Kilometers VS Kilograms - which exercise is best?

Rouxenator

Dank meme lord
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
39,420
So I'm turning 30 in the middle of this year and I want to be about the same weight as I was back in high school. Last year November I started walking which progressed into running and now sometimes cycling too (doing a 95km ride tomorrow).

I use a sports tracker to keep log of all my workouts and it has a crude way (without heart rate monitor) to calculate the kCal you burn with each workout. Since I started I have done 430km by foot (walking & running) and 195km on a bicycle : http://www.sports-tracker.com/#/view_profile/rouxenator

What I am wondering about is which type of exercise is going to make me loose the most Kg per Km? I have gone from 116kg to 104kg but I somehow feel that for all that distance it could actually have been a whole lot more.
 

syntax

Executive Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
7,935
Im inclined to say running would do more....but probably not by much.
More importantly is training inside the correct heart rate zones for weight loss. Using the correct zones will maximize your training and weight loss.
Get a heart rate monitor, its probably the best training tool I have
 

Nokkie

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
9,727
Remember to eat right to. It contributes to your weight loss.
 

Rouxenator

Dank meme lord
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
39,420
Eating right is a problem since I am lazy and only eat once a day and then I tend not to eat a lot. This apparently slows down metabolism which I am trying to boost with overpriced UXN PhedraCut pills - not sure if it is working.
I was actually thinking of getting the bluetooth heart rate monitor that works with the sports tracker.
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
Both weights and distance will contribute. With the running try doing interval training, where you push yourself to the upper limit of your aerobic heart rate zone for x amount of time, then come down to the lower limit for about 1/4x. I like to do things like push for 4 lamp posts and slow rest jog for 1. something to that effect.

Basically exercising your aerobic heart rate is good for burning Kcal while you are doing it, and does increase your metabolism slightly so that you burn more even while your not exercising.
Weight training and increasing your lean muscle mass will increase your resting metabolism far more than running will. You dont need to be a body builder. But simple weight training to increase muscle mass a little, even if you stay the same size but you up your muscle density. This will increase the amount of mitochondria in your muscle cells, and also increase the amount of muscle fibres you have. More mitochondria means higher metabolism which equals a higher natural fat burning rate.

You seem to be on the right track though. You have lost plenty of KG's from pure running and cycling. Now you need to add a resistance training routine in there. The closer you get to your ideal BMI and body fat percentage, the more you will find that a higher natural metabolism will take off the last few KG's.

Hope it helps. Do some google searches on Interval training, Resistance training and metabolism, Aerobic and anaerobic training for weight loss. Things like that. SHould give you tons of more detailed info on how and why that stuff works.
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
Eating right is a problem since I am lazy and only eat once a day and then I tend not to eat a lot. This apparently slows down metabolism which I am trying to boost with overpriced UXN PhedraCut pills - not sure if it is working.
I was actually thinking of getting the bluetooth heart rate monitor that works with the sports tracker.

This you need to fix fast. Those pills end up doing more harm than good on your metabolism. Rather just force yourself to eat a small breakfast, a snack, a lunch, a snack and a dinner each day. It doesn't have to even fill you. A single apple/banana. A tiny portion of peanuts, a small Yoghurt. Any of these once every 2-3 hours will be sufficient to get your body out of storage mode and into burning mode. Combined with the exercise.
Remember that it all needs to be in balance for you to get down to your ideal weight. 1 meal and metabolism pills will never get you there in a healthy way, no matter how hard you exercise.
 

Mantis

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
883
eat every two hours, healthy high fibre stuff.

Swim more, run less.
 

Nokkie

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
9,727
You should go on lipo six, or the newer weight loss lipo six X works like a charm, with a correct diet of course.
Eating right is a problem since I am lazy and only eat once a day and then I tend not to eat a lot. This apparently slows down metabolism which I am trying to boost with overpriced UXN PhedraCut pills - not sure if it is working.
I was actually thinking of getting the bluetooth heart rate monitor that works with the sports tracker.
 

Rouxenator

Dank meme lord
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
39,420
Thanks for the advice guys. My problem is I do not want to spend that much time on this. 1 or 2 hours a day is pretty much my limit and I find eating to be a pretty big waste of time. I guess if I did it right then I would never end up where I am now since metabolism seems to play a pretty big role in all of this.

I wonder how important sleep is cause I tend to go to sleep at between 1am and 2am then I get up at 6:30am. Looks like time is really my problem, there is not enough ;)
 

WilD_CaT

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
3,431
Eating right is a problem since I am lazy and only eat once a day and then I tend not to eat a lot. This apparently slows down metabolism which I am trying to boost with overpriced UXN PhedraCut pills - not sure if it is working.
I was actually thinking of getting the bluetooth heart rate monitor that works with the sports tracker.

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

Martin Berkhan is a nutritional consultant, magazine writer and personal trainer.
Welcome to the Internet's leading resource on intermittent fasting and all things related.

Some of his client's http://www.leangains.com/search/label/Client results
Other success stories http://www.leangains.com/search/label/Success Stories

1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".


Truth

Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.

Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.

A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.

B) Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.

C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.

What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.

However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.

Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.

The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:

"Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".

Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.

Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.

Origin

Seeing how conclusive and clear research is on the topic of meal frequency, you might wonder why it is that some people, quite often RDs in fact, keep repeating the myth of "stoking the metabolic fire" by eating small meals on a frequent basis. My best guess is that they've somehow misunderstood TEF. After all, they're technically right to say you keep your metabolism humming along by eating frequently. They just missed that critical part where it was explained that TEF is proportional to the calories consumed in each meal.

Another guess is that they base the advice on some epidemiological studies that found an inverse correlation between high meal frequency and body weight in the population. What that means is that researchers may look at the dietary pattern of thousands individuals and find that those who eat more frequently tend to weigh less than those who eat less frequently. It's important to point out that these studies are uncontrolled in terms of calorie intake and are done on Average Joes (i.e. normal people who do not count calories and just eat spontaneously like most people).

There's a saying that goes "correlation does not imply causation" and this warrants further explanation since it explains many other dietary myths and fallacies. Just because there's a connection between low meal frequencies and higher body weights, doesn't mean that low meal frequencies cause weight gain. Those studies likely show that people who tend to eat less frequently have:

* Dysregulated eating patterns; the personality type that skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, undereat during the day, and overeat in the evening. They tend to be less concerned with health and diet than those who eat more frequently.

* Another feasible explanation for the association between low meal frequencies and higher body weight is that meal skipping is often used as a weight loss strategy. People who are overweight are more likely to be on a diet and eat fewer meals.

The connection between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general population, and vice versa, is connected to behavioral patterns - not metabolism.
 
Last edited:

WilD_CaT

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
3,431
As for blood glucose...

The New Study: Greater Accuracy

"The new study seeks to improve on the lacking methodology used in past studies. From the paper:

In contrast to previous research, this study used frequent blood sampling to track glucose and insulin concentrations to three and six subsequent nutrient ingestions.


OK, so let's look at how the study was conducted, what the results showed, and what we can take away from it all.


Method


The participants arrived to the laboratory fasted, after which baseline blood samples were taken. On three separate occasion, each participant was then fed the following 1500-kcal diets:

6 CHO: 65% carbs, 15% protein, 20% fat, split 250 kcal x 6.
3 CHO: 65% carbs, 15% protein, 20% fat, split 500 kcal x 3.
6 PRO: 35% carbs, 45% protein, 20% fat, split 250 kcal x 6.

Meals were taken in the form of liquids; carbs in the form of sucrose and corn syrup, protein in the form of soy protein. Fat came with the protein supplement. Certainly not "ideal" but liquid meals are standard in these types of experiments.

Meals were eaten every second hour starting at 7 A.M. for the 6-meal groups (6 CHO and 6 PRO) and every fourth hour starting at 7 A.M. for the 3-meal experiment (3 CHO). Blood samples were drawn every 15th minute during the study period (7 A.M. - 7 P.M). The results were added together and values for BG and insulin were then calculated to establish averages for each diet.


Results


Baseline (fasted) glucose and insulin values were similar across the three study days. Let's look at the average BG values for each diet-experiment.


6 CHO: 710.0 +-251.0 mmol/L*min
3 CHO: 522.7 +-99.3 mmol/L*min
6 PRO: 442 +- 121.0 mmol/L*min

The 6 CHO-experiment exhibited significantly higher BG values than the other groups. Despite identical carb and calorie-intakes, those who ate 6 meals had 30% higher blood sugar values than those who ate 3 meals. That's a rather striking difference considering the energy- and nutrient-matched condition.

The difference between 6 CHO compared to the high-protein experiment (6 PRO) was even more pronounced (60% higher), but this is not so strange considering the effect of protein on BG.

Insulin values were not significantly different between the CHO-groups and the PRO-group had the lowest values; again, this is not unexpected given that carbs are more insulinogenic than protein.


Summary

The authors of the paper sums up the results:

The present study is one of the first to investigate glucose and insulin excursions in response to altered meal frequency and macronutrient composition in healthy young adults over a 12 h period. Our primary finding is that consumption of 6 frequent meals in 12 h resulted in higher blood glucose levels over the course of the day than the consumption of 3 meals, although there was no difference in the insulin response between these two conditions.


The implication here is that it seems insulin was able to do its job better, that of lowering blood sugar, with less meals.

There has been considerable promotion both by the medical community and the lay press to consume 6 meals per day for weight loss or for glycemic control but our data indicate that the glucose AUC is 30% higher over the course of the day with a frequent high carbohydrate feeding than when consuming 3 meals per day.


This is just a nice way to say that mainstream diet advice is a bunch of bull****.

This could potentially have profound implications for individuals with glucose intolerance or those with type 2 diabetes, and should be studied further in this population.


Not only is it bull****, but it might even be counterproductive for some individuals."
 

Rouxenator

Dank meme lord
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
39,420
It does seems to be widely believed though. In fact, I had three people telling me I might die from exhaustion because my body would not have enough energy on hand to break down fat if I do this without eating carbs the night before.

The only meals I had was one low-gi Woolies chicken and mayo sandwich Friday at lunch, 4 Castle Lite beers between 9pm and 1am (that might count as carbs?), sleep from 1am to 4:30am and a USN Ultra Diet shake at 5am (650kJ -> 160kCal). During the workout I drank 5 bottle of water and afterwards a 1L Valpre sparkling.

I'm not dead, actually feels pretty good. Unfortunately I was 104kg before the race and... you guessed it, I'm still 104kg. Is there really an afterburn effect that will kick in for 24 hours after a workout?
 

WilD_CaT

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
3,431
It does seems to be widely believed though. In fact, I had three people telling me I might die from exhaustion because my body would not have enough energy on hand to break down fat if I do this without eating carbs the night before.

Nothing is wrong with having carbs the night before a race. Professional athletes probably should be eating more carbs than the rest of us, the difference is the amount of extra training they do compared to the restof us negates the large carb intake.

Basically you have 2 choices of fuel/energy. Carbs or Fat. If you eat carbs, your body has to produce insulin to remove the glucose from your bloodstream and either convert it to glycogen (Muscles food) or store the excess as fat in any case. However over time, because your body is producing so much insulin the whole time, your fat cells stop responding to insulin which means when you need to use stored fat as energy, your body simply is unable to get access to that stored fat (As the cells stop responding to insulin)

Think about it logically, fat is simply fuel. When you get hungry, it is your bodies way of telling you, get more fuel. So why does a fat person ever get hungry if they have tons of stored fuel reserves? Answer is, body is unable to get/burn much of it, hence you need to eat more. Also when your body is pumping lots of insulin (due to high bloood glucose) it puts you at a higher risk of diabetes.

Basically for a lot of people, you really want to be lean and healthy with a bit of muscle. Not everyone wants to look like a body builder. In order to do that you need to lose the fat and gain a little muscle.

Losing fat is easy, it is all about insulin resistance. "Train" your body to burn fat and become efficient in burning fat by eating less carbs. Make fat your bodies main energy source. You are at your most insulin sensative on an empty stomach, so if you can, do your gym training before you eat, not after.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/diabetes/

My favourite health site is Marks Daily Apple.
 

DigitalSoldier

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
10,185
You should go on lipo six, or the newer weight loss lipo six X works like a charm, with a correct diet of course.

Most of the reviews I have read regarding the above is that the product does not work. The best product I have used for weight loss when I just started out was Animal Cuts.

@Rouxenator, building muscle will help you burn fat faster than just doing cardio. Muscle will also help you to burn fat when you are not working out.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
43,578
'Same weight as my high school days' is a bit of an ignis fatuus I'm afraid. I'd advise to focus off target weights, and more onto realistic metrics like benching levels, distance/speed improvements and so on.
 

Rouxenator

Dank meme lord
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
39,420
I guess you're right, but according to my BMI I am obese (185cm / 105kg). My target is to be 80kg but I am not sure I will reach that by July.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
43,578
What I'm saying is without dangerous crash dieting or health scares you are unlikely ever to reach 80kgs again in your life. Your physical frame tends to change as you get older. I was around 65-70kgs as a student; now I'm 82kgs but I'm not overweight. Some of it is muscle mass that slowly accumulates; some of it is your metabolism; some is the marriage effect... Just work down until you're confident in how you look and feel, and try to maintain that level. BMI doesn't really work for men since it doesn't take into account muscle.
 

Rouxenator

Dank meme lord
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
39,420
Makes sense, I don't have a boep and some say that I do not even look overweight, yet I can see some extra padding that can be lost so maybe 90kg is a good target for me then. How exactly do they calculate your BMI then and why does it say I am obese? I know about crash diets and why they don't work, one of the biggest problems with them is the binges that often follow ;) That's why I am reluctant to mess with my one meal per day routine because it works for me and its not that high in calories.
 

Nokkie

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
9,727
Cardio resistance training works best for effective work outs, same applies with weight training, its all about "RESISTANCE/HIGH POINT" for all exercise's.

So I'm turning 30 in the middle of this year and I want to be about the same weight as I was back in high school. Last year November I started walking which progressed into running and now sometimes cycling too (doing a 95km ride tomorrow).

I use a sports tracker to keep log of all my workouts and it has a crude way (without heart rate monitor) to calculate the kCal you burn with each workout. Since I started I have done 430km by foot (walking & running) and 195km on a bicycle : http://www.sports-tracker.com/#/view_profile/rouxenator

What I am wondering about is which type of exercise is going to make me loose the most Kg per Km? I have gone from 116kg to 104kg but I somehow feel that for all that distance it could actually have been a whole lot more.
 
Top