Cardio for fat loss
Discussion
Hi,
I had fairly major back surgery a few months ago (fusion) and as a result am pretty limited in terms of what exercise I can do. That, combined with a lot of sitting/laying around and not being active, has meant I've got a bit pudgy! Not majorly, but enough that my work trousers feel a bit tight, and as the surgery went in through my stomach, I feel quite self conscious about a slightly tubby tummy as it makes the scar more prominent through thin dresses etc.
I've been able to go back to the gym in the last 4-6 weeks and slowly build up, and I can now do 15 minutes on the eliptical, and 15 minutes on the bike, plus 20-30 mins of weights (I either do upper or lower body in a visit), plus about 30 minutes of core work. I do this approx 2/week (in reality it's more like 2/8-9 days).
This is great for my flexibility and mobility etc., and strength is slowly coming back, but it's not helping my fat !
What's the best way of trying to burn some fat, given the limitations I have.. is it better to get to a certain heartrate on the machines and stay there, or better to do intervals or something?
I can't use the rower, and I can't run or do any other impact type exercise - bike and eliptical seem fine although the eliptical is limited to about 15 mins as my toes go numb after about 12 (until I can extend that period before numbness sets in - also back related).
There are a couple of other cardio machines in our gym but I'm not sure I can use them yet.
Any help appreciated! I probably need to lose about 5-6 kg's in total.
I had fairly major back surgery a few months ago (fusion) and as a result am pretty limited in terms of what exercise I can do. That, combined with a lot of sitting/laying around and not being active, has meant I've got a bit pudgy! Not majorly, but enough that my work trousers feel a bit tight, and as the surgery went in through my stomach, I feel quite self conscious about a slightly tubby tummy as it makes the scar more prominent through thin dresses etc.
I've been able to go back to the gym in the last 4-6 weeks and slowly build up, and I can now do 15 minutes on the eliptical, and 15 minutes on the bike, plus 20-30 mins of weights (I either do upper or lower body in a visit), plus about 30 minutes of core work. I do this approx 2/week (in reality it's more like 2/8-9 days).
This is great for my flexibility and mobility etc., and strength is slowly coming back, but it's not helping my fat !
What's the best way of trying to burn some fat, given the limitations I have.. is it better to get to a certain heartrate on the machines and stay there, or better to do intervals or something?
I can't use the rower, and I can't run or do any other impact type exercise - bike and eliptical seem fine although the eliptical is limited to about 15 mins as my toes go numb after about 12 (until I can extend that period before numbness sets in - also back related).
There are a couple of other cardio machines in our gym but I'm not sure I can use them yet.
Any help appreciated! I probably need to lose about 5-6 kg's in total.
I would address your diet first and foremost. If you're progressing well in the gym and comfortable (ie not in agony with your back etc after a session) I wouldn't push it any more until you feel you can. To be honest, 2 sessions every 8 or 9 days is obviously good, but is never going to shift loads of fat, unless they're marathon sessions!!
What's your diet like?
What's your diet like?
Just to give you a quick guide to how crap exercise is for weight loss, compared with diet:
RUnning 1km burns off approximately 100 calories.
UNless you are fit, its difficult to do enough cardio to make *that* much difference.
In other words its a lot easier to eat 100 calories less than to run 1k in my opinion.
RUnning 1km burns off approximately 100 calories.
UNless you are fit, its difficult to do enough cardio to make *that* much difference.
In other words its a lot easier to eat 100 calories less than to run 1k in my opinion.
blindswelledrat said:
Just to give you a quick guide to how crap exercise is for weight loss, compared with diet:
RUnning 1km burns off approximately 100 calories.
UNless you are fit, its difficult to do enough cardio to make *that* much difference.
In other words its a lot easier to eat 100 calories less than to run 1k in my opinion.
Put it another way though.RUnning 1km burns off approximately 100 calories.
UNless you are fit, its difficult to do enough cardio to make *that* much difference.
In other words its a lot easier to eat 100 calories less than to run 1k in my opinion.
Most Cardio that I do seems to burn 700-1000 calories per hour.
And isn't 1lb of fat (half a kg to some) around 3 or 4 times that?
daz3210 said:
Put it another way though.
Most Cardio that I do seems to burn 700-1000 calories per hour.
And isn't 1lb of fat (half a kg to some) around 3 or 4 times that?
YOu are obviously fit, though.Most Cardio that I do seems to burn 700-1000 calories per hour.
And isn't 1lb of fat (half a kg to some) around 3 or 4 times that?
THats always the problem. FOr fit people it is a good calorie burner, but an unfit overweight person can only do a fraction of that.
You casually say you burn 1000 calories in a session which equates to a 10k run. Thats a massive amount of excersise for a fit person.
blindswelledrat said:
daz3210 said:
Put it another way though.
Most Cardio that I do seems to burn 700-1000 calories per hour.
And isn't 1lb of fat (half a kg to some) around 3 or 4 times that?
YOu are obviously fit, though.Most Cardio that I do seems to burn 700-1000 calories per hour.
And isn't 1lb of fat (half a kg to some) around 3 or 4 times that?
THats always the problem. FOr fit people it is a good calorie burner, but an unfit overweight person can only do a fraction of that.
You casually say you burn 1000 calories in a session which equates to a 10k run. Thats a massive amount of excersise for a fit person.
Most of my gym sessions are 20 mins on each machine max.
Having said that I did over an hour (each of) the last two nights on the pushbike around where I live. That burns around 800 kcals a time.
As has been suggested on here before, I use My Fitness Pal. It is an eyeopener when you start logging all that passes your lips and seeing the calories build up.
blindswelledrat said:
YOu are obviously fit, though.
THats always the problem. FOr fit people it is a good calorie burner, but an unfit overweight person can only do a fraction of that.
You casually say you burn 1000 calories in a session which equates to a 10k run. Thats a massive amount of excersise for a fit person.
Presumably there's a typo there? 10k running (or equiv) is a lot of exercise for an unfit person but not for a fit person.THats always the problem. FOr fit people it is a good calorie burner, but an unfit overweight person can only do a fraction of that.
You casually say you burn 1000 calories in a session which equates to a 10k run. Thats a massive amount of excersise for a fit person.
ewenm said:
Presumably there's a typo there? 10k running (or equiv) is a lot of exercise for an unfit person but not for a fit person.
Regardless of whether its fit or unfit, you would have to do 3+ times that just to shift a 1lb in weight. And that assuming all the exercise was fat burning.daz3210 said:
ewenm said:
Presumably there's a typo there? 10k running (or equiv) is a lot of exercise for an unfit person but not for a fit person.
Regardless of whether its fit or unfit, you would have to do 3+ times that just to shift a 1lb in weight. And that assuming all the exercise was fat burning.Fat-burning - the usual rule is steady state heartrate (IIRC) rather than intervals
ewenm said:
Indeed, I agree that diet is the best place to start but I find it far more positive psychologically to run miles and miles every week and eat what I like rather than restrict what I eat and exercise less (I find that depressing). Of course my aims are very different to the OPs, so I'd agree with those suggesting keeping the gym work going and working on the diet alongside that.
Fat-burning - the usual rule is steady state heartrate (IIRC) rather than intervals
So what is the aim of intervals? Reason I ask is the gym bloke that advises me is having me doing lots of intervals.Fat-burning - the usual rule is steady state heartrate (IIRC) rather than intervals
My aim is to lose the gut.
I thought intervals were good for improving fitness but are also likely to build muscle. It depends if your aim is to lose weight or lose fat as to what you should be doing.
That said, I'm not an expert, just an athlete who rarely needs to worry about weight as I do lots of (too many!) miles
That said, I'm not an expert, just an athlete who rarely needs to worry about weight as I do lots of (too many!) miles
daz3210 said:
ewenm said:
Presumably there's a typo there? 10k running (or equiv) is a lot of exercise for an unfit person but not for a fit person.
Regardless of whether its fit or unfit, you would have to do 3+ times that just to shift a 1lb in weight. And that assuming all the exercise was fat burning.I believe its about 4000 calories in a pound, 4 10k runs in a week to burn 1lb is a horrific return in my opinion. Dieting is a far easier way of doing it.
blindswelledrat said:
daz3210 said:
ewenm said:
Presumably there's a typo there? 10k running (or equiv) is a lot of exercise for an unfit person but not for a fit person.
Regardless of whether its fit or unfit, you would have to do 3+ times that just to shift a 1lb in weight. And that assuming all the exercise was fat burning.I believe its about 4000 calories in a pound, 4 10k runs in a week to burn 1lb is a horrific return in my opinion. Dieting is a far easier way of doing it.
You HAVE to sort the diet, otherwise if you are packing in excess calories each day, those runs are only going to reduce the speed at which you gain weight.
But the best option is a combination of the two.
One thing the PT told me at my session on Sunday was that squats are a good calorie burner. Basically had me holding a 20kg weight to my chest and squat down 10 times. Rest 2 mins, then repeat. Repeat 5 times. HRM showed my heart rate racing from around 110 up to around 150 during the exercise with a recovery back to around 110 during the rest period.
So, does that mean the squats are also a form of cardio?
blindswelledrat said:
daz3210 said:
ewenm said:
Presumably there's a typo there? 10k running (or equiv) is a lot of exercise for an unfit person but not for a fit person.
Regardless of whether its fit or unfit, you would have to do 3+ times that just to shift a 1lb in weight. And that assuming all the exercise was fat burning.I believe its about 4000 calories in a pound, 4 10k runs in a week to burn 1lb is a horrific return in my opinion. Dieting is a far easier way of doing it.
I'm doing a Nuffield Health "Team GB" challenge, but instead of doing it in a team of 3, I'm doing it solo. And I'm ahead of the teams in overall distance.
So far I've run 80km, ridden 194km and rowed 130km. 70% through the total distance.
I've so far "burnt" around 22,000 calories from the exercise. Rowing tends to be low heart rate (around 130bpm), running more intense (150+bpm). So its a good mix of intensity.
Weight at the outset was 15st7. Now I'm 15st. I'm definitely feeling better in myself, average heart rate on each hour of cardio is dropping slightly.
22000 cals burnt and 7lbs lost....equals approx 3500 cals per 1lb fat...proves the formula.
diet starts in the kitchen as you can see. Squats will burn plenty of cals due to huge muscles burning and you see how quickly using them gets the HR up. One theory is that strenght training burns more cals than cardio!
diet starts in the kitchen as you can see. Squats will burn plenty of cals due to huge muscles burning and you see how quickly using them gets the HR up. One theory is that strenght training burns more cals than cardio!
MacGee said:
22000 cals burnt and 7lbs lost....equals approx 3500 cals per 1lb fat...proves the formula.
diet starts in the kitchen as you can see. Squats will burn plenty of cals due to huge muscles burning and you see how quickly using them gets the HR up. One theory is that strenght training burns more cals than cardio!
I guess it depends on the effort you put into each activity. Getting the HR to 150 (for example) and maintaining it there for your desired duration would seem to be the aim. Does it matter how you do that?diet starts in the kitchen as you can see. Squats will burn plenty of cals due to huge muscles burning and you see how quickly using them gets the HR up. One theory is that strenght training burns more cals than cardio!
I dont think so. Its all about percentage of max HR. So for me 135bpm if an efficient pace for fat burn. Squats will only get HR up for a few minutes but its suggested that because you build bigger muscle...this consumes more energy just co its bigger..then you lose more fat! sounds right to me!
MacGee said:
I dont think so. Its all about percentage of max HR. So for me 135bpm if an efficient pace for fat burn. Squats will only get HR up for a few minutes but its suggested that because you build bigger muscle...this consumes more energy just co its bigger..then you lose more fat! sounds right to me!
Thats how I understood it - lower percentile cardio for fat loss.Or at least thats whats always been written on the various cross trainers, treadmills and gym bikes.
swiftpete said:
Why don't you get yourself a bike? It's good weather at the moment so it's not a chore and if you're prepared to get on it then riding is a good fat burner and is also low/no impact.
And often way more enjoyable than the gym. Best thing is that once you get so far out you have to ride back where as in the gym it's too tempting to quit when you hit a barrier. Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff