Best weight loss exercise vs age
Discussion
I’m getting in shape at the moment as I’ve put on a bit of timber over the last few years.
In my 20s and 30s when I wanted to lose weight I just swam loads at a steady heart rate and lost about 2lbs a week easily.
In my 40s (with the same diet or eating less than above) doing steady HR exercise seemed less effective so I’ve been doing a bit of reading which seems to indicate that firstly it’s harder when you get older but that intervals are better for weight loss when you’re mid 40s plus due to changes in metabolism, hormones and muscle mass. I even read that steady HR exercise like runs or swimming may actually increase weight due to increasing cortisol levels?
So I’ve been doing much more interval work like HIIT and intervals on treadmill and in the pool which seems to be getting me back up to 2lbs per week weight loss.
Do people who know about this agree with the above? I’m not talking about fitness just weight loss.
In your mid forties onwards if you want to lose weight, are intervals better than steady heart rate exercise? Obviously assuming your diet isn’t making it worse.
Looking at calories burned on strava etc if I do 30 mins HIIT or intervals on a treadmill it’s always less than 30 mins swimming or steady pace running . But is the higher intensity of intervals (especially when you’re older) actually more efficient at losing weight?
In my 20s and 30s when I wanted to lose weight I just swam loads at a steady heart rate and lost about 2lbs a week easily.
In my 40s (with the same diet or eating less than above) doing steady HR exercise seemed less effective so I’ve been doing a bit of reading which seems to indicate that firstly it’s harder when you get older but that intervals are better for weight loss when you’re mid 40s plus due to changes in metabolism, hormones and muscle mass. I even read that steady HR exercise like runs or swimming may actually increase weight due to increasing cortisol levels?
So I’ve been doing much more interval work like HIIT and intervals on treadmill and in the pool which seems to be getting me back up to 2lbs per week weight loss.
Do people who know about this agree with the above? I’m not talking about fitness just weight loss.
In your mid forties onwards if you want to lose weight, are intervals better than steady heart rate exercise? Obviously assuming your diet isn’t making it worse.
Looking at calories burned on strava etc if I do 30 mins HIIT or intervals on a treadmill it’s always less than 30 mins swimming or steady pace running . But is the higher intensity of intervals (especially when you’re older) actually more efficient at losing weight?
the idea behind HIIT is it raises metabolism for up to 72hours post exercise, the amount is minimal. where as steady state cadio will burn off most of it during the exercise.
there isnt really much of a way you can measure EPOC from HIIT, where as regular cardio on a exercise bike/treadmill will give you some estimates (i aways assume it overestimates by at least 20%).
But my opinion is not to overcomplicate it, do whichever you enjoy as sticking to a routine and regular calorie deficit is what achieves fat loss. try one, check your results, try another. see what works for you.
there isnt really much of a way you can measure EPOC from HIIT, where as regular cardio on a exercise bike/treadmill will give you some estimates (i aways assume it overestimates by at least 20%).
But my opinion is not to overcomplicate it, do whichever you enjoy as sticking to a routine and regular calorie deficit is what achieves fat loss. try one, check your results, try another. see what works for you.
ambuletz said:
the idea behind HIIT is it raises metabolism for up to 72hours post exercise, the amount is minimal. where as steady state cadio will burn off most of it during the exercise.
there isnt really much of a way you can measure EPOC from HIIT, where as regular cardio on a exercise bike/treadmill will give you some estimates (i aways assume it overestimates by at least 20%).
But my opinion is not to overcomplicate it, do whichever you enjoy as sticking to a routine and regular calorie deficit is what achieves fat loss. try one, check your results, try another. see what works for you.
Thanks for the info. It’s easy with apps and heart rate and activity trackers etc to get fixated on data.there isnt really much of a way you can measure EPOC from HIIT, where as regular cardio on a exercise bike/treadmill will give you some estimates (i aways assume it overestimates by at least 20%).
But my opinion is not to overcomplicate it, do whichever you enjoy as sticking to a routine and regular calorie deficit is what achieves fat loss. try one, check your results, try another. see what works for you.
I’m enjoying it and doing three runs a week plus some HIIT sessions and something else like boxing or swimming. I’m just mixing it up and doing 6 sessions a week and watching what I eat a bit more.
I’m achieving 2lbs a week loss but it’s definitely much harder than it was when I was trying to lose weight 10 years ago, just by swimming half an hour each day.
Probably unsurprisingly.
I am in my mid 50s and I have been training for nearly 40 years now.
In my opinion, cardio wise there is nothing that can beat circuit training - enough impact to strengthen joints and bones but not the debilitating effects of jogging on hard surfaces. Also, with some imagination no two workouts have to be the same.
However if you are short on time and/or facilities then short sprint intervals up a grassy hill are fantastic as well.
In my opinion, cardio wise there is nothing that can beat circuit training - enough impact to strengthen joints and bones but not the debilitating effects of jogging on hard surfaces. Also, with some imagination no two workouts have to be the same.
However if you are short on time and/or facilities then short sprint intervals up a grassy hill are fantastic as well.
MOBB said:
For me, road cycling was by far the best - mainly as I can do 2 hour stints of exercise that I enjoy
Running seemed to burn more calories, but I just cannot do that much running!
Yes. Cycling is good because even unfit people can log a decent amount of time. HITT is good for getting a big burn in short space of time, but its time spent exercising where you get the big calorie burn. Most fat and unfit people could cycle for an hour or so (flat) , but I doubt very much they can run that far. Running seemed to burn more calories, but I just cannot do that much running!
Finding what you enjoy is the best thing as it becomes something you want to do, not something you feel you have to do.
Cycling.
Also, the better you get at cycling the more calories you can burn for the same perceived effort.
For example, I burned nearly 1k calories last night in one hour without it feeling at all difficult, I could do it every day without fatigue if it was just to lose weight, its not for me, but if I did it every day and kept everything the same that's 2lbs of fat a week in calorie terms.
As it happens I was 100kg before I started cycling. Got down to around 80 thanks to road cycling.
As for mixing up intensity, easily done on a bike too. Though I am not an expert in whether steady state stuff is worse for older people at burning lard. I suspect it isn't.
Also, the better you get at cycling the more calories you can burn for the same perceived effort.
For example, I burned nearly 1k calories last night in one hour without it feeling at all difficult, I could do it every day without fatigue if it was just to lose weight, its not for me, but if I did it every day and kept everything the same that's 2lbs of fat a week in calorie terms.
As it happens I was 100kg before I started cycling. Got down to around 80 thanks to road cycling.
As for mixing up intensity, easily done on a bike too. Though I am not an expert in whether steady state stuff is worse for older people at burning lard. I suspect it isn't.
Edited by okgo on Thursday 12th December 15:55
I am mid fifties and took up martial arts three years ago - nothing like it for getting in shape.
Weight loss, imho is mostly about what you eat.
Calories in, calories out. Everything else is is over-complication.
Exercise burns very few additional calories compared to just normal daily activity.
Think about how quickly you can put a gallon of fuel into your car, and then how many miles it has to cover to burn it off.
Same with your body, so best not put the fuel into it in the first place.
Fast days are good. i.e. eat nothing from dinner on Friday evening until breakfast on Sunday morning.
Weight loss, imho is mostly about what you eat.
Calories in, calories out. Everything else is is over-complication.
Exercise burns very few additional calories compared to just normal daily activity.
Think about how quickly you can put a gallon of fuel into your car, and then how many miles it has to cover to burn it off.
Same with your body, so best not put the fuel into it in the first place.
Fast days are good. i.e. eat nothing from dinner on Friday evening until breakfast on Sunday morning.
itsnotarace said:
I burn around 1000 calories an hour cycling. Average speeds vary depending on time of year 16 - 20mph but I consistently lose the same amount of calories, as long as your heart rate is elevated it doesn't seem to matter much
It is all just down to watts you average, and thus the KJ of work done. HR doesn't figure in any of that. Just that you may find it hard, or difficult depending how fit you are.okgo said:
itsnotarace said:
I burn around 1000 calories an hour cycling. Average speeds vary depending on time of year 16 - 20mph but I consistently lose the same amount of calories, as long as your heart rate is elevated it doesn't seem to matter much
It is all just down to watts you average, and thus the KJ of work done. HR doesn't figure in any of that. Just that you may find it hard, or difficult depending how fit you are.Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff