September Weight Loss Challenge

Rapunzel64

I need to lose 30 pounds. I am under a lot of stress at work and eat mindlessly sometimes. My goal is to lose about 2 pounds a week.

_Crazy_Mary_

CHANGEinWAVES wrote:

she's like 5'2"....she never listens to me. there is no way she needs to lose weight. thanks for backing me up (Oh I'm her cousin...just to let u know)

I don't know her at all, but if she's 5'2", I would think 110 would be the ideal weight for her. She probably just needs some motivation to get into an exercise routine and this is the only thread in that area.

chadwick

Rapunzel64 wrote:

I need to lose 30 pounds. I am under a lot of stress at work and eat mindlessly sometimes. My goal is to lose about 2 pounds a week.

That can be quite easily done.
Mind-set, proper foods, water, water, water,
and simple exercise.

sennin

I start off at 173.8.

brainofPJ

lucylespian wrote:

There was a good study recent;ly that showed that short burstes of intense exercise caused much more weight loss than a single proplonged session.
Playing drums is good too. Did you ever see a fat drummer ??

my brother started sprinting short distances/bursts, would walk, then all out sprint...over and over again.

now it wasn't neccassarily a lot of weight that he lost, but he did lose a lot of fat and his calves got big.

he said he never understood why so many people feel the need to jog for such long distances unless they are training for a marathon....i don't get it either.


now something that helped me at the gym was running a lap in between sets of all my workouts. there's no reason to just sit there and do nothing. keep the heart rate up.


this should be fun

lalalalaaaaaaaa

lucylespian wrote:

There was a good study recent;ly that showed that short burstes of intense exercise caused much more weight loss than a single proplonged session.
Playing drums is good too. Did you ever see a fat drummer ??

Yeah this is known as HIIT (high intensity interval training). Sounds good HOWEVER, if we're talking cardio, what ultimately matters is the number of total calories you burn, not how intense the exercise is. And typically, people will burn more calories doing 40-50 minutes on a bike going at a steady, moderate pace than they'll burn doing 10-15 minutes of HIIT. HIIT jacks your heart rate way up so you do burn some extra calories for a long time after you do it, but not that much where it will make a huge difference.

IMO, unless you're like 11% body fat or lower, you don't need to do HIIT to lose fat. These "short bursts", by the way, are usually a full minute. Believe me, it feels like forever when you actually do it. Most people would be better off only lifting weights for fat loss. Cardio isn't all that it's cracked up to be

mookie9999

Saturnal wrote:

HOWEVER, if we're talking cardio, what ultimately matters is the number of total calories you burn, not how intense the exercise is.

I do an hour on the treadmill on the hills setting at a medium pace, (for all the Adam Sandler fans). Anyways, at the end of the hour I've burned anywhere from 1200-1300 calories if I am to believe the treadmill. I do know that I am sweating like a pig when all is done! Haven't tried the HITT yet but may do it along with my hour, but not in place of.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

mookie9999 wrote:

I do an hour on the treadmill on the hills setting at a medium pace, (for all the Adam Sandler fans). Anyways, at the end of the hour I've burned anywhere from 1200-1300 calories if I am to believe the treadmill. I do know that I am sweating like a pig when all is done! Haven't tried the HITT yet but may do it along with my hour, but not in place of.

I think an hour is about the longest you wanna go. After that, you run the risk of burning muscle along with fat, not to mention you risk injury/over-training.

mookie9999

Saturnal wrote:

I think an hour is about the longest you wanna go. After that, you run the risk of burning muscle along with fat, not to mention you risk injury/over-training.

10 years ago when I hit the gym for the first time I would do intensive cardio for 2-2.5 hours! I keep it now to and hour 4 times a week. I do miss the fast results that I had when I did 2+ hours, but don't want to overdo it!

Hitch-Hiker

lucylespian wrote:

There was a good study recent;ly that showed that short burstes of intense exercise caused much more weight loss than a single proplonged session.
Playing drums is good too. Did you ever see a fat drummer ??

Tré Cool, but you are right about drumming.

Anyway, my aforementioned boozy festival weekend has come to a close, so I'm ready to start this. The excess of the festival wasn't as excessive as I thought it would be, so I'm not all that worse off. Awesome time though

Good luck everyone.

brainofPJ

Saturnal wrote:

Most people would be better off only lifting weights for fat loss. Cardio isn't all that it's cracked up to be

while buidling muscle is key to burning fat, cardio is just as important.

that's why i incorporate the two at the gym

lucylespian

The study I saw used 12 sec of high-intensity, then 8 secs of low. They muist have had a fancy bike programmed to do that I think.


Weights are teh most time efficient way to burn calories. Whether that equates to "better" for everybody is a different discussion.

It is for me though, I do one training session a week, with a personal traineer, doing high intensity weights, which is sometimes heavy weights, and some times heavier rep rates, and that produces great results for me.

I have general activity every day, but a very sedentary job, which is hard to balance.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

brainofPJ wrote:

while buidling muscle is key to burning fat, cardio is just as important.

that's why i incorporate the two at the gym

Sure, I do both as well. That's usually best. But I definitely don't consider cardio anywhere near as important as resistance training if we're talking about losing fat. To lose fat, you have to burn more calories than you're taking in. However, when you're on a calorie deficit, you're at risk of burning both fat AND muscle. And your body WILL burn muscle along with fat, unless you give it a good reason not to...weight training is that reason. When you lift heavy, you make your body much more likely to burn just fat. And if you lift with enough intensity and keep your heart rate up through the 45-60 minutes you lift, you can certainly lose fat quickly without adding cardio. Cardio burns calories, that's it (unless you do true HIIT which is extremely intense). Weight training burns calories and maintains muscle. The more muscle you maintain, the more you burn fat all day long even when you're at rest.

answers are fatal

_Crazy_Mary_ wrote:

I don't know her at all, but if she's 5'2", I would think 110 would be the ideal weight for her. She probably just needs some motivation to get into an exercise routine and this is the only thread in that area.

i exercise everyday 40-60 minutes. its just the healthy eating part i need motivation for

lalalalaaaaaaaa

lucylespian wrote:

The study I saw used 12 sec of high-intensity, then 8 secs of low. They muist have had a fancy bike programmed to do that I think.


Weights are teh most time efficient way to burn calories. Whether that equates to "better" for everybody is a different discussion.

It is for me though, I do one training session a week, with a personal traineer, doing high intensity weights, which is sometimes heavy weights, and some times heavier rep rates, and that produces great results for me.

I have general activity every day, but a very sedentary job, which is hard to balance.

Yeah there's all different types of HIIT. But I think what most people are finding is that it works well, but no better or worse than steady-state, long duration. So most people are using HIIT to just fight the boredom of a long cardio session.

SAAME with me on the job too...very sedentary job. I actually drink lots of water (also great for burning fat!), so I purposely fill a small cup with water, so I have to get up often to walk down the hall to get more. People think I'm nuts at work, but oh well.

lucylespian

Saturnal wrote:

Yeah there's all different types of HIIT. But I think what most people are finding is that it works well, but no better or worse than steady-state, long duration. So most people are using HIIT to just fight the boredom of a long cardio session.

SAAME with me on the job too...very sedentary job. I actually drink lots of water (also great for burning fat!), so I purposely fill a small cup with water, so I have to get up often to walk down the hall to get more. People think I'm nuts at work, but oh well.

Getting out of your chair frequently constitutes a micro-break, wihc are really valuable for fighting fatigue and poor posture. Adding a "back-stroke stretch" to your walk helps avoid slouched posture which is endemic to chair dwellers.

Your co-workers are the nutty ones, not caring for themselves as well.

brainofPJ

Saturnal wrote:

(unless you do true HIIT which is extremely intense)

exactly, as i brought out earlier.

take a look at joggers/marathon runners versus actual sprinters....big difference in bodies.

i was wrong earlier, not every day at the gym do i do both. some days are all weights, others are just cardio, while others are both. have to change it up all the time.

kc_pj

I do mainly weights and Pilates (however you may classify) and cardio only 2-3 times a week (15-20 min each) and have lost 6 pounds the past 2 weeks... I use to do only weights so a bit of cardio helps a little I think...

any movement helps!!!

Anon

When is the first "weigh-in"?

rrivers

273.6