I keep hearing about interval training lately.
This seems to work for me. I was experiencing a plateau and started playing around with the incline on my treadmill. I switch it up every three minutes now. It’s definitely made a difference as well as cut down on the boredom factor. I also like the feeling of busting ass then “resting a little” and then repeating.
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/how-to-lose-belly-fat.html/comment-page-1
Yes that is why you do burn a bit more when you run, but it’s not a large amount.
This is only valid when the distance moved directly opposes the direction of the weight vector. Yes for climbing stairs. Yes for lifting weights. No for running a mile over level terrain.
I could theoretically expend almost zero energy moving a several ton load a thousand miles - just by pushing it - as long as I had some low friction wheels and a hard, level surface.
Indeed, according to this info, apparently from “the Compendium of Physical Activities, published in the January 1993 issue of Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise”, there’s a serious ramp-up in calories expended based on speed or running.
The “Energy = weight x distance” is bunk, as YamatoTwinkie shows.
Actually, your cite tends to support the energy = weight x distance. If you substitute friction for weight.
The numbers for calories burned on that chart are on a per minute basis. If you take a row from that chart (200 lbs for example) and convert to calories/mile you get numbers ranging from 145.2 to 151 with no real correlation to speed.
Obviously running faster burns the calories faster if you’re time-limited but distance seems to be the major factor in calories burned in the range your chart covers.
Very few beers are 200+ calories for a 12-ounce bottle, and I doubt he’s drinking a sixpack of any of those before bedtime. A typical light beer is 100 calories or so (some as little as 75) and a typical American or Canadian lager (e.g., Bud, Miller…) is around 150.
See charts on RealBeer.com, Beer100.com, and similar sites for details. You’ll note a strong correlation between alcohol content and caloric content, incidentally. The high-calorie beers tend to also be stronger.
Then there’s the isue that even at rest, muscle mas burns calories. This is aonther reason why it is better to be in shape; a decent muscle mass requires extra calories for “upkeep”, meaning a muscular person can eat more than a starving sedentary dieter.
The risk with starvation regimens is that your body starts to consume its own muscle to (a) use as food and (b) cut down on unnecessary calrie consumption if the body detects it is in starvation mode. Also when your body thinks its starving, it starts being stingy with calorie use, planning for more starvation; so you stop losing weight as fast.
The most healthy get fit plans suggest both - aerobic exercise to build endurance and heart-lung function, and weight or pwer training to build muscle mass.
Really, eat less exercise more and you’ll do fine.
Agreed. In other words, to lose fat faster, add muscle through resistance training, ie weight lifting. One effective tactic is lifting weights one day and running the next. Don’t do the same weight training routine every day either; try a push workout on day one, a pull workout on day three, and do squats and calves on day five.
No, I meant to say walking is MORE efficient than runing. Less bouncing. There’s lots of studies on this. Running a mile will use about 10% MORE calories than walking that same mile.
Yes, thus the 10%.
You have not read that properly. Running uses more calories per minute because *you are travelling further[/I in that minute]. The “distance” in weight x distance is larger. Per mile, it’s about 10% more than walking, and your link supports that.
I was talking about a pint of regular lager. I don’t really know much about smaller American sizes or light beers. If you say it’s different over there, I’ll believe you.
Site says 200-300 a pint, depending on the lager. I presume “Bud Light” is what you mean by a “light beer”? (Not a phrase we use here, not clear what it means). That’s 227 calories for a pint.
When someone says they drink six beers “before bed,” I make the assumption that they’re drinking them at home, therefore drinking bottles or cans, both of which are 12 oz, not a pint like you’d get in a pub.
Your Bud Light over there seems to be different from ours here. In the U.S., it’s 95 calories per 12-oz (340-gram) bottle or can. The site you gave shows 132 calories per 330ml bottle. Perhaps it’s higher alcohol over there?
Geez you guys are really hung up on the beer thing. Ok, usually I have about 4 pints at the local bar. This is in Canada and I really don’t know what constitutes a pint here, other than the fact that it is served in a pint glass. I like Smithwicks, so I guess you can look up its calorie content, maybe average out the different values for a pint and figure out just how fat I am getting.
Thanks for all the advice, I will probably try the interval sprints after a few warm up laps, maybe tackle some of the hills around here too.
That’s because there are actual numbers which people can argue about…say, over a glass of beer 
A quick Google search turns up 200 calories/pint of Smithwicks. I don’t have a bottle in front of me to confirm but I’ll take that as a given, so 4 pints a day is 800 calories. Assuming that you’re eating an otherwise healthy diet and not gaining weight, cutting down to 2 pints instead of 4 should save you 2800 cal/week, that’s nearly a pound of body fat if you make no other changes.
Back to your original question, your plan sounds good to me. The important thing is to mix it up a bit so you aren’t doing the exact same routine over and over again - that will get real boring real fast, that affects your motivation and enjoyment, you start skipping workouts, etc. Adding in some sprints (you can do what are called “fartleks” which is just random speedwork during a normal run - speed up to the end of the block, then slow down while you recover, then speed up to that next stop sign, etc), hills, altering your route and so on will all keep things fresh. Throw some up-tempo music on your MP3 player or find some folks to run with (other people are good motivation and if you can sing along with your music or keep a conversation going without gasping for breath then you’re moving at a good pace).
If you do pretty much any kind of running or walking in place of drinking four pints of beer per night, you will lose weight almost automatically.
All other things being equal, of course.
Regards,
Shodan
A Smithwick’s has about 170 calories per pint. So 680 calories of beer alone, plus food you said, which could easily add on another 400 calories (probably mostly of carbs again if it’s pub food - fries and such). 1000 calories per day is really significant, but the kind of food it is even more so.
This is why they call it a ‘beer belly’. Beer and other empty carbs have uniquely fattening properties, and they especially lead to the accumulation of excess, hard abdominal fat, which is the most dangerous kind to have.
The ‘before bed’ thing concerns me too. There isn’t really anything I can cite that will prove that eating large amounts before sleeping is fattening, but it has been successful for me when I am trying to gain weight, and it’s also worth noting that this is the weight gain strategy employed by sumo wrestlers (very large, starchy meals, followed by a nap or a night’s sleep).
Exercise is worthwhile simply for the health benefits if not for weight loss, and if you want to lose fat, build up muscle and gain functional strength, I always recommend intensity over duration, even though it burns less calories. Life the heaviest weights you can, even if it means you do hardly any reps.
I think this would likely be dangerous and counter-productive. The part that could be dangerous is nutrion; it’s important to make sure you’re still getting enough of the right foods. Obviously, if you’re just cutting out beers, sodas, and french fries, you’re probably still getting the same nutrition you were before, but some people take it too far and will try to get by on a couple salads or whatever.
Another thing to consider is that a cut calorie intake is not a linear relationship with weight loss. The starvation mode concept isn’t true, but your metabolism does become more efficient as you cut calories so you get to a point where the extra calories you cut just isn’t worth it. For instance, I believe my base caloric intake is somewhere around 3500 calories. If I cut it down to 3000 calories, I could expect to lose roughly 1 lb a week, but if I cut it down to 2000 calories, I probably would see noticeably less than the expected 3 lbs a week.
In this case, as someone pointed out, he’s eating 2000 calories, from the napkin math I saw up thread, right before bedtime (which is, of course, the worst time to stuff yourself) and probably has at least another 1000-1500 calories in there somewhere. So, I’d be concerned that cutting down to 1000 calories could potentially undernourish the OP.
As others also pointed out, the whole “fat burn vs. cardio” thing isn’t supported by research anymore so, really, it just comes down to how much time you have and how hard you’re willing to go. Do whatever you can maintain for the amount of time you have available. Also, be careful not to overdo it because it’s also easy to burn yourself out before you learn what your limits are.
Finally, I strongly suggest at least SOME weight training, even if it’s just a few rounds on a circuit. A pound of muscle burns more calories over the course of a day than fat, so you don’t just burn the calories from the weight training (which itself is non-trivial), but any muscle mass you gain burns extra calories all day. So, chances are, if you have an hour to work out, you’ll likely see better fat burning results by doing 30 minutes of weight training and 30 minutes of cardio than just 60 minutes of cardio. Moreso, weight training has other benefits including gaining muscle tone, so you’ll also look better faster.
Right!
This is what I did to lose 70 pounds in about 9 months to a year…
Reduce calorie intake by 3500 calories (1 pound) per week = cut back 500 calories per day.
Burn (exercise) 3500 extra (beyond basal rate) calories per week = 700 calories for 5 days and 2 days rest.
Net loss is 2 pounds per week average. Of course, there will be some fluctuation due to fat and water percentages fluctuating as well.
So cut out 3 beers and fries and add about 4 to 8 cups of assorted vegetables should take care of the intake reduction (and be healthier). Exercise on the elliptical (worked great for me), starting with long but slower periods of exertion until 700 calories are reached, but you will build up the stamina to increase exertion and burn the 700 calories in less time, per day…you will attain aerobic exercise (plus the fat burn) in a matter of weeks if you stick to this regimen.
I see Blaster Master has a great response too, but I also wanted to tell you what worked for me. Although I totally don’t believe the numbers are exact, the calories I was burning on the elliptical did increase to almost 1200 calories per hour (20c/min). It took me a few months to achieve that level, but I certainly lost the weight in a healthy manner and felt great…310 lbs. down to 240 lbs.