- This topic has 5 voices and 13 replies.
-
Posts
-
Hi,I was hoping someone here might be able to help me with a topic that's been puzzling me for some time now.All the available science shows that running does zilch for weight loss. The only "science" supporting it is basedon the "calories in / calories out" theory. I have a question that google doesnt answer primarily because there are only 2 main groups on the internet, and I require a third to answer my questionGroup 1) Of course running works, its calories in calories out, dummy.Group 2) Why running doesnt work: (coz calories in calories out is old, bad science)Part 3 is my question: If all the science says that running (say for an hour a day at steady pace, or more)doesnt work for fat loss, then how the bloody hell do so many people have an opposite experience?I personally know at least 5 people who swear by running as a means of losing weight, and I've seen it myself with their bodies. So to rephrase, if just running for weight loss (and doing nothing else), is not supposed to work, then how does it work for people when it does? Whether it be 5 or 10 pounds, or even 15 pounds, how do they even succeed to lose that?thanks
Because muscle is heavier than fat. Its easy to lose weight with running since you're breaking down both body fat and muscle mass. Want to lose weight? Yeah, running will get you there. Want to lose body fat and preserve muscle mass? Don't run.
The real question should be: Is it optimal for weight loss?Obviously running does work but there are downsides like:1) Diet is still king. Running won't fix a poor diet.2) It takes allot of running. You can run faster, you can run farther, but at some point you have no where to advance.3) If you are female it can screw up hormone balance4) It's high impact, not good long term for tendons and joints.5) Many runners tend to lose allot of muscle mass - they end up being skinny fat which has a rebound effect once they stop running.But, there's allot of people out there who like to run.IF health, fat loss, and preserving lean body mass are important.1) Diet is king, no matter what.2) Do HIIT style cardio3) Resistance train4) Results will come much faster and saferOh and after all this ^^^ you can still run if you want to but it's now a hobby.
Thanks, but it still doesnt answer my query. Both of you have mentioned that running will work for weight loss.That you will lose fat, (even if it means alongside muscle)But stopping the point right there; how exactly? If cardio burns fat in 1 hour, then your body restores its fat stores over the course of the next 24 or 48 hours, you wouldnt even lose weight.it seems accepted that people WILL lose weight running (some muscle, some fat). But I don't understand how.If running for fat loss really is as stupid as the science suggests it is, fat shouldnt even be lost over the course of say 3 days after an hour or 2 of running.Accepting that some fat can or will be lost, is playing in to the calories in/calories out theory, which is baloney.it's about hormones isnt it?To simplify my query: For those "instances" where people run say for an hour or 2 almost daily, and make no changes to their diet,... supposing they lose weight (some muscle and some fat) how EXACTLY, do they end up losing fat?insulin would be high. any forced fat loss during running would be restocked up during the time spent NOT running by the body's adaptive processes.where's the loophole here?thanks
or could it all be down to cortisol? people run.cortisol decreasesfat loss occursand they falsely take it as validation of the calories in / calories out theory ?
or could it all be down to cortisol? people run.cortisol decreasesfat loss occursand they falsely take it as validation of the calories in / calories out theory ?
This. Cortisol is catabolic to both fat and muscle. BUT, understand that the body does not want to get rid of fat, muscle goes first unless you force your body to preserve it.I live at the beach, there are marathons almost every weekend. So there are many runners at my gym but they aren't on the tread mill. They weight train to preserve muscle mass and they do eat carbs when appropriate to control cortisol.
Here's my opinion on the matter:- Running can cause fat loss in the VERY short term, as in within a week. Similar to the idea of fasting, you can use running to create a large calorie deficit. This will likely lead to fat loss if you have excess fat on your body. As long as you are not very lean (10% or less), it is unlikely that you will lose muscle if this is done on a very short time frame. That being said, the fat loss that would occur here wouldn't be that much for the running to be worth it unless you were preparing for a vacation were you would relax and eat a lot. Sort of like Kiefer's vacation protocol were you overtrain the week before the vacation.- If the training load is high enough, over time runners will lean out and they will still be able to eat quite a bit. When I was in college, my 125 lb roommate averaged about 50 miles per week and was up to 70 miles a week for a time period. He ate about 6000 calories per day. Don't get me wrong, he was not muscular, he was a skeleton. No one would want to look like him. But he was insanely lean. He was not "skinny fat". All the horror stories I have ever heard about running come from females that starved themselves while doing s shitload of cardio. I think if you eat properly and actually periodize your training, you will be fine and you won't end up with messed up hormones and sarcopenic obesity.I think the worst part about running is that it destroys your knees and you will be in the orthopedic surgeons office eventually.
Here's my opinion on the matter:- Running can cause fat loss in the VERY short term, as in within a week. Similar to the idea of fasting, you can use running to create a large calorie deficit. This will likely lead to fat loss if you have excess fat on your body. As long as you are not very lean (10% or less), it is unlikely that you will lose muscle if this is done on a very short time frame. That being said, the fat loss that would occur here wouldn't be that much for the running to be worth it unless you were preparing for a vacation were you would relax and eat a lot. Sort of like Kiefer's vacation protocol were you overtrain the week before the vacation.- If the training load is high enough, over time runners will lean out and they will still be able to eat quite a bit. When I was in college, my 125 lb roommate averaged about 50 miles per week and was up to 70 miles a week for a time period. He ate about 6000 calories per day. Don't get me wrong, he was not muscular, he was a skeleton. No one would want to look like him. But he was insanely lean. He was not "skinny fat". All the horror stories I have ever heard about running come from females that starved themselves while doing s shitload of cardio. I think if you eat properly and actually periodize your training, you will be fine and you won't end up with messed up hormones and sarcopenic obesity.I think the worst part about running is that it destroys your knees and you will be in the orthopedic surgeons office eventually.
Couldn't agree more with all of this points.
Here's my opinion on the matter:- Running can cause fat loss in the VERY short term, as in within a week. Similar to the idea of fasting, you can use running to create a large calorie deficit. This will likely lead to fat loss if you have excess fat on your body. As long as you are not very lean (10% or less), it is unlikely that you will lose muscle if this is done on a very short time frame. That being said, the fat loss that would occur here wouldn't be that much for the running to be worth it unless you were preparing for a vacation were you would relax and eat a lot. Sort of like Kiefer's vacation protocol were you overtrain the week before the vacation.- If the training load is high enough, over time runners will lean out and they will still be able to eat quite a bit. When I was in college, my 125 lb roommate averaged about 50 miles per week and was up to 70 miles a week for a time period. He ate about 6000 calories per day. Don't get me wrong, he was not muscular, he was a skeleton. No one would want to look like him. But he was insanely lean. He was not "skinny fat". All the horror stories I have ever heard about running come from females that starved themselves while doing s shitload of cardio. I think if you eat properly and actually periodize your training, you will be fine and you won't end up with messed up hormones and sarcopenic obesity.I think the worst part about running is that it destroys your knees and you will be in the orthopedic surgeons office eventually.
Couldn't agree more with all of this points.
Me as well. Only problem is runners are like a cult. Try and tell them this stuff and they will bite your head off.
Here's my opinion on the matter:- Running can cause fat loss in the VERY short term, as in within a week. Similar to the idea of fasting, you can use running to create a large calorie deficit. This will likely lead to fat loss if you have excess fat on your body. As long as you are not very lean (10% or less), it is unlikely that you will lose muscle if this is done on a very short time frame. That being said, the fat loss that would occur here wouldn't be that much for the running to be worth it unless you were preparing for a vacation were you would relax and eat a lot. Sort of like Kiefer's vacation protocol were you overtrain the week before the vacation.- If the training load is high enough, over time runners will lean out and they will still be able to eat quite a bit. When I was in college, my 125 lb roommate averaged about 50 miles per week and was up to 70 miles a week for a time period. He ate about 6000 calories per day. Don't get me wrong, he was not muscular, he was a skeleton. No one would want to look like him. But he was insanely lean. He was not "skinny fat". All the horror stories I have ever heard about running come from females that starved themselves while doing s shitload of cardio. I think if you eat properly and actually periodize your training, you will be fine and you won't end up with messed up hormones and sarcopenic obesity.I think the worst part about running is that it destroys your knees and you will be in the orthopedic surgeons office eventually.
Couldn't agree more with all of this points.
Me as well. Only problem is runners are like a cult. Try and tell them this stuff and they will bite your head off.
It is, but so is bodybuilding, powerlifting, and crossfit. I will say though running is probably worse because they have the backing of the medical establishment.I also think competitive runners and recreational runners are different too. My roommate is a serious competitor and he fully admits to all the negative health effects that running causes. He actually gets annoyed when running is promoted for health. I think the recreational runners are the ones that get dogmatic about it.
It is, but so is bodybuilding, powerlifting, and crossfit. I will say though running is probably worse because they have the backing of the medical establishment.I also think competitive runners and recreational runners are different too. My roommate is a serious competitor and he fully admits to all the negative health effects that running causes. He actually gets annoyed when running is promoted for health. I think the recreational runners are the ones that get dogmatic about it.
Had the same experience with a past roommate who was a semi-pro runner. He spent far more money and time on his recovery and rehab, not to mention post exercise recovery time than any lifter, crossfit enthusiest, or BB than I've ever met. Aside from the few IFBB pro's I've met... and even then only the Olympia level competitors were on par with how much energy he put into rehabbing and injury prevention... and he was 5'5" and 130 lbs. I abhore distance running, but encourage sprints for HIIT. Distance is a whole nother matter though, speaking as an ex marathoner/triathlete.
It is, but so is bodybuilding, powerlifting, and crossfit. I will say though running is probably worse because they have the backing of the medical establishment.I also think competitive runners and recreational runners are different too. My roommate is a serious competitor and he fully admits to all the negative health effects that running causes. He actually gets annoyed when running is promoted for health. I think the recreational runners are the ones that get dogmatic about it.
Had the same experience with a past roommate who was a semi-pro runner. He spent far more money and time on his recovery and rehab, not to mention post exercise recovery time than any lifter, crossfit enthusiest, or BB than I've ever met. Aside from the few IFBB pro's I've met... and even then only the Olympia level competitors were on par with how much energy he put into rehabbing and injury prevention... and he was 5'5" and 130 lbs. I abhore distance running, but encourage sprints for HIIT. Distance is a whole nother matter though, speaking as an ex marathoner/triathlete.
When we talk about running on here, I am assuming we mean distance running.
perfect. thanks for that. now it makes sense. also, water weight, can be lost to look like you've leaned out significantly. As mentioned, in the very short term, like a week or up to a few weeks if the running is sustained. weight loss usually never exceeds 10 to 15 lbs and that is usually what these “runners” get.thanks heaps
perfect. thanks for that. now it makes sense. also, water weight, can be lost to look like you've leaned out significantly. As mentioned, in the very short term, like a week or up to a few weeks if the running is sustained. weight loss usually never exceeds 10 to 15 lbs and that is usually what these "runners" get.thanks heaps
When I say a week I literally mean a week. Your makes adaptations to exercise and energy output VERY quickly.If you are overweight (20% body fat or more) I'd say you could go longer, but I wouldn't do it much longer. Unless you enjoy running.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.