Weight loss math question.

The way to loose weight for most people is to eat less calories and exercise more.

Now, the treadmill and eliyptical machines I use give a count of calories burned. I don't take them to be particularly accurate, but as they are the same brand I assume they use the same means for calculating the rate/number of calories burned. On that basis I left the stationary bike in favor of the other two. Also taken as an approximation, the calories burned per (near) daily workout are around 200 to 350.

If I were to reduce my intake by a like amount, 200 to 350 calories per day, would that be the equivalent of another workout session? Or would I be better off working out longer?

My current routine is between 25 and 32 minutes (I do trust the machines to keep accurate time). I can't push it past 35 minutes on weekdays, because I'd be late for work. But I coudl easily do 45-60 minutes on Saturdays and Sundays.

Any answers are appreciated.

PS I don't weigh myself, but after 1 month of (near) daily exercise, I've reduced my waist about 1.5"

Im no expert but I have heard many say that 30 minutes per day is plenty. Don't forget that your body continues to burn calories after your workout.

You may want to mix some squats or lunges into your workout. Working out the large muscle groups burns belly fat very quickly.

Quote: Nareed

If I were to reduce my intake by a like amount, 200 to 350 calories per day, would that be the equivalent of another workout session? Or would I be better off working out longer?

I am no expert either, but as a quick estimate I would say reducing calories versus doubling exercise (for an equal amount of calories) would be similar. I would recommend reddit, in particular r/loseit. Here is an article with some further subreddit ideas.

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/4-subreddits-you-should-read-for-tips-to-stay-healthy-and-fit/

Burning 250 calories and not ingesting 250 calories is essentially the same thing in terms of weight. The difference is in the ancillary benefits like greater stamina/ muscle.

You should add push-ups and pull-ups to yer regimen or you will end up with that skinny-fat look, hey hey.

Quote: RogerKint

Im no expert but I have heard many say that 30 minutes per day is plenty. Don't forget that your body continues to burn calories after your workout.

In a way the burning of calories stops only sometime after death. :)

Quote:

You may want to mix some squats or lunges into your workout. Working out the large muscle groups burns belly fat very quickly.

I do some of that on (most) Saturdays and Sundays.

I eliminated about 175 calories by opting to do without dessert on weekdays (140 gr. "Greek" yogurt, low-fat). I'm looking at other options. I could eliminate an undefined amount by not keeping a small container of cottage cheese handy at the office for late afteroon/early evening snacks. But that doesn't amount to much more than 250 calories per week.

While burning x calories or eliminating the same x calories is effectively equivalent, as someone mentioned the after workout effect continues to burn. A workout will rev up the metabolism and adding lean muscle mass accelerates the loss since muscle burns more calories than fat. If the workouts are intense and regular enough you can simply ignore the calorie intake (to a point) and the weight will melt off.

Quote: chickenman

A workout will rev up the metabolism and adding lean muscle mass accelerates the loss since muscle burns more calories than fat.

This last seems self-evident, but it requires some explanation. All tissues burn calories to stay alive, and this includes adipose (or fat) tissue. Hoever, adipose tissue also stores energy in the form of fat, while muscles use up energy more than most other tissues, especially then generating mechanical energy.

Quote:

If the workouts are intense and regular enough you can simply ignore the calorie intake (to a point) and the weight will melt off.

Yeah, that was one thing I missed mentioning: making the workout harder.

To some extent I do. Here's my routine:

I do brisk walking on the treadmill. This means I set the incline up to 6 (whatever that means) and set the speed to 4.5 kph (kilometers per hour) for two minutes. Then I switch to 5.5 kph, and eventually to 6 kph. When excatly varies. Today I switched at 9 minutes, more often it will be around 12. I keep this up til I put in 21 minutes all told, then do one more minute at 5.5 kph.

Next I move over to the elyptical machine, which is even more arbitrary in measurements. It has resistance levels, just like a stationary bike. I set it at 11 at the start, then move it to 13 at 3:30 minutes and increase gradually to 15. The thing is the machine limits workouts to 7 minutes. So I do the 7 minutes, plus 2 minutes "cool down" at a lower level and lower speed.

When I started last month, my top speed for any length of time on the treadmill was 4 kph with an incline of 3, and my highest level on the elyptical was 6. So I have been pushing upwards. But I've reached the limit on the treadmill. Any faster and I'd be running. Nothing wrong with that, but 1) I hate running, 2) I'm concerned about the effect of running on my knees and 3) I'm scared to death of falling off while running on a treadmill. Still, I'm pretty sure I'll keep pushing and running eventually. but first I want to try brisk walking while adding ankle weights. The machine won't measure extra calories, but the effort will be there.

Oh, one other thing, I have to keep pushing harder to reach the same heart-rate I did at the start. That is to say I topped out at, oh, maybe 135 bpm (beats per minute, whatever the official term is) doing 4 kph, and now I reach the same with the higher incline and speeds mentioned above. I think that's an indication of getting into shape. I'm also able to breathe hard, rather than pant, while working out. Also a good sign.

It will be too bad to interrupt this progression while at Vegas. Still, I expect I'll do several kilometers worth walking every day, and I always eat way less on vacation. For starters I'll usually eat only twice a day, and no snacks at all between meals. As a result I don't even watch what I eat (though I do watch how much of it I eat). Yet I always loose weight.

I think the GN has a gym open to guests (or included in the not-really-a-resort-fee they charge). I might try that, too. It wouldn't hurt to add three-four workouts a day. Especially since with my current schedule and time-zone change, I expect I'll be waking up at 4 am every day...

Exercising makes you hungry…..don't exercise or very little. It's all about the calorie intake. I have no idea what talking about…..but I'm sticking to my advice.

Cardio work is OK and getting the heartrate up is recommended, but intense resistance workouts - read: heavy weights is what really does the trick

Quote: chickenman

Cardio work is OK and getting the heartrate up is recommended, but intense resistance workouts - read: heavy weights is what really does the trick

I hear that a lot, especially from Paleo diet advocates. We do have a set of weights at the gym, and a weight machine as well. But I barely know what to do with them.

However, the low fat diet and cardio works rather well for me. I could add weights/weight machine Saturdays and Sundays. From watching the neighbors work out, the weight benches are used to drape towels and hold water bottles, the weigths are meant to prop the door open, while the weight machine just takes up room at the back. But then I'm there only about 35 minutes at dawn.

Still, I wouldn't mind better muscle tone and less flacidity. As it is 80% of my legs are getting into shape just fine, but the rest just loses some fat. My arms in particular could use some help.

I recently lost 35lbs over 6 months while working out <1hr/wk. For me, diet > exercise, and experimentation > determination. I workout regularly, but briefly and fairly intensely. I get more out of weights. My diet is >60% fat and incorporates bulletproof style intermittent fasting.
edit: spelling

Some thoughts...

I'd say the heart rate is a sure sign.

I think the treadmill number is degrees of angle. 6 would be a 6* grade. I could be wrong. I find treadmills to be the devil's own instrument and avoid them at all costs =p

Lastly, and I think the most important, is to not believe that burning 200cal and avoiding 200cal is in any way similar. Speaking just of fat percentage, it might be close. But big picture, they're not even in the same ball park.

And now, since I'm screwing up everything today, I'm gonna go for perfection and try to explain myself complete with the risk of offending someone...

If one goes for just fat loss and does so by way of less calories, they will accomplish that goal. But that's all they're doing. They're not getting healthier, they're not getting "better", and I often think they wind up looking worse. Without lean muscle to replace the void, skin hangs off the bone. It becomes loose and flaccid. You get "bingo wings", that flap of the tricep when you wiggle your arm, as well as odd hangs and lumps where the skin settles in other places.

If one goes for fat loss by way of exercise, that void is filled by lean muscle. Skin remains taught and supple. You get the added benefit of strength and stamina, which in and of itself will assist in burning more calories and making future workouts all the more easy. You gain heart health, body health, and possibly most important, mind health. You feel better, both in a "self esteem" sense, but also from the endorphins that working out releases.

By all means cut calories. Just don't assume losing X amount by workout is the same as losing X amount by avoidance.

Replace food with cigarettes. It works.

Quote: Face

If one goes for just fat loss and does so by way of less calories, they will accomplish that goal. But that's all they're doing. ...

By all means cut calories. Just don't assume losing X amount by workout is the same as losing X amount by avoidance.

I second the idea of not thinking all calories are alike, but I'm less sure about the lack of health benefits just by cutting calories. The life extensionists would definitely disagree. Many think that holding calories 25-30% below ad lib while ensuring adequate micronutrient content is the most likely way to extend lifespan as well as healthspan. This was the mindset I started out with before making additional adjustments.

Quote: Face

I'd say the heart rate is a sure sign.

Good.

Quote:

I think the treadmill number is degrees of angle. 6 would be a 6* grade. I could be wrong.

I understand angles when expressed in degrees. Any other way not at all.

Quote:

If one goes for just fat loss and does so by way of less calories, they will accomplish that goal. But that's all they're doing.

If they do that much. I had the same diet last month that I've had all year, and lost weight only when working out (I dind't gain weight, though, in the meantime, meaning from May 2013 onwards). In order to lose any significant mass by diet alone, you have to go on a very restricted diet. Working out, on the toher hand, just melts part of the body off ;)

Quote:

They're not getting healthier, they're not getting "better", and I often think they wind up looking worse.

Healthier and better is debatable. Less fat and less sugar do help, and that's what most people cut out when "dieting." As for looks, you may be right.

Quote:

If one goes for fat loss by way of exercise, that void is filled by lean muscle. Skin remains taught and supple. You get the added benefit of strength and stamina, which in and of itself will assist in burning more calories and making future workouts all the more easy. You gain heart health, body health, and possibly most important, mind health. You feel better, both in a "self esteem" sense, but also from the endorphins that working out releases.

All this is so, but I'm still only half-joking in the DT thread.

See, the point is not working out until you reach your weight loss goal, but to keep working out afterwards, to make exercise a habit and an integral part of your life. And that sucks.

In order to work out, I need to take my mind off the activity. What works bets for me are audio books and history podcasts. Without them I'd have given it up long ago. So I guess I'll work out as long as the supply of audio holds out, which should be indefinitely ;)