If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
Both will have a positive effect on weight loss. It is generally accepted that HIIT high intensity interval training is the better of the two. There is a sticky about it.
Running long and slow burns more calories than running short and fast.
In comparison to what? a 20 minute sustained high intensity run to a 40 minute light jog? Sorry, the SHI run easily surpasses the job in terms of overall calorie expenditure. Especially when considering how time efficient it was and consider the enhanced oxygen debt.
how about this... you are not going to loose much weight excercising... sorry... the best excercise for loosing weight is to put the fork down... and stop doing so many 12 oz curls...
figure this... lets say you ran really hard for 20 minutes... you might burn 300-400 calories... you would have to do the for 9-12 days to burn 1 lbs of fat... and in the scheme of things that is pretty small... especially if your break even point is 2600 calories...
excercise to gain the health benfits and the feeling of well being... to loose weight pay attention to what you eat...
I will say this... research shows that people that excercise tend to loose more of the fat under the skin... and those that use diet alone tend to loose more visceral (internal around the organs) fat...
oh well just my humble opionion... the research shows that excercise and diet are not that much more effective than diet alone at weight loss...
Which would you suggest in terms of just leg muscle building? I generally run a mile, at a very casual weight 3 days a week. I can't afford to lose weight though.
how about this... you are not going to loose much weight excercising... sorry... the best excercise for loosing weight is to put the fork down... and stop doing so many 12 oz curls...
figure this... lets say you ran really hard for 20 minutes... you might burn 300-400 calories... you would have to do the for 9-12 days to burn 1 lbs of fat... and in the scheme of things that is pretty small... especially if your break even point is 2600 calories...
excercise to gain the health benfits and the feeling of well being... to loose weight pay attention to what you eat...
I will say this... research shows that people that excercise tend to loose more of the fat under the skin... and those that use diet alone tend to loose more visceral (internal around the organs) fat...
oh well just my humble opionion... the research shows that excercise and diet are not that much more effective than diet alone at weight loss...
if I get - rep for posting what I believe to be the truth tell me then... how many calories do you expect to burn...
lets say you ran really hard for 20 minutes at a pace of 5 minute mile... that would be 4 miles ran... how many calories for that... ? really... ok if you are pushing out that kind of pace ok... 500 calories or so... but assuming it is a mortal not some running GOD... my estimate of 300-400 calories is probably in the right neighborhood...
I have lost now 92 lbs... 264-172 = 92lbs... as of today... I didn't do it with dumb luck... I spent quit a bit of time researching it...
Perhaps I missed something so enlighten me if I am wrong...
I do recognize that there could be some additional benefits to HIIT such as increased BMR for x hours after such a work out... but... my point is this... if you are trying to loose weight... don't expect to go out and run a few miles and not change your diet and expect to loose weight...
weight loss boils down to calories burned vs calories consumed...
I don't say that exercise isn't an important role in weigh loss... preventing muscle atrophy... general well being... etc... etc... cardiovascular health...
silent I am worried my last message was a bit too harsh... basically I think I didn't say anything that isn't correct so... basically I just want to hear why you think I am wrong...
I am not looking to fight with anybody... really! I just want to learn and to also share with others... if I am wrong please correct me...
[QUOTE= the research shows that excercise and diet are not that much more effective than diet alone at weight loss...[/QUOTE]
you can't be serious have you done read any research published in the last 10 years-no offense
if you only wanted to lose weight sure you could starve yourself and waste away but if you want to burn fat you have got to do something, and the thing with intervals is it is way more efficient but only if you have a foundation developed to be able to withstand the intensity without injury
i personally bike on two days per week tues thurs am22mi noon 60min core pm22mi total 88mi per week allthough i am burning approx2000 cal per 22mi i also have to fuel myself to be able to complete two rides per day with that being said the real bonus is on mon wed fri i do a whole body routine with weights so i know any weight loss is not due to atrophy-i choose to go for this long(appropriate for my goals)
now back to efficiency i can lose the same amount if not more with three days per week of whole body weightlifting routine of complex movements followed by intervals and of course proper nutrient ratios and calorie intake
i wish i could remember where(just for you silent)i read the research but in a nut shell it stated studies have shown that diet and exercise have led to increased weight loss over just diet or exercise by themselves but this is not the real benefit because those who just dieted or just exercised put the weight back on and then some-the reasoning behind this is an integrated fitness lifestyle not just a quick fix but a mental and physical overhaul you are not just changing your looks you are changing your life
of course this is without getting all technical about hormonal response and breaking down excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (so don't give me no crap SILENT)lol
you can't be serious have you done read any research published in the last 10 years-no offense
Haha exactly, rep+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by akyoda32
of course this is without getting all technical about hormonal response and breaking down excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (so don't give me no crap SILENT)lol
Pfft, Do I ever Akyoda?
PS;
To quote do the following without spaces. [quote ] message [/quote ]
The team examined 493 studies carried out between 1969 and 1994. Miller and his associates wanted to determine whether adding aerobic exercise to a low-calorie diet accelerates weight loss. Twenty-five years of weight loss research shows that diet and aerobic exercise provides only a very marginal benefit (in terms of weight loss) when compared to diet alone.
...
After analyzing the results, the researchers conclude that exercise training "did not lead to significant changes in body weight and body composition."
...
Aerobic exercise again failed to deliver any meaningful results when the training frequency was increased to five times per week. A team of Canadian researchers, publishing their findings in the Journal of Applied Physiology, followed a group of men and women for four months [16]. Half the group followed a restricted calorie diet, while the rest combined the diet with five days a week of cross training (a mixture of treadmill walking, cycling and stepping).
At the end of the program, scientists were at a loss to explain why the diet and exercise group had lost just one-half pound more than the diet-only group, describing their findings as "perplexing".
....
When you lose weight from dieting alone, some of the weight lost comes from lean muscle tissue. Some experts believe that aerobic exercise prevents this reduction in muscle mass. But the facts tell a different story. Several studies show that diet and aerobic exercise both lead to a drop in muscle tissue [10, 15]. Aerobic exercise won't offset the loss in lean muscle caused by dieting.
...
Publishing their findings in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Japanese researchers have shown that dieting leads to a greater reduction in visceral fat [1]. Exercise, on the other hand, has a greater impact on subcutaneous fat. Subcutaneous fat (pronounced sub-cue-tain-ee-us) is stored just under your skin. Visceral fat (pronounced viss-er-al) surrounds and protects your internal organs.
ok... there is the research I am talking about... he quotes a bunch... honestly I didn't check his sources...
lol 
Linear Mode
