3 ms·

I used to do a fairly brisk walk on most nights and still felt like shit. But I recently got back into running. Thirty minutes a night, every night - no excepti

by tjpnz 3y ago

I used to do a fairly brisk walk on most nights and still felt like shit. But I recently got back into running. Thirty minutes a night, every night - no exceptions. Weight loss was the primary goal, alas it's still slow. I do however feel less stressed during the day and feel I'm less of an asshole towards colleagues.

willcipriano 3y ago
You can't out run your diet. Cardio for weight loss is mostly a waste of time. It has secondary benefits like reducing hunger post work out but it's hard to exercise enough to quickly lose weight. Running a marathon will burn around 2500 calories, less than a pound of fat.
- mathieuh 3y ago
  2500 calories for a marathon sounds way too low. I do bike rides every weekend that are typically burning over 3000 calories. This is with a power meter on the bike so it's not going to be miles off.
  - sceptical 3y ago
    General rule is 100 calories per mile so 2500 calories for a marathon seems reasonable.
- _Wintermute 3y ago
  Running maybe not, but if you get too into cycling or swimming (or I guess any low-impact endurance sport), it can sometimes be a chore to shovel enough food into you.
- taeric 3y ago
  Ish? Yes, you can't just "run off the calories" of food, per se. That said, the more time you spend running/walking/whatever, the less time you spend eating, in many cases. That marathon, for example, is not nearly as simple as eating a burger. One takes several hours for a very fit athlete. The other is minutes for most people. That is, it is easy to view some exercising as a substitute for some snacking. And, in that job, it works rather well. Is my hypothesis on why the simple walk around the neighborhood has outsized impact on weight loss.
  - Kirby64 3y ago
    Just walking around is much better for calories burned vs. exertion. It's just worse from a time standpoint. Running has been shown to induce hunger, so erasing the caloric benefit of it with a snack is very easy. Walking, since it's so much lower impact, doesn't really have the same issue, and you can sustain it for much longer periods (especially if you're untrained) than you can with running.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Right, agreed that the time is the important part. If you can sustain a run for an hour or so a day, that is a lot different than a 20 minute one. And, my assertion is that a lot of the benefit of the extra 40 minutes is the substitution effect. This is a lot of what I think many studies find that show benefits to coffee and such. Nowadays, that is as often a substitute for sodas. And the amount of calories you get from a soda is just flat out absurd. I'm fairly certain even those of us that know it is bad for you underestimate just how bad it is.
- stephen_g 3y ago
  I didn't really need to lose any weight, but found I just naturally did when I started swimming once and then later twice a week (for about 40 minutes to an hour/2km to 2.5km per session). I basically didn't change my diet (although I had started eating generally healthier six months or so before just because I thought it was a good idea), and after a while I found I was getting lighter than I wanted to be and actually had to consciously eat more to maintain my weight.
- RHSman2 3y ago
  It’s why walking is such a good exercise. 300 cals per hr and doesn’t destroy you. Burns fat (zone 2). I’d suggest that calorific burn really is but one measure.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Are you sure about that? Walking is great for many reasons but unless you're really unfit it won't get your heart rate into zone 2. It's more of a zone 1 activity.
    - RHSman2 3y ago
      True. Zone 1-2 depending on topography
- nradov 3y ago
  Running calories burned varies tremendously by weight and speed. Like if I was to run a marathon in 4.5 hours that would burn about 4000 kcal. https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-running/ https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-running/
paxys 3y ago
If you want to lose weight you should (in order of effectiveness): - Watch what you eat/count calories - Lift heavy weights - Do cardio #3 on its own is rarely ever going to show results. So many people will jog for an hour or more every day and then eat a candy bar as a reward, instantly undoing all the work, then eventually get discouraged when they see no progress.
- gainda 3y ago
  seconded. of course, ideally you should do all three as best you can. the way i always think about it is that humans are among the most efficient runners in the entire animal kingdom; some tribes in Africa still practice persistence hunting. so by extension, cardio is going to be the worst choice for weight loss - but the other benefits still make it worth it.
- sw104 3y ago
  The lifting heavy weights just ensures you retain muscle during weight loss, doesn't it? While weight loss is mostly diet, if you did want to use exercise to burn additional calories, cardio would do more than weight training. I burn up to 1000 calories in an hour of very strenuous cycling (from normal weight), which I doubt I could ever do lifting dumbbells and barbells. I've always used weight training during weight loss to try and tell my body to retain muscle and target fat primarily.
  - paxys 3y ago
    No, lifting weights burns calories. In fact you continue burning calories during recovery, which is something you don't get with cardio.
    - mritterhoff 3y ago
      The muscle you add from weight training does burn extra Calories, but it's not very much, around 6-10 Calories/pound. https://www.builtlean.com/muscle-burn-calories https://www.builtlean.com/muscle-burn-calories
  - 3y ago

by tjpnz 3y ago

willcipriano 3y ago

You can't out run your diet. Cardio for weight loss is mostly a waste of time. It has secondary benefits like reducing hunger post work out but it's hard to exercise enough to quickly lose weight. Running a marathon will burn around 2500 calories, less than a pound of fat.

mathieuh 3y ago
2500 calories for a marathon sounds way too low. I do bike rides every weekend that are typically burning over 3000 calories. This is with a power meter on the bike so it's not going to be miles off.
- sceptical 3y ago
  General rule is 100 calories per mile so 2500 calories for a marathon seems reasonable.
_Wintermute 3y ago
Running maybe not, but if you get too into cycling or swimming (or I guess any low-impact endurance sport), it can sometimes be a chore to shovel enough food into you.
taeric 3y ago
Ish? Yes, you can't just "run off the calories" of food, per se. That said, the more time you spend running/walking/whatever, the less time you spend eating, in many cases. That marathon, for example, is not nearly as simple as eating a burger. One takes several hours for a very fit athlete. The other is minutes for most people. That is, it is easy to view some exercising as a substitute for some snacking. And, in that job, it works rather well. Is my hypothesis on why the simple walk around the neighborhood has outsized impact on weight loss.
- Kirby64 3y ago
  Just walking around is much better for calories burned vs. exertion. It's just worse from a time standpoint. Running has been shown to induce hunger, so erasing the caloric benefit of it with a snack is very easy. Walking, since it's so much lower impact, doesn't really have the same issue, and you can sustain it for much longer periods (especially if you're untrained) than you can with running.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Right, agreed that the time is the important part. If you can sustain a run for an hour or so a day, that is a lot different than a 20 minute one. And, my assertion is that a lot of the benefit of the extra 40 minutes is the substitution effect. This is a lot of what I think many studies find that show benefits to coffee and such. Nowadays, that is as often a substitute for sodas. And the amount of calories you get from a soda is just flat out absurd. I'm fairly certain even those of us that know it is bad for you underestimate just how bad it is.
stephen_g 3y ago
I didn't really need to lose any weight, but found I just naturally did when I started swimming once and then later twice a week (for about 40 minutes to an hour/2km to 2.5km per session). I basically didn't change my diet (although I had started eating generally healthier six months or so before just because I thought it was a good idea), and after a while I found I was getting lighter than I wanted to be and actually had to consciously eat more to maintain my weight.
RHSman2 3y ago
It’s why walking is such a good exercise. 300 cals per hr and doesn’t destroy you. Burns fat (zone 2). I’d suggest that calorific burn really is but one measure.
- nradov 3y ago
  Are you sure about that? Walking is great for many reasons but unless you're really unfit it won't get your heart rate into zone 2. It's more of a zone 1 activity.
  - RHSman2 3y ago
    True. Zone 1-2 depending on topography
nradov 3y ago
Running calories burned varies tremendously by weight and speed. Like if I was to run a marathon in 4.5 hours that would burn about 4000 kcal. https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-running/ https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-running/

paxys 3y ago

If you want to lose weight you should (in order of effectiveness): - Watch what you eat/count calories - Lift heavy weights - Do cardio #3 on its own is rarely ever going to show results. So many people will jog for an hour or more every day and then eat a candy bar as a reward, instantly undoing all the work, then eventually get discouraged when they see no progress.

gainda 3y ago
seconded. of course, ideally you should do all three as best you can. the way i always think about it is that humans are among the most efficient runners in the entire animal kingdom; some tribes in Africa still practice persistence hunting. so by extension, cardio is going to be the worst choice for weight loss - but the other benefits still make it worth it.
sw104 3y ago
The lifting heavy weights just ensures you retain muscle during weight loss, doesn't it? While weight loss is mostly diet, if you did want to use exercise to burn additional calories, cardio would do more than weight training. I burn up to 1000 calories in an hour of very strenuous cycling (from normal weight), which I doubt I could ever do lifting dumbbells and barbells. I've always used weight training during weight loss to try and tell my body to retain muscle and target fat primarily.
- paxys 3y ago
  No, lifting weights burns calories. In fact you continue burning calories during recovery, which is something you don't get with cardio.
  - mritterhoff 3y ago
    The muscle you add from weight training does burn extra Calories, but it's not very much, around 6-10 Calories/pound. https://www.builtlean.com/muscle-burn-calories https://www.builtlean.com/muscle-burn-calories
- 3y ago