running for weight loss
Mike T
I'm a rower, built more like a rugby player (6' 2 and 15.5 stone). I train
on the river 4 or 5 times / week and run about twice a week.
I'm a bit too heavy, and need to lose at least a stone. Running is more
convenient than rowing as I live 30 minutes from the river and work doesnt
let me take 3 hours out to go rowing every day.
When I do take to the road on my normal loop I cover about 7 miles in just
under an hour and feel reasonably OK throughout. I wear a heartrate monitor
and average about 85% of max over 1 hour. This is about the same as when I
go rowing, when I average 80 - 85% over a session.
To speed up the weight loss (as well as improving my diet), should I up the
distance, up the speed for the same route or just do it more often?
many thanks
Mike
Michael MacClancy
You're burning about 1020 calories/hour at your current pace. Increasing
your speed by about 10% will increase calorie consumption to 1160
calories/hour. This is about 14% but most of it comes from the extra
distance run. I think increasing either speed or distance or both will
increase the risk of injury. In your position I would concentrate on
running more frequently, if time permits. As your running fitness improves
you will, in any case, get faster and run further.
You are pretty heavy for a runner. Make sure you get a good pair of
well-cushioned running shoes from a specialist shop.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He loves nature in spite of what it did to him." -
Forrest Tucker
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk
Ian McConnell
> On Mon, 24 May 2004 16:15:22 +0100, Mike T wrote:
>
>> hi all,
>>
>> I'm a rower, built more like a rugby player (6' 2 and 15.5 stone). I train
>> on the river 4 or 5 times / week and run about twice a week.
>>
>> I'm a bit too heavy, and need to lose at least a stone. Running is more
>> convenient than rowing as I live 30 minutes from the river and work doesnt
>> let me take 3 hours out to go rowing every day.
>>
>> When I do take to the road on my normal loop I cover about 7 miles in just
>> under an hour and feel reasonably OK throughout. I wear a heartrate monitor
>> and average about 85% of max over 1 hour. This is about the same as when I
>> go rowing, when I average 80 - 85% over a session.
>>
>> To speed up the weight loss (as well as improving my diet), should I up the
>> distance, up the speed for the same route or just do it more often?
>>
>> many thanks
>> Mike
>
> You're burning about 1020 calories/hour at your current pace. Increasing
> your speed by about 10% will increase calorie consumption to 1160
> calories/hour. This is about 14% but most of it comes from the extra
> distance run. I think increasing either speed or distance or both will
> increase the risk of injury. In your position I would concentrate on
> running more frequently, if time permits. As your running fitness improves
> you will, in any case, get faster and run further.
Are you sure about these figures? The table on
http://www.fitresource.com/Fitness/CalBurn.htm
gives around 1392 calories/hour for 7 min/mile.
I only mention it because I'm a similar size and am curious about the extra
energy needed by bigger/taller runners.
If the OP wants to loose weight more quickly he could carry extra weight in
a backpack.
> You are pretty heavy for a runner. Make sure you get a good pair of
> well-cushioned running shoes from a specialist shop.
I also take size 13 shoes. Do manufactures assume people with big feet weigh
more or should I also go for well-cushioned shoes?
Mike T
"Ian McConnell" <i...@emit.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87k6z13...@emit.demon.co.uk...
> Michael MacClancy <herzel...@o2.co.uk> writes:
>
> >
> > You're burning about 1020 calories/hour at your current pace.
Increasing
> > your speed by about 10% will increase calorie consumption to 1160
> > calories/hour. This is about 14% but most of it comes from the extra
> > distance run. I think increasing either speed or distance or both will
> > increase the risk of injury. In your position I would concentrate on
> > running more frequently, if time permits. As your running fitness
improves
> > you will, in any case, get faster and run further.
>
> Are you sure about these figures? The table on
> http://www.fitresource.com/Fitness/CalBurn.htm
> gives around 1392 calories/hour for 7 min/mile.
>
my polar watch gives 1265 calories for tonights 53 min run (not going
faster, just a slightly shorter loop because I was knackered). I'm not
running a 7 minute mile though, more like 8 - 8.5.
> If the OP wants to loose weight more quickly he could carry extra weight
in
> a backpack.
I've tried that, didnt enjoy it! I'll try and pick up speed a bit first,
then see if I can stand it..
> > You are pretty heavy for a runner. Make sure you get a good pair of
> > well-cushioned running shoes from a specialist shop.
>
> I also take size 13 shoes. Do manufactures assume people with big feet
weigh
> more or should I also go for well-cushioned shoes?
I dunno, I take a size 12 and it seems most ranges go up to 12. I went to a
specialist shop in Peterborough who recommended saucony grids.
Michael MacClancy
> Michael MacClancy <herzel...@o2.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 24 May 2004 16:15:22 +0100, Mike T wrote:
>>
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm a rower, built more like a rugby player (6' 2 and 15.5 stone). I train
>>> on the river 4 or 5 times / week and run about twice a week.
>>>
>>> I'm a bit too heavy, and need to lose at least a stone.
>>>
>>> When I do take to the road on my normal loop I cover about 7 miles in just
>>> under an hour and feel reasonably OK throughout.
>>>
>>> To speed up the weight loss (as well as improving my diet), should I up the
>>> distance, up the speed for the same route or just do it more often?
>>>
>>> many thanks
>>> Mike
>>
>> You're burning about 1020 calories/hour at your current pace. Increasing
>> your speed by about 10% will increase calorie consumption to 1160
>> calories/hour. This is about 14% but most of it comes from the extra
>> distance run. I think increasing either speed or distance or both will
>> increase the risk of injury. In your position I would concentrate on
>> running more frequently, if time permits. As your running fitness improves
>> you will, in any case, get faster and run further.
>
> Are you sure about these figures? The table on
> http://www.fitresource.com/Fitness/CalBurn.htm
> gives around 1392 calories/hour for 7 min/mile.
The table I was using gives lower burn rates than yours at higher weights -
about 10% less for a 200lb runner. But the OP's not running 7 min miles,
he's doing about 8.5 min miles. He weighs 217lb so, using your table his
burn rate is about 1275 cal/hour. If he sped up by about 1min/mile he'd
burn about 150 cal/hour more. If he carried 20lbs more weight he'd also
burn about 150 cal/hour more. Either of these options would increase the
risk of injury for relatively little gain.
Each extra hour he runs though will burn about 1275 cal. Seems the safest
option to me.
>
> I only mention it because I'm a similar size and am curious about the extra
> energy needed by bigger/taller runners.
>
> If the OP wants to loose weight more quickly he could carry extra weight in
> a backpack.
Perhaps, and risk injury to back, knees and feet.
>
>> You are pretty heavy for a runner. Make sure you get a good pair of
>> well-cushioned running shoes from a specialist shop.
>
> I also take size 13 shoes. Do manufactures assume people with big feet weigh
> more or should I also go for well-cushioned shoes?
I weigh 132lb and wear cushioning shoes for most running. I think it makes
sense for those of us who aren't elite athletes. ;-)
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's
nothing trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk
David Hallsworth
weights -
> about 10% less for a 200lb runner. But the OP's not running 7 min miles,
> he's doing about 8.5 min miles. He weighs 217lb so, using your table his
> burn rate is about 1275 cal/hour. If he sped up by about 1min/mile he'd
> burn about 150 cal/hour more. If he carried 20lbs more weight he'd also
> burn about 150 cal/hour more. Either of these options would increase the
> risk of injury for relatively little gain.
>
> Each extra hour he runs though will burn about 1275 cal. Seems the safest
> option to me.
Agreed. For all intents and purposes, runners of similar weights will burn
'similar' kcals per distance run, regardless of speed, so it makes sense to
run further. I think it would be more sensible for you to run three times a
week instead of two, increasing kcals burnt per week by 50%, which is pretty
significant. If you try to blast through 15miles a couple of times a week,
or try to sprint your current route, you'll probably just injure yourself
and then bam - no running - no weight loss.
> > If the OP wants to loose weight more quickly he could carry extra weight
in
> > a backpack.
Ouch!!! Seen quite a few army lads with stress fractures because of that.
> I weigh 132lb and wear cushioning shoes for most running. I think it
makes
> sense for those of us who aren't elite athletes. ;-)
Right. Decent running shoes aren't just for 'elites' - they protect
recreational runners from injury which will prevent them running any
distance at all, which would be a terrible shame.
D
Lex
after about one hours' running at around 70% of your MHR. If you are
running at the 85% mark, you will be mainly burning glycogen.
Therefore if you run for longer, but at a slower pace, this will
assist weight loss, and the fact that you will be running at a lower
intensity will also reduce risk of injury.
"Mike T" <mike....@rowing.org.uk> wrote in message news:<2hehsbF...@uni-berlin.de>...
Michael MacClancy
> From what I have read, I thought that fat burning only began to occur
> after about one hours' running at around 70% of your MHR. If you are
> running at the 85% mark, you will be mainly burning glycogen.
> Therefore if you run for longer, but at a slower pace, this will
> assist weight loss, and the fact that you will be running at a lower
> intensity will also reduce risk of injury.
>
I don't see this. Energy is energy regardless of where it comes from. If
you increase the amount of work done, whether by running faster or further,
without increasing your calorie intake you will lose weight, regardless of
whether you burn fat or glycogen.
Running long distances slowly does have its advantages (reduced risk if
injury being one of them) but many people don't have the time to do it.
As David and I said previously, the OP should try to find time for an extra
1hr run each week.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "His mother should have thrown him away and kept the
stork." - Mae West
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk
GaryG
Running, or any other aerobic activity, is good for you for a number of
health-related reasons. But, for most folks exercise has only a rather
modest impact on weight loss.
The best way to lose weight is to eat a little better (give up sodas, chips,
and whatever else are your personal "substance abuse foods"), and eat a
little less. Keep up the exercise too, and the pounds should start coming
off.
Ideally, you want to achieve a deficit of about a 500 calories per day.
This should result in weight loss of about 1 lb per week, a reasonable and
healthy goal. Best of luck.
GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Journal
Lex
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,5033,s6-53-85-0-1049,00.html
I'm not too sure that maintaining a calorie deficit is a good idea,
this sounds like a quick way to get ill/injured/burnt out. If you are
looking to lose fat, the best you can hope for is to lose roughly one
pound of fat per month, you r body cannot burn any more than this.
"GaryG" <garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> wrote in message news:<10bb2pj...@corp.supernews.com>...
Michael MacClancy
> Here is a short but interesting Runners World article on the subject:
>
> http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,5033,s6-53-85-0-1049,00.html
>
> I'm not too sure that maintaining a calorie deficit is a good idea,
> this sounds like a quick way to get ill/injured/burnt out. If you are
> looking to lose fat, the best you can hope for is to lose roughly one
> pound of fat per month, you r body cannot burn any more than this.
>
>
But you have to have a calorie deficit in order to lose weight. Energy
consumed in the form of food and drink must be less than the energy
expended by exercising and living. The key is maintaining a deficit that
isn't too big.
The Runners World article is interesting.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He had delusions of adequacy." - Walter Kerr
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk
GaryG
news:77097215.04052...@posting.google.com...
> Here is a short but interesting Runners World article on the subject:
>
> http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,5033,s6-53-85-0-1049,00.html
>
> I'm not too sure that maintaining a calorie deficit is a good idea,
> this sounds like a quick way to get ill/injured/burnt out. If you are
> looking to lose fat, the best you can hope for is to lose roughly one
> pound of fat per month, you r body cannot burn any more than this.
The article only warns against a "restrictive very low calorie diet", and I
agree with that. But, a caloric deficit of 500 calories per day is not
excessive. It can be achieved with running alone (roughly 5 miles / 8 km),
or with dietary changes, or a combination of both. Although this rate of
weight loss may indeed be too rapid for a trained athlete who already has
very low body fat, but the OP is presumably not in this category.
The OP currently has a Body Mass Index of 27.9, which puts him in the
"Overweight" category. A reasonable weight loss goal would be 14 stone
(BMI=25.2). Limiting his weight loss to 1 lb per month would mean that it
would take him nearly two years (21 months) to reach this goal. At the 500
calories per day level, he would reach 14 stone by 21 October of this year.
At a more modest rate (350 calories per day), he would reach 14 stone by
Christmas, and this seems like a very worthy and reasonable goal.
GG
http://www.StrideWare.com - StrideWare - Software for Runners and Walkers
http://www.WeightWare.com - WeightWare - Weight and Health Journal
Mike T
"GaryG" <garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com> wrote in message
thanks for all your guidance, folks. Gary, beautifully summed up, thanks.
I'm going for the 500 calories / day deficit. I'm going to do it by eating
a little less and running 3 days / week and rowing 3 days / week.
First thing to go are crisps and chocolate, as of last week. I also had a
*very* motivating 8.5 mile run last night, which caught me by surprise
because it went so well (75 mins, FYI). Wasnt supposed to be so long, but I
got to where I turn right to finish in 45 mins or go straight on to go round
a (beautiful but hilly) loop and I was feeling grrrrrrrrreat. Got home
feeling surprisingly perky.
A second question:
I sweat A Lot. I lost 6 pounds on my run last night. Whats the easiest way
to carry some fluid around with me? Should it be water or some fancy
isotonic type drink? For my 2 hour rowing outings, I take 2 water bottles,
one with 750mls of water and one with 750 mls of strong squash with a pinch
of salt and slurp from them both every 20 mins or so.
many thanks
Mike
GaryG
That sounds like a good plan, Mike. It's especially important when starting
on a weight loss program to identify your "substance abuse" foods, and it
looks like you've addressed that issue as well. Everybody is different in
this regard - for some, it's beer and potato chips, for others it can be
sodas, cakes, or cookies. In my case, it's chocolate chip cookies - if
they're around, they get consumed at an alarming rate. But, I couldn't give
them up entirely, or life wouldn't be worth living :-). So I limit myself
to one bag per month...I look forward to the 1st, but know that the one bag
is all I'll have for the month.
>
> A second question:
>
> I sweat A Lot. I lost 6 pounds on my run last night. Whats the easiest
way
> to carry some fluid around with me? Should it be water or some fancy
> isotonic type drink? For my 2 hour rowing outings, I take 2 water
bottles,
> one with 750mls of water and one with 750 mls of strong squash with a
pinch
> of salt and slurp from them both every 20 mins or so.
I'm a cyclist, not a runner, so can't offer much advice...except to note
that you should make sure you are very well hydrated before you head out for
your run (start drinking a couple of hours before you run).
Good luck with your program.
GG
>
> many thanks
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Joe Sack
keep carbs in your diet. Check out www.RunnersDiet.com. It's free,
and has a menu generator based on your weight loss goals.
Ian McConnell
> thanks for all your guidance, folks. Gary, beautifully summed up, thanks.
> I'm going for the 500 calories / day deficit. I'm going to do it by eating
> a little less and running 3 days / week and rowing 3 days / week.
>
> First thing to go are crisps and chocolate, as of last week.
Don't be too hard on yourself. A chocolate bar can be a nice little reward
for yourself afterwards if you need to get up early for a run or go out when
it's wet and windy.
> I sweat A Lot. I lost 6 pounds on my run last night. Whats the easiest way
> to carry some fluid around with me? Should it be water or some fancy
> isotonic type drink? For my 2 hour rowing outings, I take 2 water bottles,
> one with 750mls of water and one with 750 mls of strong squash with a pinch
> of salt and slurp from them both every 20 mins or so.
A couple of points here - it's quite easy to overdress when running. If you
find yourself always taking off a layer of clothing ten minutes into the
run, be brave and set off without it.
Secondly, sugary drinks don't do your teeth any good so if you don't take
water with you, then remember to brush your teeth afterwards.
But to answer your question, for runs longer than an hour I carry a small
bottle of water in a bum bag.
Ian
kav...@gmail.com
Is there anyone who can post a review. I would really appreciate it. Thanks
http://bit.ly/1z8s3QN