Exercise to lose weight. Does it actually work?

Joncol

Bit of background.

I'm 25yr old male, 6foot2, weighing 18 stone in the summer. Through a strict diet and walking everyday I now weight 15 stone 12 - or rather I did last month.

I say last month because as soon as I got into the 15 stone zone I started to exercise with interval running on the treadmill burning 600 cals per day, and guess what one month later I still weigh 15 stone 12 pounds.

A few points to note -
1) My calorie intake is still the same as it was when starting the diet i.e I don't eat more because I'm running.
2) I drink lots of water and have increased it since starting running as I know it's very important.
3) My clothes still fit the same and feel no looser since starting the running.

Obviously exercise is good for your general health, it goes without saying, but from what I'm seeing I'm starting to think that exercise might actually hinder you from losing weight rather than help you.

So is there any point in continuing exercise, surely I should just go back to the diet and daily walk? That was working, and working quite well... On my rate of weight loss I would of been close to 14 stone now if not starting running.

WeeBushy

Yes exercise will help, it burns calories. And to lose weight you have to use more calories than you take in. However, diet is more important than exercise. You can run all you want and you'll still maintain/gain weight if you are eating too much, and too much of the wrong things.

I'd look at your diet if I were you. Post up what you normally eat if you can't see anything wrong with it and people here will give their advise. And if you do, be honest!

Well done on starting, and stick with it btw. The effort will pay off.

Joncol

Breakfast would usually be wholegrain toast with boiled eggs or perhaps an apple with a bowl of porridge.

Lunch would be an apple/sliced pineapple.

Dinner would be Salmon with cous cous or perhaps a wrap with chicken/peppers/mixed salad.

My calorie intake has been 1150 per day since I started the diet and since I incorporated exercise it has remained 1150 per day.

I watch absolutely everything I eat and my calorie intake never goes over 1150.

I have stuck to it from day one and not once broke it.


I'm starting to think a reduced calorie diet works much better in terms of loosing weight than exercise.

Doug Cartel

Joncol wrote: »

I say last month because as soon as I got into the 15 stone zone I started to exercise with interval running on the treadmill burning 600 cals per day, and guess what one month later I still weigh 15 stone 12 pounds.

A minor point, but how are you getting this 600 cals per day figure? If it's off the machine then all it's doing is making a very approximate guess. Actually I don't think there's any accurate way of measuring calories burned during exercise.

Joncol

I've read somewhere that running can build muscle and as muscle is heavier than fat then you can put on weight from running.

Again it raises the question, why run if you're trying to loose weight?

Joncol

Doug Cartel wrote: »

A minor point, but how are you getting this 600 cals per day figure? If it's off the machine then all it's doing is making a very approximate guess. Actually I don't think there's any accurate way of measuring calories burned during exercise.

Yes it's off the machine. If you don't like readings then basically I'm doing 50 mins of cardio. Either way I'm incorporating exercise.

Wollwead

Dude hit the weights go see a Personal Trainer! Not all about running, do some other stuff to aid in your quest for fitness and fat loss. Presumably your goal is fat loss, it'll happen MUCH faster if you eat and train smarter, hence going to a PT.

Joncol

I was thinking about joining gym so I could start using rowing machine, bike etc and get an all round workout as you say but if exercise for the past month produced no weight loss then maybe I should just go back to the diet on it's own.

Gumble01

running is bad for loosing weight this article explains it pretty well, http://articles.elitefts.com/articles/training-articles/women-running-into-trouble/

MyKeyG

Joncol wrote: »

I've read somewhere that running can build muscle and as muscle is heavier than fat then you can put on weight from running.

Again it raises the question, why run if you're trying to loose weight?

Muscle is denser than fat but there's no way muscle builds as fast as you burn fat so it won't dramatically affect the scales.

I lost 2 stone in 6 weeks just using the treadmill for 30 mins a day but my diet was better too. The simple rule of thumb has already been mentioned. If you burn more calories than you take in then you'll lose weight. How you burn them is up to you.

I wouldn't trust the machines for calculating calories either but everyone is different. Judge your own body after each exercise and find which is the one that you feel works you the hardest. For me it's the treadmill and cross trainer.

Joncol

"The simple rule of thumb has already been mentioned. If you burn more calories than you take in then you'll lose weight. How you burn them is up to you."


My intake has been 1150 each day the past month, my requirement is around 2200 per day. I haven't lost a single pound, so it doesn't seem that simple to me.

I was that simple before I opted to start running.

Joncol

I'd be very interested to hear peoples thoughts on diet only to lose weight and leaving out the exercise.

I'd like to be in the 14 stone zone by xmas and altough it leaves just over two weeks to do so I would of been there by now if exerciing.

I think I'm going to go back onto the diet and start my daily walks every day. I was walking 5 miles every day so it was a good light bit of exercise.

I would like to get fit and toned but I think I'll start that once I'm down to 14 stone and comfortable with my weight.

I just don't see the point of continuing with exercise when the diet and walking seemed to be doing the trick.

Will keep everyone posted and thanks for the tips etc.
Will post here end of next week and let ya know how the first week back to the original routine goes. Hopefully might lose four or five pounds. Maybe walking suits me...

Spunge

Fair play for sticking to a pretty low calorie diet and doing the exercise. Sucks you didn't lose any weight. Seems weird as hell to me.

Joncol

Lost on me too mate.

Will go back to walking and see how I get on.

Would love to go back to exercise and get fit once I'm down to my ideal weight.

It's a catch 22 really, I know my exercising and doing cardio that I'm getting fitter as I can feel it but I ain't loosing any weight and I'm overweight and need to address it.

Serafijn

Good on you for sticking to the walking and diet, but I actually think you're not eating enough.

Joncol wrote: »

My intake has been 1150 each day the past month, my requirement is around 2200 per day

That is a HUGE deficit and if you're running for 50 mins every day that's putting a pretty major strain on your body - it's probably convinced it's being starved! I know that if I only ate an apple or some pineapple slices for lunch I'd be passing out by the time I got home from work. In fact I eat a lot more than that (about 1300-1500 cals), and I'm a 10 stone 5 woman losing about 1lb a week at the moment.

You must have heard about 'starvation mode'; now I'm no expert so couldn't tell you specifics about the science behind this theory or if what we hear is really true, but from what I gather (some quick googling can back this up), cutting your calorie intake to extremes, after a while forces your body to lower its metabolism. If it continues to not get enough nutrients it seems to adapt, and so you burn less calories doing the same things. It also sounds like it can have some pretty nasty long-term effects :eek:

Do some research yourself anyway and see if you agree, but surely I'm not the only one who thinks that cutting your calorie intake in half is a bad idea

metamorphosis

Okay, here you go

1.You have hit a plateau. It is usually inevitable for most weight loss.
2.You are eating too little at 1150 cals
3. Keep up the exercise, exercise that you enjoy, whatever form of it that is.

Exercise does not cause you to not lose weight. Your diet will or some other factor. 90% of people dieting will hit some sort of plateau, you seem to have def hit yours if you have been stable for a month with exercise (and too little a cal intake, id say start with 1200 minimum)

Now, I know this is going against the grain but if you want to break out of the plateau, Id suggest eating at maintenance or slightly above for 1 week - it won't cause any real gain at all and should break you out of your plateau

Exercise can help, but try not to look at it as a tool to aid your weight loss too much as then you will only really ever associate the two as one. See exercise as been there for general, mental and aesthetics etc

EDIT: try not to read to much into starvation mode, lot of it its bullcrap.

Davei141

metamorphosis wrote: »

Okay, here you go

1.You have hit a plateau. It is usually inevitable for most weight loss.
2.You are eating too little at 1150 cals
3. Keep up the exercise, exercise that you enjoy, whatever form of it that is.

Exercise does not cause you to not lose weight. Your diet will or some other factor. 90% of people dieting will hit some sort of plateau, you seem to have def hit yours if you have been stable for a month with exercise (and too little a cal intake, id say start with 1200 minimum)

Now, I know this is going against the grain but if you want to break out of the plateau, Id suggest eating at maintenance or slightly above for 1 week - it won't cause any real gain at all and should break you out of your plateau

Exercise can help, but try not to look at it as a tool to aid your weight loss too much as then you will only really ever associate the two as one. See exercise as been there for general, mental and aesthetics etc

EDIT: try not to read to much into starvation mode, lot of it its bullcrap.

The bolded bit is so true, good post.

seamus

metamorphosis wrote: »

Now, I know this is going against the grain but if you want to break out of the plateau, Id suggest eating at maintenance or slightly above for 1 week - it won't cause any real gain at all and should break you out of your plateau

Yep, pretty much what works for me. Take a week (or sometimes two) off, eat without counting (but without being a pig obviously), enjoy myself, have a few beers or whatever, then get back into the dieting zone, and the plateau is broken.

CardinalJ

If OP is eating 1150Cal per day and burning in or around 600 their body would be in full blown panic mode.

Take a break and eat more.

Thud

ok, the first few lbs (even stones) will always come off easier once you make a proper change to your diet, it will slow down after a while that is what you are experiencing.

As you lose weight your daily calorie intake need will reduce also as you are moving/carrying around less weight each day so less fuel needed so this may be another factor.

Muscle will weigh more than fat but it will also burn more calories.

Stick with the exercise, it will make you healhier and should help in keeping the weight off long term...no pain no gain!

MyKeyG

Serafijn wrote: »

Good on you for sticking to the walking and diet, but I actually think you're not eating enough...

...You must have heard about 'starvation mode'; now I'm no expert so couldn't tell you specifics about the science behind this theory or if what we hear is really true, but from what I gather (some quick googling can back this up), cutting your calorie intake to extremes, after a while forces your body to lower its metabolism. If it continues to not get enough nutrients it seems to adapt, and so you burn less calories doing the same things. It also sounds like it can have some pretty nasty long-term effects :eek:

There's probably some truth to this. A nutritionist told me that people who diet by dramatically cutting their food intake are likely to fare worse. She specifically mentioned the muscles where fat is burned. Think about it. Your body is the engine you use to burn fat. If that engine isn't being maintained because of limited food intake then it won't work as effectively as it should.

OP I know you don't want to put up weight through muscle but I was told that the leaner the muscle the more fat you burn. Apparently introducing a progressive weights programme into your fitness circuit is the way to go.

Joncol

It's a interesting point and one I thought of myself.

Re: Starvation mode, I don't think it's the case because as far as I know that involves your body eating into your muscle tissue for energy, that's not happening with me, well from what I can feel anyway. I'm stronger now than I've ever been, I actually have more energy than ever so if this is starvation mode then it really shouldn't feel so energetic....

Re having fruit for lunch: It might seem light but bare in mind I always have a nice healthy breakfast that fuels me throughout the day and I'll always finish the day with a nice healthy dinner with a food type that contains good fats to keep me energised i.e Salmon, Mackrel etc. If I'm eating a salad then I'll incorporate flaxseed oil as I'm a great believer in healthy fats to keep the body ticking over.

As I say I completely understand the benefits of exercise but I'm starting to think it's best for those looking to get fit,tone up, firm up than those looking to loose weight.

Once I loose the weight I'm going to increase my calorie intake as my intention is to start working out to get fit, but only once I've lost this excess weight by walking/diet. It might sound strange but for whatever reason the exercise isn't working for me and I know the alternative does.

Joncol

Sorry I only noticed all the responses there, first off thank you for them!!!

It's all very interesting to read.

I'll keep everyone posted on how I get on going back to old routine.

Serafijn

I don't think anyone suggested going back to your old routine. 5 posters have suggested that you're not eating enough, and even if 'starvation mode' is bullcrap there's still something wrong with cutting your calorie intake to 50% of what it should be.

Eitherway, I hope you can break through your plateau soon, good luck.

deegs

hey man, how did you settle on 1150?
Do your know you average sedentiary calorie needs? And your average exercise rate?

Joncol

I'll be honest I don't.

I just decided to cut my calories in half from my daily requirement for my height/weight and to start walking everyday.

As I say a month ago I started to run after loosing the weight over three months but I kept my calorie intake the same.

I'm going to go back to the walking for now and see how I get on.

AceCard Jones

Your body has an incredible way of adapting to what you throw at it. If your body is now used to running on 1150 calories and doing your exercises it will do everything in it's power to keep itself sustained, ie the way it is now. If you're at a calorie deficit your body is going to hold onto everything you put into it, ie food and water, and isn't going to burn your fat in storage.

I was 17.5 stone in January this year, and I was 28% bodyfat, I'm 6.3", we're now in December and through clean diet (for the most part, the odd treat does no harm) and constant weight training I am now down to 14 stone and 9% bodyfat (Pinch tested, most accurate way). I did a bit of cardio over the course of the year but nothing major, now I'm trying to get below 8% bodyfat so I am underfat and all my definition will show. Obviously my case is different to yours as is your goal.

But I've hit a plateau myself where weight and bodyfat is concerned so I started interval training on the bike/treadmill. You should do a quick google or if you're at the gym consult your instructor and they will do you up a regime. I've just added it in after every weight session and it's doing wonders, burns way more than just constantly running or constantly walking.

It sounds like you're trying to talk yourself out of exercising, which would be a shame as you'd lose out on all the benefits, and there is nothing wrong with taking breaks, a week break every few months is good for you.
The important thing for sustained weight loss is to mix it up, if you stick to the same thing day in day out your body will adapt and results will stop.

Good luck in whatever you choose to do.

EDIT, just noticed you said you've been doing interval training on the treadmill, though it can't be too intense if you're lasting 50 minutes with no results. Rest of my post still applies though, try interval on other machines and mix it up every so often. While I'm editing you're eating too little in my opinion, I'd ramp it up to 1500 calories but just keep the training as intense as you can make it. You're also placing a lot of your concern on the weighing scales, if you join a gym, or indeed get a tape measure, you can measure yourself in all the key areas each month, I've been doing that every six weeks which is every time I switch up programs so I know what works well for me and where. The results can be amazing, ie the scale reads the same but you lose inches and bodyfat you would never see looking in the mirror.

Hanley

AceCard Jones wrote: »

Your body has an incredible way of adapting to what you throw at it. If your body is now used to running on 1150 calories and doing your exercises it will do everything in it's power to keep itself sustained, ie the way it is now. If you're at a calorie deficit your body is going to hold onto everything you put into it, ie food and water, and isn't going to burn your fat in storage.

I'd agree with this in part. Especially the water retention side of things.

The other thing to consider is that in the face of increased kcal restriction you body will automatically down regulate the amount of activity you can do - without even noticing you'll sit around on you bum for longer, move more slowly and less frequently.

Add in a decrease in BMR.

And the very real possibility that you're incorrectly estimating kcals (something like 30-50% of people do this on a diet) and it's not hard to see why you're not losing.

As has been said - a full diet break eating at maintenance or above for a week or two is a good start. Don't be surprised to see weight loss in the 48 hours period after starting this due to the elimination of excess water/fluid.

leggit

You said you did interval training for 50 minutes? This shouldn't last more than 20 minutes max and you should be dead at the end of it.

I can't do interval training on a threadmill as it feels very unnatural to me, stationary bicycle is ok for it though. If you're doing it on foot I'd recommend outside on grass as you can really go hell for leather then!

AceCard Jones

leggit wrote: »

You said you did interval training for 50 minutes? This shouldn't last more than 20 minutes max and you should be dead at the end of it.

That's my thought exactly. Either not intense at all or there is a misunderstanding somewhere.

deegs

I think people confuse the intervel setting on the gym equipment with Interval training!

Look up HIIT (High intensity interval training) 15 minutes exercise of HIIT can be, in some cases, better than an hours low intensity cardio (such as walking) with the added benefit that you are getting full body tone (depending on exercises of course).

Actually, I would agree with using a tape measure aswell, and I guess as you ramped up your exercise level its not crazy to believe that you are still losing fat, but perhaps developing muscle also?

I'd say work through it... The benefits of exercise are more than weight loss...

eleven1

please bear in mind that the scales wont tell u how much muscles did u gain or how much fat did u burn , may b the numbers remain the same everytime u weigh in yourself , i think you need to keep an eye on your body , time to take few pics & compare the results on monthly basis for example ...

Hanley

deegs wrote: »

Look up HIIT (High intensity interval training) 15 minutes exercise of HIIT can be, in some cases, better than an hours low intensity cardio (such as walking) with the added benefit that you are getting full body tone (depending on exercises of course).

Define "better" in this context.

Lago

deegs wrote: »

Look up HIIT (High intensity interval training) 15 minutes exercise of HIIT can be, in some cases, better than an hours low intensity cardio (such as walking) with the added benefit that you are getting full body tone (depending on exercises of course).

That's a very broad statement. As Hanley said, define "better". Also, define the HIIT you're talking about. For instance, the main HIIT I do is sprint-jog intervals. I don't see how that would give me a "better" full body tone than jogging.

I do both and HIIT for 10 minutes burns about 350 calories, not counting afterburn. Where as 45 minutes of light jogging (8.9km/h) burns nearly 900, not counting afterburn

Hanley

Lago wrote: »

I do both and HIIT for 10 minutes burns about 350 calories, not counting afterburn. Where as 45 minutes of light jogging (8.9km/h) burns nearly 900, not counting afterburn

Hate to be the one breaking this to you, but those numbers are likely 100% in excess of your actual kcal expenditure for those activities in those time ranges.

jmvane15

If doing that keeps you at the same weight, do not decrease how much you exercise you'll probably gain weight. Is your diet good? that factors a lot into losing weight.

Lago

Hanley wrote: »

Hate to be the one breaking this to you, but those numbers are likely 100% in excess of your actual kcal expenditure for those activities in those time ranges.

Aye, I realised that the first time I went to the gym and used the treadmills there. My treadmill at home seems to go up in calories a lot quicker (although it could be taking the incline in to account). I've never done a large amount of running at the gym so I was just taking those numbers to show the "define "better"" point

AntiVirus

So the op is only taking in 1150 calories a day and burning 600 calories a day so he's really only taking in 550 calories a day. That's 1650 calories less than he should be taking a day just to maintain his weight each day. He's done this for a month and not lost any weight and he wants to go on a diet? Id say everyone of those numbers is way off the mark.

Anyway to answer the question. Yes exercise will help you lose weight.

Mellor

Lago wrote: »

Aye, I realised that the first time I went to the gym and used the treadmills there. My treadmill at home seems to go up in calories a lot quicker (although it could be taking the incline in to account). I've never done a large amount of running at the gym so I was just taking those numbers to show the "define "better"" point

Threadmill numbers are useless really.
I'd say halfing them would be closer to reality

eleven1

i just wanted to add my voice to all those who said treadmills are not accurate , i totally agree , i think they did that in purpose to encourage people exercising or to show that that brand or machine is what you need to buy and tell your friends to buy to lose weight .

deegs

Hanley wrote: »

Define "better" in this context.

How does this post help the OP?
Don't be so pedantic. This whole thread is about weight loss... doe you really need it spelled out?

Lagos, as others have said, I would not pay attention to gym reported calorie consumption. But tell me how exactly you determine HIIT calorie expenditure? Are you using the treadmill also?

In terms of weight loss while you may burn more actual calories for the exercise duration using endurance methods, the HIIT methods is believed to prolong a higher metabolic burn rate for sustained periods after the actual training period.

So over a 15minute HIIT session followed by 24 to 48 hours you are believed to consume more calories than a cardio or endurance session of 1 hour over the same 24 to 48 hour period. Cardio is good for other things but for weight loss, its believed HIIT is better.

But I would also say that you would need to do HIIT on weights or resistance training targetting your full body to give you a "full body tone" however your sprint jog intervals are not actually HIIT IMHO but rather just interval training and even if you did pure Sprint HIIT training I'm not sure you would see a full body tone, but you would probably see a little more fat loss ... so in an obscure way maybe the result may imply a better full body tone.

Hanley

deegs wrote: »

How does this post help the OP?
Don't be so pedantic. This whole thread is about weight loss... doe you really need it spelled out?

It needed to be spelled out because I wanted to make sure we were on the same page before I said you were wrong. If you were saying that it's better for certain aspects of fitness I'd have agreed. There's no need to be so snotty.

In terms of weight loss while you may burn more actual calories for the exercise duration using endurance methods, the HIIT methods is believed to prolong a higher metabolic burn rate for sustained periods after the actual training period.

Yes, but the effect is minimal. Off the top of my head, the equivalent of 7-10% of the total kcals burned during the session may be burned again in the 24 hour period after for session around 45-90 minutes in duration. Aroud 10-15% for shorter session. For a short session - that is not significant. I'd also question an untrained persons ability to sustain workoutput at the level where these figures occur.

So over a 15minute HIIT session followed by 24 to 48 hours you are believed to consume more calories than a cardio or endurance session of 1 hour over the same 24 to 48 hour period. Cardio is good for other things but for weight loss, its believed HIIT is better.

I'm going to have to ask you to back that one up with some evidence. Actual evidence. Not jsut an internet post.

But I would also say that you would need to do HIIT on weights or resistance training targetting your full body to give you a "full body tone" however your sprint jog intervals are not actually HIIT IMHO but rather just interval training and even if you did pure Sprint HIIT training I'm not sure you would see a full body tone, but you would probably see a little more fat loss ... so in an obscure way maybe the result may imply a better full body tone.

And here's the kicker... HIIT for fat loss tends to be studied in isolation. Not when there's a kcal deficit and weight training too. Which means the effects on recovery etc are rarely if ever assessed.

There's other reasons why HIIT can be good - it has a greater hunger blunting effect than LIT so you eat less kcals, there's the glyocogen depletion/calorie partioning effects too, but on a pure kcals in -v- kcals out level, it doesn't really matter whether you do HIIT or LIT.

Whichever one you're more likely to enjoy and stick to is better.

deegs

Hanley wrote: »

I'm going to have to ask you to back that one up with some evidence. Actual evidence. Not jsut an internet post.

Excuse me?

Why exactly are you going to have to ask me that? More importatly, why exactly do you think I'm going to comply?
This is an internet forum...not a viva for my PhD? And who made you the moral high ground officer or internet police? I'm sure the mods do a great job and if someone was posting damaging or misleading information they would be the first to step in.

Just because I post something you may not agree with, that no excuse to demand anything of anyone... it would be a far better approach for you to post a counter argument or actually reference papers yourself to strengthen your position? But to otherwise "demand" anything of anyone on a forum like this just smacks of arrogance. If it was your forum I could understand...but it aint...

As it happens I actually have relevent published papers here from accredited journals, as well as recent MSc and PhD's on the subject. Some confirm what I wrote about HIIT and others fail to determine correlation and others still deny it (as I suspect is your position). But generally the concept is accepted (and has been for the last 10-20years).

Furthermore, none of my papers or yours (and I rather assume you have some... you know...evidence...actual evidence... not jsut an internet post!)
correlate with the OP's Diet or exercise so arguing the point is beyond moot.

But come to think of it... You say "HIIT for fat loss tends to be be studied in isolation" That's a pretty broad general statement... does that imply that you have read ever single piece of science on the subject and ancillary subject matter? Interesting...

Anyway, I don't want this thread going off topic, I gave my opinion, you gave yours... lets leave it to the OP to decide and if you still want to play you can PM me f you wish.

BlueIsland

deegs wrote: »

How does this post help the OP?
Don't be so pedantic. This whole thread is about weight loss... doe you really need it spelled out?

Lagos, as others have said, I would not pay attention to gym reported calorie consumption. But tell me how exactly you determine HIIT calorie expenditure? Are you using the treadmill also?

In terms of weight loss while you may burn more actual calories for the exercise duration using endurance methods, the HIIT methods is believed to prolong a higher metabolic burn rate for sustained periods after the actual training period.

So over a 15minute HIIT session followed by 24 to 48 hours you are believed to consume more calories than a cardio or endurance session of 1 hour over the same 24 to 48 hour period. Cardio is good for other things but for weight loss, its believed HIIT is better.

But I would also say that you would need to do HIIT on weights or resistance training targetting your full body to give you a "full body tone" however your sprint jog intervals are not actually HIIT IMHO but rather just interval training and even if you did pure Sprint HIIT training I'm not sure you would see a full body tone, but you would probably see a little more fat loss ... so in an obscure way maybe the result may imply a better full body tone.

HIIT is a form of cardio as far as Im concerned,not a seperate entity!

g'em

lads, take a step back and have a breather for a minute. Let's not let over-enthusiasm ruin a good discussion. And ftr, as per the Charter, a user is perfectly entitled to request evidence to support a claim given the nature of the information being discussed.

Hanley

deegs wrote: »

Excuse me?

Why exactly are you going to have to ask me that? More importatly, why exactly do you think I'm going to comply?

You stated a position. The onus is on you to support it.

This is an internet forum...not a viva for my PhD? And who made you the moral high ground officer or internet police?

I'm sorry if you have issues with me questioning you, but this is a widely read forum, and when you make radical claims, there should be some back up to them. Hell, it's the first point in the charter.

I'm sure the mods do a great job and if someone was posting damaging or misleading information they would be the first to step in.

Only if it's reported, the majority of the time they take a back seat and allow debate to happen.

Just because I post something you may not agree with, that no excuse to demand anything of anyone...

Lol. Believe me, there's a lot of people here who'd disagree with you. And as I've said - you can't make big claims without being expected to back them up. This is primarily a discussion forum for people with and interest in health and fitness, not a "hey listen to me and don't question me" forum.

it would be a far better approach for you to post a counter argument

I did.

or actually reference papers yourself to strengthen your position? But to otherwise "demand" anything of anyone on a forum like this just smacks of arrogance. If it was your forum I could understand...but it aint...

Does it? I'd disagree. And I asked, I didn't demand.

As it happens I actually have relevent published papers here from accredited journals, as well as recent MSc and PhD's on the subject. Some confirm what I wrote about HIIT and others fail to determine correlation and others still deny it (as I suspect is your position). But generally the concept is accepted (and has been for the last 10-20years).

What's the concept? (assuming I'm still allowed ask questions). That some EPOC effect exists? Of course it does - I never said it didn't. My position is that people make a bigger deal of it than it actually is.

Furthermore, none of my papers or yours (and I rather assume you have some... you know...evidence...actual evidence... not jsut an internet post!)
correlate with the OP's Diet or exercise so arguing the point is beyond moot.

Again - this makes no sense. Or else I'm really dumb.

But come to think of it... You say "HIIT for fat loss tends to be be studied in isolation" That's a pretty broad general statement... does that imply that you have read ever single piece of science on the subject and ancillary subject matter? Interesting...

Do you understand what I was saying when I said that? I clarified after incase you missed it

Anyway, I don't want this thread going off topic, I gave my opinion, you gave yours... lets leave it to the OP to decide and if you still want to play you can PM me f you wish.

Anyone can give an opinion on something. I could give you an opinion on what makes a car move (hint: it's jesus). But that doesn't mean my opinion is valid, especially when you there's evidence to the contrary.

This subject comes up again and again, and again on here and people mindlessly (and I'm not saying you because oyu seem to at least have a basis for it) trot out the EPOC line, shorter time, fat loss blah blah blah... but no one ever seems to be able to justify it. So, why can't that be done here?

deegs

BlueIsland wrote: »

HIIT is a form of cardio as far as Im concerned,not a seperate entity!

That's a fair point, but generally cardio is usually consider aerobic whilst HIIT can be considered anaerobic, aerobic or both, so I guess in some regards they may not be mutually exclusive... I mean LIT or regular interval training when I referred to cardio above.

BraziliaNZ

From my experience, exercising doesn't do that much for losing weight, but you see almost instant results if you cut down your calorie intake.

deegs

Hanley wrote: »

What's the concept? (assuming I'm still allowed ask questions). That some EPOC effect exists? Of course it does - I never said it didn't. My position is that people make a bigger deal of it than it actually is.

So hang on.... you do agree with me... but you think I (and others) are making a big deal about it???

Ok, gem, I get that requests of validation are allowed but are these request supposed to be met?

In either case here are some recent reported findings or experiments.

J. Drigny, T. Guiraud, M. Gayda, M. Juneau, A. Nigam, V. Gremeaux, High-intensity interval training program improves body composition, exercise capacity and metabolic profile better than moderate-intensity continuous exercise in MetS patients with similar effects on ventricular repolarisation parameters, Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Volume 54, Supplement 1, October 2011, Pages e155-e156,

J. Drigny, M. Gayda, A. Nigam, V. Guilbeault, M. Juneau, V. Gremeaux, Long-term lifestyle intervention and optimized high intensity interval training program improve body composition, cardiovascular risk and exercise capacity in obese patients with or without metabolic syndrome, Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Volume 54, Supplement 1, October 2011, Page e155,

Glenn A. Gaesser and Siddhartha S. Angadi
High-Intensity Interval Training for Health and Fitness: Can Less be More? Editorial, Journal of Applied Physiology, October 2011

PS, Hanley, even in your historic posts (recent and older) you yourself agree that HIIT is beneficial to fat loss. So I don't really follow what this discussion is about.

While we are at it, can you show me some of your recent references that support your counter argument?

Hanley

deegs wrote: »

So hang on.... you do agree with me... but you think I (and others) are making a big deal about it???

Ok, gem, I get that requests of validation are allowed but are these request supposed to be met?

In either case here are some recent reported findings or experiments.

J. Drigny, T. Guiraud, M. Gayda, M. Juneau, A. Nigam, V. Gremeaux, High-intensity interval training program improves body composition, exercise capacity and metabolic profile better than moderate-intensity continuous exercise in MetS patients with similar effects on ventricular repolarisation parameters, Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Volume 54, Supplement 1, October 2011, Pages e155-e156,

J. Drigny, M. Gayda, A. Nigam, V. Guilbeault, M. Juneau, V. Gremeaux, Long-term lifestyle intervention and optimized high intensity interval training program improve body composition, cardiovascular risk and exercise capacity in obese patients with or without metabolic syndrome, Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Volume 54, Supplement 1, October 2011, Page e155,

Glenn A. Gaesser and Siddhartha S. Angadi
High-Intensity Interval Training for Health and Fitness: Can Less be More? Editorial, Journal of Applied Physiology, October 2011

PS, Hanley, even in your historic posts (recent and older) you yourself agree that HIIT is beneficial to fat loss. So I don't really follow what this discussion is about.

While we are at it, can you show me some of your recent references that support your counter argument?

Awesome, that's more like it - thanks

My point is, doing HIIT over LIT won't make or break weight loss. The additonal kcals attributable to EPOC aren't significant (even 10-15% of 200-300kcals is around 30kcals). Intervals are harder and more taxing on your system to recover form, especially when weight training and eating below maintenance kcals.

Do you see where I'm coming from when I say I don't think it really matters? Like SOME form of cardio, plus weights, plus calorie restriction = fat loss/toning. It's not like if you do LIT instead of HIIT you'll get there any quicker really (assuming adherence to either isn't an issue, which typically in real life it may be)

I'll have a look at the studies later and throw some more up. Do you know if they controlled for kcal intake? (mainly becuase HIIT can lead to hunger blunting)

I see one mentions metabolic syndrome, I can definitely see why short burst high intensity activities would be beneficial there, but would probably say that by controlling carb intake and doing a series of glycogen depleting workouts you could get similar effects in longer time.

I'm a middle of the road guy. I think anyone stuck in either camp is probably wrong. I think they both have their uses, but I don't think one is exclusively better than the other. Plus I like to argue and challenge myself to come up with logical explanations as to why that is the case.

THanks for the reply

pretty-in-pink

As has been said- its diet more then exercise. So take a look at that - and deffo add more cals (find your base calorific needs- that is what you need to purely exist doing no exercise, and then work out what you burn through exercise. Add about half of the burning cals to your daily base and you should be ok)

You have hit the plateau, and will stay there untill you change things up. If you are just doing doing cardio, it won't do much, and the frequency with which your exercise also has an effect. 3 days weights, 3 days cardio, 1 day off is a good balance. Regarding diet- 3 days strict low cal, on weights days eat a load of protein, and on your rest day, you can "cheat" and have treats.

Check what your body fat is (someone in your gym if you go to one can do this for you). It is unlikely you have built much muscle from pure cardio, but you will have built some. Best of luck in getting back on track.

(as an fyi i'm not qualified myself, but my brother is, and my boyfriend is really into his fitness, weights etc so i'm relaying what they have said for successful weight loss and muscle building. Check out different work outs too, some take only 30 mins and will kill you but do amazing fat burning. theres also one that takes 11 mins, and its brilliant, but very very tough. its my brothers trick though so i cant share the 11 minute without his say so. the other one is 30 second of 8 different exercises, 4 minutes teadmill, and repeat 4 times. sounds easy....but its brutal and kills fat)