Training for training or training for weightloss

I'm sure other people will pipe in here, but I've found that diet is much, much more important for weight loss than training. 30 minutes of exercise + a sensible calorie reduction is key.

Yup. Weight loss is calories in vs calories out. Plain and simple. Calories in is what you eat/drink and calories out is Basal metabolic rate + lifestyle (secretary or construction worker) + activity calories burned. Try and make your 'out' calories 500 -1000 more than 'in' per day. Now, if this takes 60-90 minutes because of what you are eating, then that is what you will need.

I use fitday.com and have lost 10 lbs this year.

Edited by war damn tri 2006-03-10 8:05 AM

Activity defines the diet... it should never be the other way around... unless you like to doing the yo-yo diet thing.

Less activity = less calories and vice versa....

Is 30 mins. enough activity too help loose weight... depends... depends upon how many calories you consume. But, most reports indicated this is only maintanence (for the average persons) level activity. To change body composition (which is NOT the same thing as loosing weight) requires more activity than 30 mins. per training session.

Research shows that activity is the key element that determins long term success in weight control... BTW, I HATE the idea of weight loss.

The key benchmarks of success begins with the various degrees elements of training (i.e., volume, intensity, periodization, etc.)... and body weight as a benchmark should be sooo far down the list that it would only need to be used if you are underweight.

FWIW Joe Moya

Edited by Joe M 2006-03-10 8:08 AM

When it comes to weight loss, your training needs to be focused on the body becoming an efficient fat burning machine. Fat is the fuel, but the body will only burn fat in meaningful amounts during sustained low intensity exercise. If you up the intensity, the body will switch to higher proportion of sugar or glucose and less fat.

You often see people doing intense short duration exercise in gyms, like 30 minutes on a stepper, sweating profusely. Keep that up, and your body will not only become very good at burning sugar, it will crave it like crazy afterwards. Needless to say, loosing weight will be damned near impossible. This is why so many gym visitors are so frustrated with their weight loss, they work out hard, yet can't drop any weight to speak of, or put it back on fast. To teach the body to burn fat efficiently, extend the duration (60-90 minutes is good) and lower the intensity, it will begin to melt off of you. This is the same as aerobic base building which should constitute 90% or more of all training diets of endurance atletes. Don't do any short workouts: when you get out, stay out. Better one 60 minute workout then 2 30 minute deals.

Problem is, that when I exercise, I get HUNGRY.   That's the biggest battle.  Controlling what you eat and how much.

Add some weight training into your exersise. Building muscle ups your matabolism and helps you burn calories 24/7.

Edited by bradword 2006-03-10 9:52 AM

Weight training equals muscle development equals weight gain. Weight training has of course strength benefits and makes you look good but it is not a recipe for weight loss.

I'll have to respectively disagree. Although muscle weighs more than fat, it's good weight. And muscle burns many more calories 24/7. Studies have shown (will have to find one when i have more time) two groups, one doing cardio and one doing weight training only, the weight training group lost more weight.

"and your body will not only become very good at burning sugar"

I hope I don't open up a hornet's nest here, but I've always been very dubious of the theory that your body "learns" to burn sugars or fats. I accept that exercise duration and intensity will cause your body to tap into different sources and reserves for the fuel it needs, i.e.: longer duration, lower intensity exercise is more effective at burning fat than high intensity short workouts, but I'd be interested in seeing some empirical data, not anecdotal evidence, that your body "learns" to burn one fuel or the other based on what exercise you do.

Previous posters have hit the weight loss issue on the head I think -- eat fewer calories, lose weight.

No problem, it's a free country! The other thing to throw into the mix is that strength training is weight bearing exercise that promotes bone mass density. While a generally a good thing, it does come with added weight as well.

I'll try to explain the way i figure how it works. Im no doctor or anything but this makes sense to me. Throughout the animal kingdom you see animals that put on fat during certain periods of the year. This is due to the fact that food availability, quality and quantity varies. Also the energy requirements vary. There you have your input output for calories. Bodies have evolved to endure this problem the best way it can and it is by saving (fat) energy for those times. The problem lies in the fact that us humans do not have the need for that reserved fat. We have the refrigerators, supermarkets and food is readily available all year round in quantity and in good quality.
From what i understand there are three types of energy in the body. Energy readily available in the cells, fat and energy we digest. The body switches from one to the other. At times it uses the energy it digests and then reaches into its reserves, other times it uses the energy we digest and saves whatever is left over. When it is reaching into its reserves it is called Ketosis.
The reason for prolonged periods of high calorie consumption works good for fat burning is because it does strengthen the muscles, makes them lean and that helps burn fat. Although, no amount of exercise will do any good if the diet does not fit the requirements.
Also something to chew on, literally. The type of foods you eat has a lot to do with how many calories you consume. The more processed some food is the easier it is for the body to absorb. For example sugar in a carbonated drink or sugar in an apple. To get the energy or sugar from the apple your body has to work more in order to break it down. This is your digestive system and as a plus, it is an involuntary muscle therefore increasing the amount of calories consumed by your body. also the amount of times you eat a day can have an impact on your calorie consumption for the same reason. It is best to eat more times but in smaller portions that way you have your digestive system working all day. Also the more fiber something has when you eat, the more benefits it will have for you. It is always a good idea to consult a fisician to help you with this so that you have a well balanced diet. Hope it helps and good luck on your quest.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I have lost 15 pounds in the past 4 months and it has come from better eating habits. I have been increasing my workout load but the majority of the weight loss resulted from my dieting because I altered that before I altered my workout habits.

Well, I can tell you what worked for me -- Previous to starting tri training, I did 30 minutes of some kind of cardio 4-5 days a week and then some kind of strength training 2 days a week, and combined with controlled calorie intake and better food choices, I lost 60 pounds net over a year (which is more like 75 pounds of fat, because whoa I'm strong now).

I've been working with a personal trainer, which I highly recommend, even if you only meet a handful of times and then stop. He/she will be able to help you understand what your caloric and diet balance needs are.

That worked for me anyway. Good luck!!!

Also, I was always worried that lifting weights would bulk me up.  They have actually slimmed me down a little.  I am all for weight training twice a week now!

All things being equal I would rather lose FAT than WEIGHT.

Last year if you told me that by watching what I eat, performing some kind of cardio 6 times per week and lifting weights 3x per week that I would lost 65 lbs of fat and gain 10-15 lbs of muscle I would have laughed at you. Now, I could care less what I weigh. I would rather be 195lbs and 10% BF than 175 and 10% BF (I am 6'1"). There is nothing worse (in my mind) than being a skinny person with a very low LBM!

Consistent resistance training rocks and in my case has been an integral part in FAT loss!



I'm glad you have realized that, especially for women, it would take a near perfect set of genetic possibilities (and then maybe) to get 'bulky" by lifting weights.

Edited by coachese 2006-03-10 1:26 PM

Actually muscle does not weigh more than fat. i.e. a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat. However, muscle is more dense than fat, and therefore it takes up less space than fat. So it is possible to add pounds of muscle but still lose inches.

I'm a test engineer by trade and we always say "One test is worth a thousand expert opinions". So let's look at some empirical data.

On Dec 1, 2005 I started training for a HIM. With 5.5 months to train and tipping the scales at 300 lbs, I knew I had to train hard AND watch my diet.

Since then I have logged:
- 210 miles running
- 447 miles biking
- 9.6 mile swimming
- and 39 weight-lifting sessions.

It's always a debate at to how many calories per mile stuff is, but for my weight and intensity let's say running burns about 200 calories per mile, biking about 50 calories per mile, swimming about 500 calories per mile and let's say a weight lifting 'session' burns about 200 calories.

Using the miles I've logged since Dec 1, this comes to 76,950 calories. At 3,500 calories per pound, this equates to about 22 lbs.

I weigh 263 lbs today which is down 37 lbs from when I started. So out of the 37 lbs, we can say about 22 of it came from training and 15 came from diet.

How goes my performance? This week I logged a 6, 7.5 and 8 mile run, a 54.3 mile bike ride and a 1 mile swim and have another long bike ride and long run still to go this week.

Conclusion: Diet and exercise is the best solution.

These are my numbers and just approximations - you mileage may vary. :-)

~Mike

Why is everyone so picky today...you know what i mean ;-)

I know, I'm sorry for that! I guess today I was feeling a bit piss-anty.

I second the weight training. It will help you lose the fat. 30 minutes wasn't enough time for me to lose weight. It wasn't until I bumped up my training to 60 minutes and beyond that I started to see a consistent weight loss. I didn't hit any plateaus, just a consistent weight loss.

Some people tend to think that weight training leads to immediate muscle mass increase and therefore weight gain. However, this is primarily not the case unless you are specifically training for mass building. It has been taught to us in class that gaining 6 pounds of muscle is like someone losing 30 pounds of fat. It takes that much effort and time. Just because someone weight trains for a month, downs weight gainers and protein shakes and gains pounds, does not mean that weight is all muscle. Someone weight training for tris, i.e. low weights/high reps (10-20) is hardly going to gain muscle mass and weight. Especially women who lack the testosterone to really add mass. However, when one does weight train, their metabolism is increased almost 6-10 times greater than doing cardio alone so that person would burn more calories longer. Also, think of calories burned as fat calories burned. 3500 calories = 1 lb of fat and it doesn't matter where these calories come from. So, I would always recommend weight training for weight loss.

HAHAHA thats kinda funny. Like what wieghs more a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks?

Am I doing too much weight training?  Give me your honest opinion, guys!

Attachments
----------------
ATT353894.jpg (36KB - 40 downloads)