Help with an argument

A

aslambilal

New member
First of all, i'm 20 years old, 5'10", and about 210 pounds, putting me about 60 pounds overweight ( according to dad ). Anyway he always rags on me saying that going to the gym, treadmill 4hrs 2mph is better than what i say which is, push harder for shorter period of time. I get bored quick and well i cant see myself wasting my time at the gym for more than an hour. I usually go daily for 30 minutes and bike what i consider hard ( 160-170 bpm for 20 of those 30 minutes ). Anyway back to the question

Long and Soft, or Short and Hard?

Thanks
 
aslambilal said:
First of all, i'm 20 years old, 5'10", and about 210 pounds, putting me about 60 pounds overweight ( according to dad ). Anyway he always rags on me saying that going to the gym, treadmill 4hrs 2mph is better than what i say which is, push harder for shorter period of time. I get bored quick and well i cant see myself wasting my time at the gym for more than an hour. I usually go daily for 30 minutes and bike what i consider hard ( 160-170 bpm for 20 of those 30 minutes ). Anyway back to the question

Long and Soft, or Short and Hard?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Ok, that's a terribly sexual ending, but to the point, it depends on what your goals are.

They are both beneficial under different circumstances and to attain different goals. So, is your goal to train for distance or for something else?
 
aslambilal said:
Long and Soft, or Short and Hard?
Click to expand...

Almost forgot everything before this since I started laughing.......

If your father is referring to the infamous 'fat burning zone' you are both right and both wrong. You will burn more 'fat calories' in the longer duration, lower intensity workouts. You will, however, burn more total calories in a shorter, more intense run.
At least that is what I think is right...
Either was you are out running/walking right? Shouldn't matter.
 
Lol, yeah it does seem a little sexual after i look at it now, sorry about that. Anyway yeah this was about wlaking/jogging/bicycling/etc... So at least you agree that shorter, higher intensity burns more, doesnt that also increase overall metabolism making your body more prepared for when that may happen again? And it's also cardio keeping your heart healthy and pumping strong? Just wondering if i'm the stupid one, because i'd rather have my facts first b4 tellin my dad about it ( he's older so i assume he knows more lol ).

He also says burn more than you eat.... well thats true and all but does that really mean eat 200 calories per day and burn them off? That I KNOW is unhealthy. However when i think about it, on a 2000 calorie diet that would take me 4 hours to burn all those calories and that i just couldnt do seeing as how i get bored after 45minuts.

Thanks for the replies, it's nice to know someone's listening ^^
 
Age means nothing when it comes to intelligence. I am 34 and don't know a whole lot.
Not saying you know more than your father, he may be looking at things in an old school sort of way.
If you burn off more than you eat you will be dead quite quickly. Your body needs a certain number of calories to live- BMR. The goal is to burn off enough to put yourself into the wonderful, magical 'caloric deficit'.

It does not matter how you achieve this deficit. It can be through diet of exercise. The exercise can be anything that gets your heart rate up- literally anything.
I know nothing about the metabolism questions you have so can/will not answer them- someone who know will though.
 
aslambilal said:
First of all, i'm 20 years old, 5'10", and about 210 pounds, putting me about 60 pounds overweight ( according to dad ). Anyway he always rags on me saying that going to the gym, treadmill 4hrs 2mph is better than what i say which is, push harder for shorter period of time. I get bored quick and well i cant see myself wasting my time at the gym for more than an hour. I usually go daily for 30 minutes and bike what i consider hard ( 160-170 bpm for 20 of those 30 minutes ). Anyway back to the questionLong and Soft, or Short and Hard? Thanks
Click to expand...

Losing fat is all about losing calories......and cardio is just one way to go about losing calories..

And the more ' effort ' - duration, frequency, intensity - you put into cardio, the more fat you will lose over time.

So, all other things being equal, 60 minutes of steady state cardio burns more calories than 30 minutes of steady state cardio, doing cardio 6X a week will burn more calories than doing cardio 3X a week and doing 30 minutes of steady state cardio at a higher intensity ( i.e high mph pace ) will burn more calories than doing 30 minutes of steady state cardio at a relatively lower intensity ( i.e lower mph pace )

But generally speaking, the harder - i.e the more ' intensely ' you exercise - the more calories you burn / lose. And, the more calories you lose via exercise, the more fat you will lose. So, if you only wanted to do cardio for no more than 30 minutes ( or even 60 minutes), go as hard as you can IMO.

As for " burn more than you eat ", that's about it actually. The key to fat loss is to focus on the total calories you use throughout the day. Over time, you lose body fat by simply using more calories than you consume - in other words, you have to create a ' calorie deficit '.

And, to create that ' calorie deficit ' you can simply try to reduce your caloric intake, increase the calories you burn by being more active in general, increase the calories you burn by engaging in some sort of cardio, increase the calories you burn by engaging in some sort of resistance training and or some combination of all 4.
 
Last edited:
Bigguy said:
I know nothing about the metabolism questions you have so can/will not answer them- someone who know will though.
Click to expand...
I believe the only way to increase your basic metabolic rate is through increased muscle mass. Just doing aerobic exercise will not increase your resting metabolic rate.
 
Remember, a caloric deficit which has been mentioned is the method you are most interested in. What hasn't been said is that TOO much of a good thing is BAD.

There is a magical balance between effective fat loss and starvation mode (not literally starving, but where the body won't give up fat because it thinks it isn't getting enough nutrients). What you want to do is read the sticky threads on what is considered a good range (in the Nutrition forum). There are specific ways to get deficits via eating and exercise and usually the balance between the two is ideal.
 
Judyb said:
I believe the only way to increase your basic metabolic rate is through increased muscle mass. Just doing aerobic exercise will not increase your resting metabolic rate.
Click to expand...

Anaerobic Exercise has been shown to lead to an increased BMR (as well as aerobic). Other factors, such as thermogenic foods and fat burners, (caffeine is one such thermogenic) are effective in raising BMR.
 
Darth Pooh said:
Anaerobic Exercise has been shown to lead to an increased BMR (as well as aerobic). Other factors, such as thermogenic foods and fat burners, (caffeine is one such thermogenic) are effective in raising BMR.
Click to expand...

Is it an appreciable increase? Or an increase of one or two calories per day?
 
Judyb said:
Is it an appreciable increase? Or an increase of one or two calories per day?
Click to expand...

Depends on genetics primarily. But... anerobic exercise is the exercise (like HIIT) that can having lasting effects anywhere from 12-48 hours, with much larger benefits in the hundreds. Lower intensities like aerobics don't normally have that type of lasting power, usually wears off within the hour or so and can get an additional 10-30 calories burned off (while in a rested state due to an elevated HR).

Thermogenic fat burners can have have a 3-10 percent increase in caloric burn. So for some people that could mean a lot of extra calories but for others it could have no appreciable increase. Again, genetics is what makes the difference.
 
Darth Pooh said:
Depends on genetics primarily. But... anerobic exercise is the exercise (like HIIT) that can having lasting effects anywhere from 12-48 hours, with much larger benefits in the hundreds. Lower intensities like aerobics don't normally have that type of lasting power, usually wears off within the hour or so and can get an additional 10-30 calories burned off (while in a rested state due to an elevated HR).

Thermogenic fat burners can have have a 3-10 percent increase in caloric burn. So for some people that could mean a lot of extra calories but for others it could have no appreciable increase. Again, genetics is what makes the difference.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...that's all new news to me. Thanks for the info. I may have to do some serious looking into HIIT. How do I know if my genetics are a good match for the HIIT?
 
Judyb said:
Hmmm...that's all new news to me. Thanks for the info. I may have to do some serious looking into HIIT. How do I know if my genetics are a good match for the HIIT?
Click to expand...

The ' suitability ' of HIIT to help you with your goal of losing fat isn't so much a matter of genetics as it is one of aerobic fitness - you really should have a pretty solid foundation of aerobic fitness established first before even considering HIIT IMO.
 
Wrangell said:
The ' suitability ' of HIIT to help you with your goal of losing fat isn't so much a matter of genetics as it is one of aerobic fitness - you really should have a pretty solid foundation of aerobic fitness established first before even considering HIIT IMO.
Click to expand...

Agreed. HIIT pretty much works for everyone... in the most generic of statements I can make. However, as Leigh's post makes VERY clear... you really need to be fairly comfortable with sustained cardio to even consider HIIT. I didn't start doing HIIT until I could comfortably jog out a mile (this isn't an indicator on whether you can do HIIT, just where I started attempting). I most certainly wouldn't have started HIIT when I weighed close to 300 lbs. The fact that I was even walking a few miles a day was a major milestone... but to take things to the next level I researched sprinting and found HIIT (as a matter of fact, I think her post is what made me find this site).

Just be safe when doing it... it's VERY intensive and I've known people who have hurt themselves easily by pushing TOO hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top