Best Machines at Gym? Treadmill alternative?

KHope

KHope

New member
So just got my gym membership now that I'm back from school and as usual I'm faced with the dilemma of the treadmill. I know running is a great way to lose weight, but I've never been a runner. I have asthma, so I can only run for so long. What alternatives to running are there at the gym that will be effective for losing weight?
 
Well pretty much anything you do aside from running will be as good, if not better for fat loss, so hit the weights hard if that suits you.

Machines suck outside of rehab and bodybuilding. Use freeweights.
 
Any of them- just get up into the cardiovascular zone rather than the "weight loss zone" (that's a stupid myth) on the heart rate monitors if they have them (if they don't, you don't want to be able to have a normal conversation while working out- you're wasting your time if you can).

My favourite (I'm such a stereotype, aargh!) is the cross trainer (aka elliptical)- it's easy on my knees, you can get more of a running sensation without the sick feeling/ stitches, and I really like their hill programs. I also use a stepping machine (sort of like a climber)- they're not very popular in gyms, because they're very difficult to use. They look easy- but looks can be deceiving (not recommended if you have very weak knees). The rowing machine is supposed to work more muscles (so said my old rowing coach?) than any other gym machine- that can be easy or it can be very difficult depending on how hard you push yourself.

Have you considered swimming? Apparently it's very good for asthmatics (and I love it- I don't feel myself sweating)

Also, you haven't mentioned weight/ strength training. You should do it if you could, as Jynus says, with free weights. Not just because it can be surprisingly fun (I never thought I'd like the gym, let alone weights), but because it can prevent/ slow muscle loss which can occur when losing weight (and muscles are important if nothing else for having a nice shape on the other side of the weight loss).
 
amy1985 said:
Any of them- just get up into the cardiovascular zone rather than the "weight loss zone" (that's a stupid myth) on the heart rate monitors if they have them (if they don't, you don't want to be able to have a normal conversation while working out- you're wasting your time if you can).
Click to expand...

Amy - can I ask you why you made these statements?

KHope - There are lots of other machines in the gym that will work. For aerobic exercise, stationary cycles, ellipticals, cross-trainers, steppers, rowers, etc. will all work, but you will only see results if you are consistent. Since you are asthmatic, find something that feels comfortable. Start at a low intensity as high intensity may trigger an asthmatic response. Once your body is more accustomed to exercise, and you don't have any issues with breathing, you can very gradually try increasing the intensity. Also, try to go to a gym that is scent-free if possible. As you know, this can also trigger a response.

Also, as Amy and Jynus have already said, weight training is very important both for weight loss and for overall health. It can be intimidating at first, but it can also be a good way to prevent boredom at the gym!
 
PLB- it's that I've read over and over that "women shouldn't work in the cardiovascular zone" and "weight loss zone burns more fat"- the latter statement, as I understand it from more reputable/ less "pink dumbell" sites (and I could be wrong, I freely admit I have no qualifications here), is simplistically true but false in the fundamentals. Yes, more of the calories that are burnt in the "weight loss zone", as I understand it, are fat, but you burn less calories than working in the cardio zone (and don't help your fitness, which is important for other reasons), and therefore you lose less weight overall, and thus almost by definition you're wasting your time (I've seen several "women's" recommendations that you should stay on the elliptical for an hour- if I stayed on the elliptical for an hour I'd die. Probably literally- 25 minutes and I'm nearing exhaustion, 35 and you need to carry me out of the gym. And I don't think I'm unfit anymore- back when I started out that number was 10 minutes).
 
I just want to add that "Machines suck" isn't really true.

The reason most trainers and pros tell you to go for free weights is that with free weights, you also use a shitload of stabilizer muscles, core muscles and such for doing the big movements. Another good thing is that free weights will always be moved in the way that is most fitting for your joint position, bone length etc. Basically its more biomechanically correct. The problems with machines is that they can force you into moving in some ways that aren't optimal at all for your specific skeleton.

From there to "machines suck" is a bit of a jump tho. If you feel intimidated by weights, if you feel safer in machines or whatever, doing machines is better than doing nothing for most people who aren't at the end of the spectrum where the load on the joint isn't really heavy enough to instantly do massive horrifying damage. And the muscle mass increase, and calorie burn increase, and prevention of loosing muscle during weight loss, from machines. Is just as good as it is from weights.

Free weights is just way more functional training and involves all the stabilizer muscles, and is the better option. But the notion that machines is all but useless, that is pretty prevalent these days, is just bs. Doing a machine workout is infinitely better than doing no workout, and deciding to do free weights and then not doing it, is still no workout.
 
Actually yes, that's very true. When I first started in the gym and was given a program, I was horrified that they wanted me to do weights, because that's what guys do and they're big and scary and intimidating and stuff. (I've learned better) The intro I got to weights- machines for legs and more "acceptable" girl free weights (bicep curls and tricep extensions- all the girls in my gym do them, not many do any others)- was much less intimidating for me.
 
Amy, if you find any of those articles, can you post them or PM me with the links? I'd be interested in seeing where they are coming from & the reasoning behind the statements.

I think it's becoming one of those things where high-intensity training has become a trend, so the typical statement in certain publications is that "this new workout plan is the best, and everything else is a waste of time." Every form of exercise has it's place and it's specific set of benefits. In the same way that I would never tell someone to eat the same thing everyday, I try to encourage people not to do the same exercise everyday. Working out in the 'fat-burning' zone for, say, 30 to 60 mins should burn a higher proportion of calories from fat stores and has a low risk of injury; working out in the 'cardiovascular zone' for maybe 20 to 30 mins should burn a higher number of calories (per hour) overall as well as increasing aerobic capacity. HIIT is sort of seen as the best of both worlds, but is only appropriate if done correctly and if done after proper training has taken place (ie. HIIT is not really appropriate for beginners due to the risk of injury).

So, for beginners, I usually recommend just getting comfortable with between 30 to 60 mins of aerobic exercise (where they CAN still carry on a conversation relatively well) on any machine (this may have to be narrowed down if someone has an injury or other restrictions) 2-4 days per week. After a few weeks, try bumping up the intensity and doing a slightly shorter workout of 20-30 mins, possibly on a 'hill' program or something similar on whatever machine the person likes to do. So, if someone is doing 'cardio' 4 days per week, I would recommend 2 days of longer, lower intensity cardio and 2 days of shorter, but higher intensity cardio.

As for what machine is the 'best' for cardio... the best one is the one that someone likes the most, but again, I usually recommend using different machines on different days to reduce boredom.

sorry, long post as usual :)
 
PLB > I think the main annoyance with the "fat burning zone" nomenclature is that it is, with regard to weight loss, completely irrelevant where the energy is burned in the moment it is burned. Whether you burn pure glucose, or burn fat, what matters is still your balance of energy in and energy out. Working 30 minutes in the "cardio zone" will be better for weight loss than working 30 minutes in the "fat burning zone".

Now where this is relevant is when making a choice about what you want to train, and as it pertains to longevity and general health, as far as I know, and I can't quote articles because I'm not in research mode right now, but as far as I know, low intensity steady state cardio sessions is in fact inferior to interval training (HIIT or otherwise) due to the differences in which mode of energy generation the two workouts use. Now I might be wrong, and if I am I'd be exited to be shown that I'm wrong because learning stuff is always good :) but to the best of my knowledge low intensity steady state is better than nothing, but interval and HIIT is better than low intensity steady state, for health reasons.

This is, oh the other hand, disregarding risk of injury which is irrelevant to this particular question. I'd agree that HIIT has a much higher risk of both over training and injury than steady state cardio bouts.
 
I definitely agree that interval training has far more benefits in the long run than low-intensity, steady-state exercise. Looking back it does look like I'm disagreeing with amy, but I just like to get all sides of the story, especially if there is an article out there that says that any form of exercise is a waste of time. I just like to see what the author's reasons are, that's all :). Low-intensity exercise has worked for many people for weight loss, it's just that those individuals recognized that they can't do it in 30 minutes per day. It's more like 60-90 mins (at least!) of low-intensity compared to 30 mins higher intensity or interval training.

It just depends where the person is at fitness-wise when they first begin an exercise program...
 
I was probably a bit full on as well- I apologise for that. I do think that any exericse is better than no exercise and people should set their goals according to what they can manage (hell, it's worked great for me). But a lot of the sites I've seen* depict women who are at least as fit as I am now, lifting weights, with some amounts of obvious muscle (that they've obviously worked hard for), and says that for this sort of goal you should always be able to carry out a normal conversation during cardio. Given the balance of what I've read here and elsewhere (particularly things not specifically aimed at women), that seems like bad advice because, as clever_plant says, the actual thing burnt during exercise is irrelevant to overall weight loss goals. (Again- bad advice for someone like me, or when thinking only about what it will do for weight loss. For someone with low levels of fitness, high risk of injury, etc, that's another matter entirely) I probably put my own spin on it as well, because the idea that (besides obvious anatomical differences) one should do anything in a "girl's" way is incredibly offensive to me (I don't like to talk politics here, but I'm a very staunch feminist).

On my own level of fitness, the only reason I don't do HIIT is because I don't want to, at this stage, not because I couldn't. I feel I'm pretty fit for someone who used to be the kid who came last in everything and even the sports teachers laughed at (I just came back from the gym where I lifted weights for an hour then swam about 3/4 mile at a moderate-ish pace). I like to get off the machine panting and really quite tired but still able to walk out of the gym (and I want to avoid that burny/ vomity feeling from going all out)- for me that's ~40 min of cardio (after weight lifting). If I were to work so I could carry on a conversation, I suspect I could keep going for hours, and that would be supremely boring and (to my mind) counterproductive. I should probably reconsider HIIT at some stage, but the feeling of wanting to vomit is something I want to avoid if I can help it.

*If I come across any again I'll let you know, although I'm not actively looking at this stage- it was while I was looking for a resistance routine, and seeing if there was anything I had to do differently because I'm a woman (looking for safety reasons, not because the idea that I get special dispensation is appealling to me at all).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top