Best weight loss exercise vs age
Discussion
El stovey said:
Google gives some conflicting information.
That's because there's no one single answer. Much depends on many things. However, my son is a PT and have asked his view on Interval or Steady HR training.The answer is.....whichever one you enjoy the most. Both will achieve fundamentally the same thing but only if you are committed to it and that commitment will only come if you're enjoying what you're doing.
StevieBee said:
El stovey said:
Google gives some conflicting information.
That's because there's no one single answer. Much depends on many things. However, my son is a PT and have asked his view on Interval or Steady HR training.The answer is.....whichever one you enjoy the most. Both will achieve fundamentally the same thing but only if you are committed to it and that commitment will only come if you're enjoying what you're doing.
mcelliott said:
StevieBee said:
El stovey said:
Google gives some conflicting information.
That's because there's no one single answer. Much depends on many things. However, my son is a PT and have asked his view on Interval or Steady HR training.The answer is.....whichever one you enjoy the most. Both will achieve fundamentally the same thing but only if you are committed to it and that commitment will only come if you're enjoying what you're doing.
I can’t find it now but I read a reasonably accurate looking article saying 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?
El stovey said:
That’s what I do, I mix up doing HIIT intervals and also runs of different intensity, I was just wondering if there was a difference between the efficiency of the two and if it changes as you get older.
I can’t find it now but I read a reasonably accurate looking article saying 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?
At the non Elite level, just do a mixture of activity at a variety of intensities. Eat well. I can’t find it now but I read a reasonably accurate looking article saying 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?
I'm pretty "fit" and lean in my early 40s and I find that doing too much high intensity training takes too much recovery. I mix it up and make sure that I don't go to bed too late.
I have never counted calories. I just know that if my weight starts increasing, I am eating too much for the amount of training I'm doing.
mcelliott said:
gregs656 said:
Exercise in general isn’t good for weight loss and in some (most?) cases counter productive.
You can’t put run a poor diet etc
Other idioms are available.
Exercise is a great way for losing weight, in what instance would it be counter productive?You can’t put run a poor diet etc
Other idioms are available.
Exercising, unless building large amounts of muscle, doesn't increase weight. If somebody over-eats as a result of exercising, then it is the over eating that is the problem.
I'm in my 70s. I power walk every day and indulge in weights and situps 4 times a week. It's nothing much, but it makes me feel good. I manage my exercise under the advice of my youngest who used to be a personal trainer.
My problem, let me call it that, is that I'm borderline hypothyroid. I used to be above the border but they've since moved the border and now I'm below it without getting any worse. It meant that I've put on weight and it is very difficult to lose it. After much discussion with doctors, I've found that I'm at a reasonable level of weight. My body decides what it is happy with and now I go along with it. Problem? What problem? I'm a bit overweight but fit for my age.
For exercise I get my pulse up to 130 and keep it there for the power walking. That's for most of the 15 mins or so it takes me. When I'm on weights I rest whenever my pulse gets to 130, and wait until it's in doubt figures (nearly) before going again. It doesn't take long.
I used to cycle about 200 miles a week, although about half that in winter. I was a wraith. There's no way I could do that now (even if I hadn't damaged my spine with all the cycling). When I was forced to stop, I ballooned and it took years to drop to the weight I am now.
I say weight, but I no longer use the scales in my house. It was quite a relief to ignore them. The result was that I lost inches around my waist.
The way I discovered I was hypothyroid, and probably had been for years, was seeing my practice nurse. We have one for the over 65s and she gives lifestyle advice, now that there's little of it left. When I told her my exercise regime, she said I should continue doing so, although watch out for backpain. The extra weight is, it seems, of little account.
I eat healthily in the main. Today I had fish and chips for the only time this year, about normal frequency. I have a meal out a bit over once a month.
Don't get hung up on weight. Exercise, I'm told, is a much more important measure. Don't be obese. Don't be skinny. Do be happy with your normal weight.
My problem, let me call it that, is that I'm borderline hypothyroid. I used to be above the border but they've since moved the border and now I'm below it without getting any worse. It meant that I've put on weight and it is very difficult to lose it. After much discussion with doctors, I've found that I'm at a reasonable level of weight. My body decides what it is happy with and now I go along with it. Problem? What problem? I'm a bit overweight but fit for my age.
For exercise I get my pulse up to 130 and keep it there for the power walking. That's for most of the 15 mins or so it takes me. When I'm on weights I rest whenever my pulse gets to 130, and wait until it's in doubt figures (nearly) before going again. It doesn't take long.
I used to cycle about 200 miles a week, although about half that in winter. I was a wraith. There's no way I could do that now (even if I hadn't damaged my spine with all the cycling). When I was forced to stop, I ballooned and it took years to drop to the weight I am now.
I say weight, but I no longer use the scales in my house. It was quite a relief to ignore them. The result was that I lost inches around my waist.
The way I discovered I was hypothyroid, and probably had been for years, was seeing my practice nurse. We have one for the over 65s and she gives lifestyle advice, now that there's little of it left. When I told her my exercise regime, she said I should continue doing so, although watch out for backpain. The extra weight is, it seems, of little account.
I eat healthily in the main. Today I had fish and chips for the only time this year, about normal frequency. I have a meal out a bit over once a month.
Don't get hung up on weight. Exercise, I'm told, is a much more important measure. Don't be obese. Don't be skinny. Do be happy with your normal weight.
gregs656 said:
Exercise in general isn’t good for weight loss and in some (most?) cases counter productive.
You can’t put run a poor diet etc
Other idioms are available.
The people who say exercise isn't good for weight loss are being very selective and not very smart with their comparisons. I watched a BBC documentary where they were making this argument and it was utterly ridiculous. My wife, who is a doctor, couldn't even bear to watch after ten minutes. Usually, this reasoning tells us more about junk food than it does exercise.You can’t put run a poor diet etc
Other idioms are available.
For example, if you're going to eat a Big Mac Meal for your lunch, that's 1100 calories, which is about an hour and a half of running (something only very serious runners would generally do, or be able to withstand without getting injured). Similarly, buying a sandwich from a shop stuffed with butter and mayo, washing it down with a coke and a shop bought flapjack is going to total over 1000 calories as well. As you rightly say, you'll never outrun that, especially if you weigh 90kg and struggle to run at all!
The more intelligent thing to do is to forgot the junk food, and by that I don't just mean McDonalds, I mean an awful lot of pre-packaged food. A healthy homemade lunch that fills you up as much as the above two examples may only have 300-400 calories. A healthy homemade dinner might only have 500 calories. Healthy breakfast 300-400. That's three meals, potentially a day's food, that could contain fewer calories than a single Big Mac meal. Now the exercise argument starts to make much more sense - even a half hour jog could burn 300-400 calories - comparing these numbers with healthy food is what should be done.
Essentially, it's calories in vs calories out and you need to look at both sides of the equation, but do so sensibly. Junk food shouldn't even be labelled as food in my opinion.
As for exercise being counter productive, are you looking at weight or size? When most people say they want to lose weight, they're talking about size, not weight. Muscle weighs a lot more per unit volume than fat, so you may look at one trim guy with a beach body and one wobbly mess and they weigh more or less the same - would you say the fit guy has been counter-productive?
I wouldn’t go so far as to say exercise is counterproductive, but I do think some people (myself included in the past) over-estimate how much energy they expend on a run, and under-estimate how much is in a Mars bar, and undo all of their good work by justifying extra unnecessary calories.
RobM77 said:
My advice would be to find something you enjoy; that way you're more likely to stick at it, do more of it, and obviously enjoy yourself too. Any activity is good.
My second piece of advice would be to look at your diet. I love cooking, and I eat a lot in terms of volume, but even a bulging plate full of one of my home cooked dinners has fewer calories than a large size Mars bar, or three home made flapjacks. The killer thing is that I could eat a giant Mars bar or three flapjacks and still feel hungry afterwards, but a big plate of healthy food leaves me full for hours.
I'd also focus on your size, not just your weight. I've been pretty much the same size my entire life, but my weight has changed with the different sports I've done. I'm close to my heaviest weight now (74kg, my lightest was 58kg, average about 67kg), and I'm doing the most activity I've ever done: running 70-75km a week and in the gym for an hour twice a week. My wife was actually the heaviest she's ever been whilst training for a half marathon, but the smallest dress size. If you're starting overweight, I wouldn't expect your weight to go up as you lose weight, but if you're doing a lot of exercise you may find your weight loss starts to slow as muscle increases, even though your size is dropping.
One more thing: to make energy for your muscles, your body can use both carbs and fat, and the percentage of each that your body uses changes with exertion level or heart rate. This means that intense exercise may not be what you want - that'll work out your heart well, but you'll be burning a greater proportion of carbs vs fat to do it. I should point out straight away that this is a percentage, not an absolute, so you may actually be burning more fat at 160bpm than 130bpm (for example) if the numbers work out right, but it's nevertheless important to recognise the distinction. For me as a runner for example, the effort required to complete a 20km long run at 145bpm heart rate is similar to a hard 10km run with 6km in the middle at 'tempo' pace (165-170bpm), but I suspect I'd be burning more fat on the long run. I had all this tested last summer so I can use the info in training - it's highly individual, but you'll find good generic info out there if you look. It also depends how you fuel your body prior to exercise: your body prefers to burn carbs (it's a more efficient energy conversion process), so if they're available, it'll use them; however, you don't want to exercise completely fasted, as it'll waste your muscles. On that note, if you have more muscle it'll increase your basal metabolic rate (energy used just sitting still), although this effect is much smaller than weight lifting gym bunnies will have you believe - studies show about 10% difference in BMR between weight training individuals compared to a control.
I agree with all of this accuracy/well written.My second piece of advice would be to look at your diet. I love cooking, and I eat a lot in terms of volume, but even a bulging plate full of one of my home cooked dinners has fewer calories than a large size Mars bar, or three home made flapjacks. The killer thing is that I could eat a giant Mars bar or three flapjacks and still feel hungry afterwards, but a big plate of healthy food leaves me full for hours.
I'd also focus on your size, not just your weight. I've been pretty much the same size my entire life, but my weight has changed with the different sports I've done. I'm close to my heaviest weight now (74kg, my lightest was 58kg, average about 67kg), and I'm doing the most activity I've ever done: running 70-75km a week and in the gym for an hour twice a week. My wife was actually the heaviest she's ever been whilst training for a half marathon, but the smallest dress size. If you're starting overweight, I wouldn't expect your weight to go up as you lose weight, but if you're doing a lot of exercise you may find your weight loss starts to slow as muscle increases, even though your size is dropping.
One more thing: to make energy for your muscles, your body can use both carbs and fat, and the percentage of each that your body uses changes with exertion level or heart rate. This means that intense exercise may not be what you want - that'll work out your heart well, but you'll be burning a greater proportion of carbs vs fat to do it. I should point out straight away that this is a percentage, not an absolute, so you may actually be burning more fat at 160bpm than 130bpm (for example) if the numbers work out right, but it's nevertheless important to recognise the distinction. For me as a runner for example, the effort required to complete a 20km long run at 145bpm heart rate is similar to a hard 10km run with 6km in the middle at 'tempo' pace (165-170bpm), but I suspect I'd be burning more fat on the long run. I had all this tested last summer so I can use the info in training - it's highly individual, but you'll find good generic info out there if you look. It also depends how you fuel your body prior to exercise: your body prefers to burn carbs (it's a more efficient energy conversion process), so if they're available, it'll use them; however, you don't want to exercise completely fasted, as it'll waste your muscles. On that note, if you have more muscle it'll increase your basal metabolic rate (energy used just sitting still), although this effect is much smaller than weight lifting gym bunnies will have you believe - studies show about 10% difference in BMR between weight training individuals compared to a control.
Edited by RobM77 on Friday 21st February 09:44
Having more muscle/lean mass is better for you long term and will burn more energy, it's exponential. Put on muscle and run a 5k, the energy output is considerable.
Best diet? The one that keeps you from not constantly over eating and that can be, vegan, carno, anything. micro-nutrients are as important if not more so that macro-nutrients.
exercise is equally important if you want a nice long healthpsan, and weightbearing activities need to be monitored/increased/maintained as one ages.
Best diet? The one that keeps you from not constantly over eating and that can be, vegan, carno, anything. micro-nutrients are as important if not more so that macro-nutrients.
exercise is equally important if you want a nice long healthpsan, and weightbearing activities need to be monitored/increased/maintained as one ages.
Exercise is counter productive because most people over estimate their work and under estimate what they eat.
Someone who is overweight because of their crap diet is better off sorting out the diet than taking up jogging.
Doing exercise for health is great.
This is well studied.
Edit: I’ll add some more thoughts.
Firstly is the importance of diet is taken for granted even by most fitness enthusiasts, presumably because those people already have a healthy attitude to food and haven’t found them selves eating their way into the stretchiest fat pants about.
I think most of us who have never had a weight problem are good at moderating our diet vs exercise and people who do have a weight problem are not. Discounting the vast amount of calories they consume because you don’t think it counts as food is a little disingenuous.
I cycle commute, I’m in the gym at least 5 days a week often 6 days. If I added 500 calories on to my diet I would gain weight. If I started eating s
t food my body would change. If I tried to do 500 calories of extra work a day to compensate I would be fatigued, I wouldn’t be properly rested and it would start to impact my work outs.
Much easier to just not eat the extra 500 calories.
In the case of bob whose activity involves taking the elevator down to Greggs for a sausage roll and a donut 3 times a day, is 5’5” and weighs 120kg, limiting the hand to mouth action is going to be the place to start.
I would *love* to see exercise become part of more people’s lives, because it is good for them, the benefits are almost incalculable. But as a weight loss tool, less exercising of the jaw and stomach is the way to go.
Someone who is overweight because of their crap diet is better off sorting out the diet than taking up jogging.
Doing exercise for health is great.
This is well studied.
Edit: I’ll add some more thoughts.
Firstly is the importance of diet is taken for granted even by most fitness enthusiasts, presumably because those people already have a healthy attitude to food and haven’t found them selves eating their way into the stretchiest fat pants about.
I think most of us who have never had a weight problem are good at moderating our diet vs exercise and people who do have a weight problem are not. Discounting the vast amount of calories they consume because you don’t think it counts as food is a little disingenuous.
I cycle commute, I’m in the gym at least 5 days a week often 6 days. If I added 500 calories on to my diet I would gain weight. If I started eating s
t food my body would change. If I tried to do 500 calories of extra work a day to compensate I would be fatigued, I wouldn’t be properly rested and it would start to impact my work outs. Much easier to just not eat the extra 500 calories.
In the case of bob whose activity involves taking the elevator down to Greggs for a sausage roll and a donut 3 times a day, is 5’5” and weighs 120kg, limiting the hand to mouth action is going to be the place to start.
I would *love* to see exercise become part of more people’s lives, because it is good for them, the benefits are almost incalculable. But as a weight loss tool, less exercising of the jaw and stomach is the way to go.
Edited by gregs656 on Saturday 22 February 23:36
Edited by gregs656 on Saturday 22 February 23:38
gregs656 said:
Exercise is counter productive because most people over estimate their work and under estimate what they eat.
Someone who is overweight because of their crap diet is better off sorting out the diet than taking up jogging.
Doing exercise for health is great.
This is well studied.
Edit: I’ll add some more thoughts.
Firstly is the importance of diet is taken for granted even by most fitness enthusiasts, presumably because those people already have a healthy attitude to food and haven’t found them selves eating their way into the stretchiest fat pants about.
I think most of us who have never had a weight problem are good at moderating our diet vs exercise and people who do have a weight problem are not. Discounting the vast amount of calories they consume because you don’t think it counts as food is a little disingenuous.
I cycle commute, I’m in the gym at least 5 days a week often 6 days. If I added 500 calories on to my diet I would gain weight. If I started eating st food my body would change. If I tried to do 500 calories of extra work a day to compensate I would be fatigued, I wouldn’t be properly rested and it would start to impact my work outs.
Much easier to just not eat the extra 500 calories.
In the case of bob whose activity involves taking the elevator down to Greggs for a sausage roll and a donut 3 times a day, is 5’5” and weighs 120kg, limiting the hand to mouth action is going to be the place to start.
I would *love* to see exercise become part of more people’s lives, because it is good for them, the benefits are almost incalculable. But as a weight loss tool, less exercising of the jaw and stomach is the way to go.
Fair points. I know a slightly different group of people: distance runners and cyclists. Most sub 3 marathoners/ultra runners doing 60-100 mile per week have little difficultly moderating week due to burning 90-130 calories per mile so I eat like crazy but still lose weight with lots of running.Someone who is overweight because of their crap diet is better off sorting out the diet than taking up jogging.
Doing exercise for health is great.
This is well studied.
Edit: I’ll add some more thoughts.
Firstly is the importance of diet is taken for granted even by most fitness enthusiasts, presumably because those people already have a healthy attitude to food and haven’t found them selves eating their way into the stretchiest fat pants about.
I think most of us who have never had a weight problem are good at moderating our diet vs exercise and people who do have a weight problem are not. Discounting the vast amount of calories they consume because you don’t think it counts as food is a little disingenuous.
I cycle commute, I’m in the gym at least 5 days a week often 6 days. If I added 500 calories on to my diet I would gain weight. If I started eating s
t food my body would change. If I tried to do 500 calories of extra work a day to compensate I would be fatigued, I wouldn’t be properly rested and it would start to impact my work outs. Much easier to just not eat the extra 500 calories.
In the case of bob whose activity involves taking the elevator down to Greggs for a sausage roll and a donut 3 times a day, is 5’5” and weighs 120kg, limiting the hand to mouth action is going to be the place to start.
I would *love* to see exercise become part of more people’s lives, because it is good for them, the benefits are almost incalculable. But as a weight loss tool, less exercising of the jaw and stomach is the way to go.
Edited by gregs656 on Saturday 22 February 23:36
Edited by gregs656 on Saturday 22 February 23:38
It's your archetype, or your genes, or something. If you have that activity bug, then exercise is a part of life, it's so easy. The parkrunners I know, some are ancient, but they can move like what I would expect 20 year olds to, it's their lifestyle, for the 120kg greggs patron, that's probably never going to be a solution, that person does need help with the diet, with his mentality, his life, but the UK/Western culture isn't geared towards that, it's geared towards over-consumption, greed and waste. Then the sorts who aren't geared to protect themselves from UK culture as well as others are then pushed into 'diet' systems, Weight watchers, others, while all at the same time surrounded by adverts that permeate every part of society to guzzle, drink, binge, feast. I suppose looking at it dispassionately, it's a type of modifier for different evolutionary paths.
Halb said:
It's your archetype, or your genes, or something. If you have that activity bug, then exercise is a part of life, it's so easy. The parkrunners I know, some are ancient, but they can move like what I would expect 20 year olds to, it's their lifestyle, for the 120kg greggs patron, that's probably never going to be a solution, that person does need help with the diet, with his mentality, his life, but the UK/Western culture isn't geared towards that, it's geared towards over-consumption, greed and waste. Then the sorts who aren't geared to protect themselves from UK culture as well as others are then pushed into 'diet' systems, Weight watchers, others, while all at the same time surrounded by adverts that permeate every part of society to guzzle, drink, binge, feast. I suppose looking at it dispassionately, it's a type of modifier for different evolutionary paths.
I'm not sure if it is in genetic make-up, but there are definitely very different behaviours between people.I have always enjoyed activities that other people may consider uncomfortable, too much effort or dangerous. Bad weather doesn't often deter me.
I suspect that it is mental conditioning in early life, rather than genetics, that does it. A little early success, possibly fairly minor, or enjoyment may be enough to trigger it.
There would certainly be no pleasure in inactivity and chomping, leading to obesity, for me.
Edited by MC Bodge on Sunday 23 February 10:21
MC Bodge said:
StevieBee said:
Yep! My 20 year old lad only has to look at a dumbbell and he's ripped.
My own, entirely unscientific but based on experience view, is that your 40s is the last chance you have of defining your fitness for the remainder of your life. I'm sure its possible for a mid-50s tubber to get properly fit and ripped (not that the latter is necessarily important), I rather think the effort needed in doing so out-weighs any gains. Recovery times are longer. Risk of injury can be higher. Metabolism changes. Testosterone can drop.... Unless you've stemmed the flow when you had the physical capacity to do so.
I think there is something in this. It must be easier to maintain the fitness and conditioning that to try to develop it from a low starting point later in life. My own, entirely unscientific but based on experience view, is that your 40s is the last chance you have of defining your fitness for the remainder of your life. I'm sure its possible for a mid-50s tubber to get properly fit and ripped (not that the latter is necessarily important), I rather think the effort needed in doing so out-weighs any gains. Recovery times are longer. Risk of injury can be higher. Metabolism changes. Testosterone can drop.... Unless you've stemmed the flow when you had the physical capacity to do so.
I know some very fit 50+ people. They have been at it since their teens.
I intend to maintain my health and fitness for as long as I can.
Age definitely has an impact on calories in Vs calories used...
WinstonWolf said:
MC Bodge said:
StevieBee said:
Yep! My 20 year old lad only has to look at a dumbbell and he's ripped.
My own, entirely unscientific but based on experience view, is that your 40s is the last chance you have of defining your fitness for the remainder of your life. I'm sure its possible for a mid-50s tubber to get properly fit and ripped (not that the latter is necessarily important), I rather think the effort needed in doing so out-weighs any gains. Recovery times are longer. Risk of injury can be higher. Metabolism changes. Testosterone can drop.... Unless you've stemmed the flow when you had the physical capacity to do so.
I think there is something in this. It must be easier to maintain the fitness and conditioning that to try to develop it from a low starting point later in life. My own, entirely unscientific but based on experience view, is that your 40s is the last chance you have of defining your fitness for the remainder of your life. I'm sure its possible for a mid-50s tubber to get properly fit and ripped (not that the latter is necessarily important), I rather think the effort needed in doing so out-weighs any gains. Recovery times are longer. Risk of injury can be higher. Metabolism changes. Testosterone can drop.... Unless you've stemmed the flow when you had the physical capacity to do so.
I know some very fit 50+ people. They have been at it since their teens.
I intend to maintain my health and fitness for as long as I can.
Age definitely has an impact on calories in Vs calories used...
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff