fitness, but you need to approach it like you would any fitness programme. you need to increase the number of times you are running, and gradually work on the distance and speed. Do it slowly and carefully, but to be honest, 6k in 40 minutes is pretty slow.
Are you running outdoors or on a treadmill? Outdoors is way to go, as the treadmill is doing most of the work for you, but you'll find that it's more enjoyable and you'll have a greater sense of achevement as a result.

Kinetic^

OP, you need to figure out if you want to lose weight or fat, there's a difference.

dreamr

Ok guys thanks, I’m taking all this in, and really I do about 6 k in 36 minutes, I just rounded up(I’m not lying!!:p). But I do see what your saying.

And I’m looking to tone up. The weight I would like to loose is fat. and i'm runnig outside, i prefare to brave the elements!

thanks!

shels4ever

I started back running this year, and was running about the same time as you from my 6 k runs, just under 6 mins per Km about 3 times a week.

You need to take this as a long term plan as short term results will not happen. If you are getting out 3 to 4 times a week try to increase the distance you are doing in 1 of your runs by no more then 10% in 2 week. I mean if you do 6k this week in 2 weeks time aim to do 6.6 k in one of your runs. The longer you run the more your fat you can burn.

For one of your other runs try maybe only running 4-5 k and run at a slightly faster pace, maybe 15-30 second faster per Km this will also increase the intensity of your work out and help you improve.

For ant other run in the week just try to keep getting out there, if you cant run get out for a walk.

i've lost a about 1 stone this year so far, its coming off really really slowly but my aim from the start was to get fit and lose wait and have a 12-18 month plan. So long term goals are a must , short term gains can be made but can be lost quicker too.

dreamr

Ooooh, thank you shels4ever

*hugs*

cowzerp

Dreamr do weights because they fire up your metabolism, firm up your saggy muscle and make you strong and your bones too. then do your runs too.

i get sick of reading on this forum how there great, they'll help you build muscle, dont mind the scales blah blah blah!

if your looking to lose fat, weight will need to be dropped-if you've 5 kg too much fat and you lose it you'll be down 5 kg weight, unless you gain 5kg of muscle, THIS WONT HAPPEN.

If you are dieting you certainly will not gain muscle, and as a female with low testorone levels you would not anyway even if you where not dieting.

celestial

cowzerp wrote: »

i get sick of reading on this forum how there great, they'll help you build muscle, dont mind the scales blah blah blah!

if your looking to lose fat, weight will need to be dropped-if you've 5 kg too much fat and you lose it you'll be down 5 kg weight, unless you gain 5kg of muscle, THIS WONT HAPPEN.

Ah would ya come on Cowzerp! that isn't true. How do you explain how I've lost 2-3 inches off my waist in the past year, jeans falling off me and my weight has barely budged from 83kg?

Of course it's difficult to build muscle quickly. But you can lose fat without losing weight - fact!

cowzerp

celestial wrote: »

Ah would ya come on Cowzerp! that isn't true. How do you explain how I've lost 2-3 inches off my waist in the past year, jeans falling off me and my weight has barely budged from 83kg?

Of course it's difficult to build muscle quickly. But you can lose fat without losing weight - fact!

Thats simple, your saggy stomach muscles are firm now, tighter, hence smaller..thats normal if the muscles where lacking muscle tone.

celestial

cowzerp wrote: »

Thats simple, your saggy stomach muscles are firm now, tighter, hence smaller..thats normal if the muscles where lacking muscle tone.

Riiiiight... I presume you're joking! Or at least I truly hope so.

cowzerp

Not at all. im sure some of the regulars on here will agree with me when they read my whinge! as far as your concerned its speculation based on very little information! what i said is simple and true in most cases.

i dont see where your argument is really. im not into giving people excuses for why there not losing weight/fat whatever. by the way are you a dude or female?

celestial

cowzerp wrote: »

Not at all. im sure some of the regulars on here will agree with me when they read my whinge! as far as your concerned its speculation based on very little information! what i said is simple and true in most cases.

i dont see where your argument is really. im not into giving people excuses for why there not losing weight/fat whatever. by the way are you a dude or female?

I'm a dude and my argument is posted above in my previous post. You're saying that you can't lose fat without losing weight and I'm saying that is incorrect.

puntosporting

Man ive gained a half stone in 3 months from weight lifting and im looking better than ever!

cowzerp

celestial wrote: »

I'm a dude and my argument is posted above in my previous post. You're saying that you can't lose fat without losing weight and I'm saying that is incorrect.

No your taking a tiny part of my post and using it, 1, it was based on women and muscle gain-your not a woman!
2, if your on a calorie reduced diet you will lose weight and if your lucky it will be fat!
3, if your not on 1, if you lose fat its not worth talking about-and again this is more important to women, go back and read proper befor you start chimimg in, and dont take your insecurities out on me, i reckon you are pissed you have not lost any weight.

puntosporting wrote: »

Man ive gained a half stone in 3 months from weight lifting and im looking better than ever!

That means you've gained muscle-meaning a reduction in body fat%
not necessarily that you have less actual fat., lower % because your heavier now. that is not what im saying, and again your a bloke too.

celestial

You know someone's digging a bigger hole for themselves when they start getting personal - not many insecurities here thankfully so don't worry chief;)

I'm sure you meet lots of people who are under illusions and use the 'scales not budging but I think I've lost weight' excuse, so I appreciate that. However, I am not one of them and there are people out there who have dropped fat without dropping weight. Fact. If you call dropping a jeans size or two 'nothing worth talking about' then ya need to get a grip.

Ok, you did mention women in your post, but you also did say i" get sick of reading on this forum how there great, they'll help you build muscle, dont mind the scales blah blah blah!" if your looking to lose fat, weight will need to be dropped-if you've 5 kg too much fat and you lose it you'll be down 5 kg weight, unless you gain 5kg of muscle, THIS WONT HAPPEN.

that is a general comment for sure.

So, you did make a general remark about not being able to lose fat without losing weight in your post.

cowzerp

celestial wrote: »

If you call dropping a jeans size or two 'nothing worth talking about' then ya need to get a grip.

So, you did make a general remark about not being able to lose fat without losing weight in your post.

It was based on women, the same advise does not apply as far as muscle gain, and dropping a jean size does not mean you defintley lost fat, could just be muscle tone, are you not hearing that? thats all the info your giving here so as i said its just speculation!

what im saying is that this type of advise gives people wrong ideas on fat loss and muscle gain, do you not understand what a kg of muscle looks like-its not gained easy in 2 weeks-thats how long the op has been training,

get off your high horse and stop trying to derail my point that is left well back there, i dont care what your belly is like, that means nothing, and is irrelavant to the op anyway..

celestial

cowzerp wrote: »

It was based on women, the same advise does not apply as far as muscle gain, and dropping a jean size does not mean you defintley lost fat, could just be muscle tone, are you not hearing that? thats all the info your giving here so as i said its just speculation!

what im saying is that this type of advise gives people wrong ideas on fat loss and muscle gain, do you not understand what a kg of muscle looks like-its not gained easy in 2 weeks-thats how long the op has been training,

get off your high horse and stop trying to derail my point that is left well back there, i dont care what your belly is like, that means nothing, and is irrelavant to the op anyway..

It does mean something if it's clear that I've lost fat without losing any significant weight, and it is relevant to the OP if you are making the point that not losing weight = not losing fat.

I'm not trying to derail it - I'm trying to get you to account for what you're claiming. What are you on about 'muscle tone' makes you look like you've lost fat / 'could be just muscle tone'??! Adding muscle does not make you drop clothes sizes, it does not make your belly smaller, you need to drop either fat or weight (or both) to do that!!

cowzerp

celestial wrote: »

I'm not trying to derail it - I'm trying to get you to account for what you're claiming. What are you on about 'muscle tone' makes you look like you've lost fat / 'could be just muscle tone'??! Adding muscle does not make you drop clothes sizes, it does not make your belly smaller, you need to drop either fat or weight (or both) to do that!!

Celestial, you a totally clueless, this is not what i said,your totally twisting it-thats just jibberish!
the regular clued in posters are not on at the min, im not replying to your nonsense till they come on and give an opinion based on reality rather than your jeans, go back and read your posts because im all laughed out now and bored of this roundabout.

BossArky

BossArky

Cowzerp is saying is that a woman is less likely to have the ability to put on heaps of muscle at the same rate as a man.

Therefore a woman will more than likely drop weight rather than gain weight, as they loose fat and put on a tiny bit of muscle.

A man might drop 3kg of fat and put on 3kg of muscle. Net change = 0.

A woman might drop 3kg of fat and put on 0.5kg of muscle. Net change = -2.5kg.

Relax!

g'em

cowzerp wrote: »

im not replying to your nonsense till they come on and give an opinion based on reality rather than your jeans

In all honesty I'm not 100% sure what's being debated here...

In other news - fewer personal jibes please cowzerp, you know the score, attack the post not the poster.

Racing Flat

dreamr wrote: »

should I up the running, do it for longer and more frequently?

Yes to both, and gradually increase the intensity (speed). Once you do this the wieght will fly off you.

And you won't have to worry whether it is fat, muscle, tone, weighing scales...!!!!

You'll be fitter and look better and feel better. No need to get more complicated than that. And no need to go to the gym if you are not going anyway and you enjoy the running and you are keen to go for longer and more frequently.

gnolan

Just to track back a little it was said, "if you do decide to invest in weights or join the gym, which I highly recommend, avoid the weights machines in the gym."

Why avoid the machines?

cowzerp

My original lost post
Dreamr do weights because they fire up your metabolism, firm up your saggy muscle and make you strong and your bones too. then do your runs too.

i get sick of reading on this forum how there great, they'll help you build muscle, dont mind the scales blah blah blah!

if your looking to lose fat, weight will need to be dropped-if you've 5 kg too much fat and you lose it you'll be down 5 kg weight, unless you gain 5kg of muscle, THIS WONT HAPPEN.

If you are dieting you certainly will not gain muscle, and as a female with low testorone levels you would not anyway even if you where not dieting.

g'em wrote: »

In all honesty I'm not 100% sure what's being debated here...

Celestial has lost 2 inches off His waist and lost no weight, so this proves me wrong that you cant lose fat without losing weight! even though what i said was not that simple.

im trying to help a female understand how weights will be good and not make her gain muscle while dieting as everyone always says on here!

as you know, its hard enough to gain when you want to gain it.

aye

Racing Flat wrote: »

Yes to both, and gradually increase the intensity (speed). Once you do this the wieght will fly off you.

And you won't have to worry whether it is fat, muscle, tone, weighing scales...!!!!

losing muscle tissue is not what you want, you'll slow your metabolism down and end up with still a high percentage of body fat.
sometime called skinny-fat.
keep up the running, add in resistance training as was said.

gnolan wrote: »

Just to track back a little it was said, "if you do decide to invest in weights or join the gym, which I highly recommend, avoid the weights machines in the gym."

Why avoid the machines?

machines isolate muscles and work the synergist (assisting) muscles for an exercise less. they also dont allow for a full range of movement and are in a fixed plane.
free weights aloow for full range of movement, and call synergists and stabiliser muscles into play, meaning more muscle is worked on the exercise.

gnolan

aye wrote: »

machines isolate muscles and work the synergist (assisting) muscles for an exercise less. they also dont allow for a full range of movement and are in a fixed plane.
free weights aloow for full range of movement, and call synergists and stabiliser muscles into play, meaning more muscle is worked on the exercise.

That said, it would still be useful if not as effective as free weights? I'm put off doing free-weights as the section in my gym is usually occupied by fairly hardcore lifters, and i don't feel like dropping in to bench press my 50 kilos!

cowzerp

gnolan wrote: »

That said, it would still be useful if not as effective as free weights? I'm put off doing free-weights as the section in my gym is usually occupied by fairly hardcore lifters, and i don't feel like dropping in to bench press my 50 kilos!

If your comfortable to use machine weights, thats fine, they have less benefits from a natural point of view but can be as challenging, and you can get great results using them. my da has awful technique and forgets how to use dumbells so he just challenges himself on machines and does well as far as tone and strenght go!

if you where a sports person i would sterr you to free weights, but as your just looking for tone, they should be adaquate! you can always do free weights in the future if you want..

gnolan

Thanks everyone, didn't mean to hijack the post

celestial

cowzerp wrote: »

Thats simple, your saggy stomach muscles are firm now, tighter, hence smaller..thats normal if the muscles where lacking muscle tone.

This is what you said to me in response to 'explain to me how I lost fat without losing weight. Your reply was that my saggy stomach muscles are 'firm now, tighter, hence smaller' - which is gibberish. I don't understand your posts at the best of times anyway.

I'm not talking about females!! I'm talking about you telling someone (me) who has lost fat and not lost weight that the reason for it is that my 'muscles are firmer, hence smaller' which is complete nonsense.

Anyway!

cowzerp

celestial wrote: »

I don't understand your posts at the best of times anyway.

That i can believe, glad you said it and not me.

g'em

You know Supervalu are doing a great deal on hotel vouchers if you two would like to get a room...

celestial

g'em wrote: »

You know Supervalu are doing a great deal on hotel vouchers if you two would like to get a room...

I'm on my way down there.

rubadub

g'em wrote: »

In all honesty I'm not 100% sure what's being debated here...

Neither do I.

I was mentioning not to mind the scales, since so many pay far too much attention to them, and it is so common for women to worry about getting big. A large male FOAF just the other night told me he was not touching weights since he was "not trying to get any bigger", I never got the chance to talk about it but I bet some doctor told him the BMI has to go down.

I have often said how I have been ~12stone for ages, slowly putting on muscle and losing fat at around the same rate. This has slowed even more for me now but still happening. This could happen for a woman too, it would be even slower, but I would favour a slow change, than a quick fix crash diet to fit into a dress. I would love to have gone to WW, turned up each week getting thinner all the time and some auld one going "I am very disappointed, you lost nothing", big confused head on her!

cowzerp mentioned 5kg fat vs 5kg muscle which is a lot, but I do think it is possible, over a very long time for a woman. My weight was flucutating a few lb here and there, so perhaps I was going on unintentional mini bulk/cut sessions. You might get the same result quicker going on a bulk/cut protocol. I did loosely follow The ANACAT Protocol and still sort of do if I think of it. Dragan & t-ha wrote that who know their stuff.


dreamr- to track progress weigh yourself, measure yourself, note how clothes are fitting, take photos etc. If you want to guage how you look it is best to look in a mirror rather than a dial, hydration levels can make me drop a half stone easily, and I see people here worried about 1-2lb difference on a scale.

Tiriel

Well I think I know what's going on. In my experience I've been on a relatively healthy calorie conscious diet with 3/4 exercise slots per week - since January. In particular - during the 8 week challenge I took measurements and it was only until I did that - that I realised there definitely were changes happening - but NO change on the scales. Now - I don't know if it was fat loss and muscle gain cancelling each other out or what - but I lost approx 10 inches all over in this time - with very little change on scales. (think maybe 2lbs?)

So what I think the OP should realise is - that while you feel better and are undoubtedly fitter and healthier - plus slimmer - the scales may not reflect this at all!! So, take my advice and use measurements. Balance your cardio with some weights and enjoy the results!

cowzerp

rubadub wrote: »

cowzerp mentioned 5kg fat vs 5kg muscle which is a lot, but I do think it is possible, over a very long time for a woman. My weight was flucutating a few lb here and there, so perhaps I was going on unintentional mini bulk/cut sessions. You might get the same result quicker going on a bulk/cut protocol. I did loosely follow The ANACAT Protocol and still sort of do if I think of it. Dragan & t-ha wrote that who know their stuff.

The whole point is that most people looking to lose weight are looking to lose at least this and sometimes far more, now if a girl is 20kg over weight, she needs to diet and train, im not getting into girls and muscle gain debate again, but telling her that her weight might not change because muscle is heavy etc, is misleading and gives people excuses,

people dieting dont gain muscle anyway, male or female. and when they do freakishly its minor! why cant people understand this. calorie plus is needed to gain muscle and the girl is meant to be on a weight loss diet!

rubadub

cowzerp wrote: »

now if a girl is 20kg over weight, she needs to diet and train,

Agreed.

cowzerp wrote: »

but telling her that her weight might not change because muscle is heavy etc, is misleading and gives people excuses,

Point is really it may not change as much as if doing just cardio. If a large person starts out training and eating better they can loose dramatic amounts of weight in the beginning. Mainly water weight etc. Then the losses slow down, there was a post only the other day with somebody losing 9lb in 4 weeks who was disappointed and wondering what went wrong! since the first week lots was lost, and then the scales was flickering up and down over the next 3 weeks.

Somebody who begins weights might think it is doing no good since on cardio they may have lost 2lb a week, and slowed to 1.5lb a week on weights.

I do not want to mislead or give excuses, and I do not want to see misled excuses to stop lifting.

cowzerp wrote: »

people dieting dont gain muscle anyway, male or female. and when they do freakishly its minor! why cant people understand this.

Some sites and studies I have seen actually say this can and does happen, especially for beginners, where gains come much quicker. It happens more when people are fairly overweight to begin with too. What do you make of the anacat protocol?

cowzerp wrote: »

the girl is meant to be on a weight loss diet!

She said she wanted to lose weight yes, she also said she wanted to drop from a size 14 to a size 10. 2 twins of same weight could be size 10 & 14. When I was 20 I was 11.5stone and fit in 34" jeans, I am now 12 stone and need a belt in 32" jeans.

Cork_girl's post just showed you can have good changes with a small net weight loss, male or female.

Racing Flat

celestial wrote: »

This is what you said to me in response to 'explain to me how I lost fat without losing weight. Your reply was that my saggy stomach muscles are 'firm now, tighter, hence smaller' - which is gibberish.

I think what he means is that because the deep abdominal muscles form a natural corset around the body (because they attach via the thoracolumbar fascia from the spine, around your front and back around to the other side of your spine again forming a cylinder), somebody if they exercised, they might have exercised this muscle, so that it became more toned and so the volume of the cylinder would decrease, having a corset like effect so that the circumference of the waist would now be smaller. In this way you may lose a few inches from your waist but not have lost any fat.

The whole Pilates concept is more or less based on this idea and certainly a lot of people, particularly women and especially after pregnancy when these muscles are naturally stretched, may look more flabby than they are when actually it may just be that these muscles have lost their tone and so the abdominal contents push out or sag out more, so the person looks bigger than they are. So even with very little body fat this person may appear flabby, but rather they are saggy...!

I'm not sure if there's any evidence that exercising this muscle actually leads to a reduction in waist circumference, but theoretically it would appear to make sense.

I doubt if this is the case is celestials case, that he has lost inches from his waist but not lost fat, but perhaps cowzwerp was just using it as an example to get his point across. Now what did my mother tell me about not getting involved???

cowzerp

rubadub wrote: »

Some sites and studies I have seen actually say this can and does happen, especially for beginners, where gains come much quicker. It happens more when people are fairly overweight to begin with too. What do you make of the anacat protocol?.

Anacat-Have not read it tbh so wont comment. look while on a calorie negative where do you think the muscle comes from? it cant-there's nothing there to turn to muscle. thats simple science.

rubadub wrote: »

She said she wanted to lose weight yes, she also said she wanted to drop from a size 14 to a size 10. 2 twins of same weight could be size 10 & 14. When I was 20 I was 11.5stone and fit in 34" jeans, I am now 12 stone and need a belt in 32" jeans..

you gained muscle and toned, also with the extra muscle you lowered your fat% more than likely, well done, not the same as a woman who wants to lose weight/fat, men and women are not the same. different comparison, means nothing, but i understand what your thinking.

Racing Flat

cowzerp wrote: »

but telling her that her weight might not change because muscle is heavy etc, is misleading and gives people excuses,

people dieting dont gain muscle anyway, male or female. and when they do freakishly its minor! why cant people understand this. calorie plus is needed to gain muscle and the girl is meant to be on a weight loss diet!

I agree with this first bit. If someone's goal is to lose weight and they don't lose it, whether it's because they have put on muscle or not is irrelevant to their goal of losing weight - they've still failed in this goal.

In relation to the second bit. The England rugby team who won the 2003 World Cup were on 6000kcals a day. Now I know they're big men anyway, but it just goes to show how much calories you need to be able to play 2 matches a week, maintain your size, power etc. People on here seem to forget that and go on about 'don't eat bread, pasta' etc. - people should be told to eat more a lot of the time! Some of the food diary's people put on here are crazy! These people either have selective memories, or they should eat more, if they want to perform well at their exercise/sport (obviously not meaning the ones who only want to lose weight).

g'em

With all due respect there are very few Fitness Diary keepers who warrant eating 6000 calories a day. Sportsmen such as the English rugby team are professionals who dedicate much of their waking day to physical activity. Their bodies will demand a lot more than the average keyboard warrior by day/ gym bunny by night individual.

From what I can see the only people who are told to not eat pasta, bread etc. is the people who want to lose fat, in which case it's absolutely a key part of their strategy. So if you're going to make a sweeping statement like "people should be told to eat more a lot of the time" I'd love to see what you're basing that on?

Judomad

g'em wrote: »

You know Supervalu are doing a great deal on hotel vouchers if you two would like to get a room...

ban or no ban on saturday you are now one of my favourite people in the internet world,

oh and cowzerp, be careful with attacking posters, last time i did i hit it and hurt my hand off the wall... plus g'em is evil with the bans so be careful, shes EVIL.....

Racing Flat

g'em wrote: »

With all due respect there are very few Fitness Diary keepers who warrant eating 6000 calories a day. Sportsmen such as the English rugby team are professionals who dedicate much of their waking day to physical activity. Their bodies will demand a lot more than the average keyboard warrior by day/ gym bunny by night individual.

From what I can see the only people who are told to not eat pasta, bread etc. is the people who want to lose fat, in which case it's absolutely a key part of their strategy. So if you're going to make a sweeping statement like "people should be told to eat more a lot of the time" I'd love to see what you're basing that on?

The rugby players were just an example of how people need calories for top level performance, not saying we all need to...
I just get annoyed when people are told not to eat bread and pasta, which is very common advice on here. Fair enough the people trying tolose weight should not be told to eat more, but looking at the food diaries on a lot of the logs, when people are doing a fair amount of exercise I find myself more often than not thinking 'Eat More' but don't have specific examples to hand. But usually straight after thinking 'Eat More' I think 'Liar':)

BossArky

Racing Flat wrote: »

People on here seem to forget that and go on about 'don't eat bread, pasta' etc. - people should be told to eat more a lot of the time!

Avoiding bread, pasta, rice, spuds, etc is usually recommended when the poster is massively overweight.

Obviously someone like yourself who runs a lot can afford to eat bread, pasta, etc and still loose weight because you are burning tonnes of calories on your long run workouts.

There is no point in confusing the massively overweight people by recommending that they eat bread and pasta, whilst avoiding weight training and just doing cardio.

Racing Flat

BossArky wrote: »

Obviously someone like yourself who runs a lot can afford to eat bread, pasta, etc and still loose weight because you are burning tonnes of calories on your long run workouts.

There is no point in confusing the massively overweight people by recommending that they eat bread and pasta, whilst avoiding weight training and just doing cardio.

I continued to eat carbs when I was losing all my weight, just ate less of them. That's my point I suppose - it shouldn't be so black and white.

I don't think I've ever confused any massively overweight person. I've always tried to keep it as simple as possible by saying to eat a healthy diet (which will include carbs) and do exercise that raises the heart rate appropriately. I've always said to do this by doing whatever sport/exercise takes the poster's fancy. But applying those principles in this case when the poster (who isn't massively overweight!) is already running anyway and asked if increasing this would help, the logical step to me would be to do this - progress what she is already doing. To start to do weights (even though she did ask if she should, so she probably is willing) but it introduces a whole new element, having to go to a gym, learn about weights etc., it might put her off. So rather than advising her to add weights, my interpretation was that the best next step for her would be to progress the running.

g'em

Judomad wrote: »

oh and cowzerp, be careful with attacking posters, last time i did i hit it and hurt my hand off the wall... plus g'em is evil with the bans so be careful, shes EVIL.....

Finally some recognition of the evil I've been perfecting for months now...

Racing Flat wrote: »

I continued to eat carbs when I was losing all my weight, just ate less of them. That's my point I suppose - it shouldn't be so black and white.

You're absolutely right, it shouldn't be so black and white, and in fairness I don't think it is. But for the vast majority of people who seek advice on how to lose fat, a reduction in the carbs they eat will go a long way towards helping their cause.

I think a lot of regulars or people who have a fair grounding of knowledge about nutrition (sports nutrition in particular) will automatically equate carbs with wholemeal breads, oats, brown rice and the like. But for the person who doesn't know much about healthy eating (and that would be the majority if n00b posters here are anything to go by ) they couldn't tell the difference between a complex carb and a simple carb if 10% of their bodyfat depended on it. And sure why would they!?!? More often than not the 'carbs' in their diet are white bread and rolls, huge servings of pasta and the not-so-odd pizza, bar of chocolate and some sugary drinks.

So I guess there's an assumption made that less rather than more is understood when much of the advice given. Even having said that though, for the majority fat loss is still a number one goal, and for that a reduction in carbs will allow for better yields (or losses as the case may be!).

I can totally see your point about keeping it simple, but I think there are a lot of people here who have had such good results with weight training that it's going to be natural that they advocate it alongside a cardio regime as opposed to just doing cardio alone. In all honesty, I'd tend to agree with them!

Roper

This thread has everything the fitness forum provides on a regular basis-
-over-complicated advice to a simple question
-complete misunderstandings between people
-complete misunderstandings of basic exercise principles
-a poorly spelt title (and now, English pedantry!)
I would love to meet the woman who can gain muscle on a calorie deficient diet. Then I would like to take some of her hormones and market them.

To the OP,
The first thing I would tell you is not to read the last 3 pages of this thread. If I could give you one bit if advice, that would be it. However Cowzerp put you right in the early part of the thread re: resistance training. So start using weights, or if you don't fancy the gym, start doing push ups, squats and sit-ups at home or in the garden.

For the running, try mixing it up a bit. Rather than thinking quantity, the more time spent running the better, think more speed, and set yourself some goals. A good one for you right now would be a sub 30 6k. That's knocking 6 minutes off your current time which is a click a minute. It might take you a while but then it might also come sooner than you think.

Judomad

g'em wrote: »

Finally some recognition of the evil I've been perfecting for months now...

no problem, i felt the wrath on sunday........id still squash ya though