| Author | Post |
|---|
R. Slater
New Member
| Joined: | 1 September 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
|
Posted: 1 September 2008 09:08 pm |
|
Greetings,
I am 24 male about 155lbs and 6 feet tall. I recently decided to change my ways and see if I could shape up my body. My goal in a nutshell is general health. My secondary goal is too lose my stomach body fat. I am not out of shape, by looking at me. In other words I am tall slanky and most would say I'm crazy when I mention I'm dieting. I have stopped fast foods, prepackaged foods, soda, saturated fats, snacks, pizza, etc. I know by cutting these foods from my body I am already doing something right. I am also drinking plenty of water each day. On that same token, I realize that by moderately drinking alcohol, I am not helping things. This I have learned to accept; and while completely eliminating it is difficult for my "have fun young" lifestyle, I do drink in moderation, once or twice a week.
I recently started eating, what I would consider a low fat low sugar diet. My foods include tilapia, spaghetti, chicken, tunafish, turkey, canned green beans, raw carrots, fresh fruits, and a number of other reduced fat items (Miracle Whip instead of Mayo, etc.). Iv'e read so much about low fat vs. low carb that I'm lost as too which would help my goal.
As far as exercise is concerned, I am using a treadmill for 45-60 minutes at 4.0 mph. I do not feel discouraged about doing this, I actually enjoy it; and I know an exercise you enjoy doing is ultimately the best one because you stick with it.
With all of that said and done, will this work? Is there something I should change or be doing that I am not? Any recommendations from experience persons or experts would be appreciated. Of course any replies at all are encouraged.
Thanks,
R. Slater
|
Tratra
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 1 September 2008 10:10 pm |
|
| I wouldn't recommend low fat or low carb....as long as you're getting healthy fats and whole grains, that's the way to go. And everything in moderation of course! Just make sure you're eating a balanced diet with lots of veggies and fruits....it sounds like you're doing great already by cutting out the processed stuff. Keep up the good work!
|
CrimsonAnimus
Moderator
|
Posted: 2 September 2008 12:54 am |
|
Welcome to  !
I agree with everything Tratra said - well-balanced is best. You need protein, good carbs, and good fat. Also, if you eat fruit, you are inevitably going to eat a good bit of sugar. I eat about 5-7 servings of fruit a day, totaling about 125 carbs from fruit alone. Most of this is sugar, but it's not the same as refined sugar. 
In the spirit of eliminating junk, I also recommend that you be careful with reduced fat/reduced sugar and fat free/sugar free foods. Some things, like skim milk, are fine, but many other foods add artificial ingredients to compensate.
Further, many of them are not that much of an improvement. Let's say that you have a food that has 4 grams of fat, 1 of which is saturated. A reduced fat variation of this item might have 1 gram of fat. 0.5 of which is saturated. In this case, you are probably better off eating the original item, because most of the fat is unsaturated, which is good for your body. The reduced fat item will likely have a considerably higher price tag, and possibly increased sodium or sugar, so it's usually not worth it, in my opinion.
Kudos to you for eliminating the junk! However, even the strongest among us will have occasional lapses. The important thing is how they occur - will they be planned or unplanned? Depriving yourself of everything opens the door to temptation. Make sure you let yourself have a treat from time to time.
As far as your stomach body fat goes, cardio and proper diet are the key to this. Ab exercises help, too, and at 155 lbs., I imagine that ab exercises would make a key difference in the appearance of your stomach at this point (in comparision to someone who weighs more).
Good luck! 
|
cportwine
Senior Member
|
Posted: 3 September 2008 04:47 am |
|
It all sounds good! The only thing I would suggest, is to do some sort of weights. The reason I say that, is that you want to lose stomach fat (as do I ). I have done research, and they all say- cardio, weights, and core exercises.
So, what the heck give it a try...
Good luck!
|
R. Slater
New Member
| Joined: | 1 September 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
|
Posted: 7 September 2008 01:14 am |
|
Thanks for all the relplies,
I have now added strength training to my exercise. I am doing the 8-10 rep range with moderate weight amounts (lets just say the last rep isn't a breeze). I have organized 9 exercises that I want to focus on.
My question now is, what combination of strength and cardio creates best results? Should I do cardio on one day, and stregth training the next? Or, Should I do cardio everyday; followed by strength training (alternating muscle groups for each day)?
Thanks
|
CrimsonAnimus
Moderator
|
Posted: 7 September 2008 05:11 am |
|
Strength training, when done properly, has great effects on your metabolism due to the breaking down and rebuilding of muscle. It is probably more beneficial to do it 6 days a week with alternating muscle groups, while continuing to do at least 30 minutes of cardio daily. Don't wear yourself out! Good luck.
|
R. Slater
New Member
| Joined: | 1 September 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
|
Posted: 7 September 2008 04:10 pm |
|
I have also heard the opposite; doing cardio on one day and strength the next. My research details that cardio will wear you out and when followed by strength exercises; your muscles are not reaching the full capacity as they would starting fresh. I am not positive yet on the structure of my routine.
My last question would be the suppliment aspect. I am not big on suppliments and I know the market is flooded with them. Would there be any advantage or disadvantage to using something like Hydroxycut? I'm not one for fads and best sellers, but this would be exactly that.
Thanks
|
Hellrazor
New Member
| Joined: | 6 July 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 292 |
|
Posted: 7 September 2008 04:20 pm |
|
If you are looking to loose fat keep the cardio in there . On your days you do weights get 5 min warm up in of cardio to get blood going to your muscles. As for your excersise your body will respond better to doing different cardio routines. Try mixing it up and see what happens. Your body will get adappted to the same routine and you will have to work harder at it to get the result you are looking for
Last edited on 7 September 2008 04:21 pm by Hellrazor
|
CrimsonAnimus
Moderator
|
Posted: 7 September 2008 09:04 pm |
|
I tried Green Tea with Hoodia for a few weeks. It made my insomnia worse, and really didn't help. My advice is to try to lose weight without them - practically everyone is capable, with enough effort. You really don't know what long-term effects many supplements can have on you.
I do take a multi-vitamin, and I recommend that.
|
R. Slater
New Member
| Joined: | 1 September 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
|
Posted: 18 September 2008 04:41 pm |
|
Cardio Question:
Does it matter if you alternate pace during a cardio workout, as long as the calories are burning? In other words, if the calories or burning; the pace shouldn't matter.
What I currently do is 100 calories of a brisk walk on the treadmill, then run for 200 calories, cool down to brink walk again for 50 calories, run for 100 calories, end with cool down of brisk walk for 50 calories. This totals my calories to 500 and takes about 50 minutes.
Is there anything wrong with alternating the pace back and forth like that. Honestly, If i ran the entire time, I'd only be able to pull off 250 maximum. I like to push myself to a limit, but at the same time I listen to my body and if I don't feel right about continuing, I don't.
Iv'e also heard this claim that nothing really happens with cardio until after about 30 minutes? myth yes?
Thanks
|
cportwine
Senior Member
|
Posted: 18 September 2008 07:34 pm |
|
I have heard that also. I guess I have never really questioned it. I try to do, at least that (30 mins.) before I stop doing a cardio activity.
I vary on speeds when I walking all the time. I am not really concerned that it will hurt my workout program. Cause I believe any exercise is better then none.
I guess I would just do what your body can handle and go from there.
Last edited on 18 September 2008 07:34 pm by cportwine
|
Hellrazor
New Member
| Joined: | 6 July 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 292 |
|
Posted: 18 September 2008 09:56 pm |
|
My experience with changing speeds during a cardio work out is I will burn more by speeding up. I have been doing a stationary bike recently. I burn a ton more by jacking up the resistance and even doing a slower speed. The other day I did half hr at a resistance of 10 up to 25 and I did 500 calories. Where I have done the same thing at a resistance 5 to 8 and burned around 300
|
BEC950
Senior Member
|
Posted: 18 September 2008 10:04 pm |
|
| You are not burning fat until you have been excising for at least 30 minutes. Your body stores enough glycogen to supply your muscles energy for around 30 minutes and after that you need to st rat breaking down body fat for energy.
|
R. Slater
New Member
| Joined: | 1 September 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
|
Posted: 18 September 2008 10:09 pm |
|
| Iv'e heard this sort of thing before, however there clearly must be a missing factor. If you are walking at a speed of 3 mph on a treadmill for 30 minutes, or jogging at 6.5 mph for 30 minutes; the reaction of each must be different. I beleive that perhaps if you are just walking for 30 minutes, the fat begins to burn at that point. If you are producing a more intense workout however, the 30 minute rule couldn't possible still apply?
|
BEC950
Senior Member
|
Posted: 18 September 2008 10:18 pm |
|
It is all to do with Anaerobic versus aerobic exercise. When you run your muscles run out of oxygen and only turn to fat stores after the glycogen is used up. However when you walk your body is getting oxygen and uses the fat stores directly.
In a nut shell. There is more to it than that but I don't want to get into a biochemistry lesson (plus I probably wouldn't be the best one as I got a C in Biochemistry  )
|
R. Slater
New Member
| Joined: | 1 September 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
|
Posted: 18 September 2008 10:24 pm |
|
| You already are speaking more than I know :) I'm not too worried, since I never do less than 45 minutes, usually 50, of cardio every other day. If the 30 minute rule is true however, that is something many people should be aware of; since a lot of people follow a "30 minutes of cardio a day" pattern. It would be a shame to do so much cardio and not be aware that an extra 10-15 minutes is what you truely needed to see results.
|
BEC950
Senior Member
|
Posted: 18 September 2008 10:44 pm |
|
The biochemical principles are where the "30 minute rule" came from, however I truly believe that any amount of exercise has health and weight benefits. After all you are still burning calories no matter how you do it which will eventuly lead to fat loss.
|
CrimsonAnimus
Moderator
|
Posted: 19 September 2008 01:16 am |
|
Does it matter if you alternate pace during a cardio workout, as long as the calories are burning?
Actually, alternating paces is more beneficial. There is much more to calorie burn than what the machine has to say.
If you stay at the same pace for 30 minutes, your body will adjust to that pace. Even if the machine says that you burned 300 calories, you probably burned less than that if you did steady state, because your muscles stopped having to work as hard due to the adjustment phase.
You are not burning fat until you have been excising for at least 30 minutes. Your body stores enough glycogen to supply your muscles energy for around 30 minutes and after that you need to st rat breaking down body fat for energy.
Your body never burns just glycogen. Depending on which type and how intense of a workout you are doing, your body will burn glycogen and fat at different percentages.
Further, even if you burn most of your glycogen during a workout, your body will go to your fat stores to pull what it needs to establish your calorie deficit. So, you can either burn less fat during a workout, but more later, or more fat during a workout, but less later. Either way, your body is always burning fat, whether you are exercising or not. If you consume less calories than what your body burns, you lose fat.
That being said, the longer and the more intense that you work out, the greater the boost on your overall metabolism. Your metabolism determines how many calories your body burns all day, and is a more important factor in fat loss than the calorie deficit you establish from exercise. Increased metabolism is the more likely reason that people who exercise for longer lose more weight.
I remember one week where I did 30 minutes bike and 30 minutes treadmill for 6 days. I didn't do them consecutively, either - there was a space of time between the two. That was actually the first week that I started seeing real weight loss results. In my experience, doing two 30-minute segments, with a different exercise for each segment, has resulted in better weight loss than a single 60-minute segment of the same exercise.
|
BEC950
Senior Member
|
Posted: 19 September 2008 04:37 am |
|
This come directly from one of my university text books...
"Intensity and Duration Affect Fat Use The intensity of physical activity also affects the percentage of energy contributed by fat because fat can be broken down for energy only by aerobic metabolism. When the intensity of activity becomes so great that energy demands surpass the ability to provide energy aerobically, the body cannot burn more fat. Instead, it burns more glucose. The duration of activity also matters to fat use. At the start of activity, the blood fatty acid concentration falls, but a few minutes into an activity, the neurotransmitter norepinephrine signals the fat cells to break apart their stored triglycerides and to liberate fatty acids into the blood. After about 20 minutes of activity, the blood fatty acid concentration rises above the normal resting concentrations. Only after the first 20 minuted, during this phase of submaximal activity, do the fat cells begin to shrink in size as they empty out their fat stores"
I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all but this is one of the principles that we learn in school. This paragraph comes from page 371 of Sizer, F. and Whitney, E. (2006) Nutrition Concepts and Controversies Tenth Edition. Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA if anyone wants to look it up.
|
CrimsonAnimus
Moderator
|
Posted: 19 September 2008 05:18 am |
|
It bears to note that there are two types of physical activity - aerobic and anaerobic.
Aerobic literally means "with oxygen", and anaerobic means "without oxygen". Some cardio workouts are done strictly in the aerobic zone. Others are a combination of the two. No one, however, is going to do an hour long cardio workout solely in the anaerobic zone, or they would collapse. That is why fat will always be burned during a prolonged cardio session.
People who do prolonged cardio workouts that are both aerobic (such as running) and anaerobic (such as sprinting) will perhaps burn less fat during the workout than someone who chose to just do aerobic. However, anaerobic exercise has a much more significant effect on metabolism than aerobic exercise, more than enough to offset any decrease in fat burn during the exercise, if applicable.
The best exercise regimen includes both aerobic and anaerobic, but regardless, anaerobic does have a much better effect on overall fat burn.
EDIT: By the way, I think we are both correct. Many claim that vigorous activity burns more fat calories than moderate activity, because the overall calories burned are so much higher. According to my heart rate monitor, though, I burn more calories from fat in the moderate zone. Still, with my heart rate monitor showing inflated numbers, that might not be accurate. 
Last edited on 19 September 2008 08:36 am by CrimsonAnimus
|
BEC950
Senior Member
|
Posted: 19 September 2008 02:03 pm |
|
Yup I agree I think we are both right and I think where we were different in opinion was in the difference between aerobic and anaerobic exercise. I was taught that running was a form of anaerobic exercise therefore to "directly" burn fat you need to run for at least 30 minutes (text book says 20 but close enough).
It may be that some people can run and still get enough oxygen to their muscles (maybe if they run slow) to be working aerobically. I am not too concerned with this principle anyway as I know ultimately it is calories in calories out and in the end you burn fat. I sometimes go out for a 10 - 15 minute run and don't concern myself overly about it. It is still exercise and that it was counts.
Exercise not only burns fat but has a number of other health benefits too so as long as we are doing some that is all that matters
|
Current time is 06:29 pm | |
|
