Losing weight with running

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the cals burned running vs walking just doesn't justify running for me.

The main thing is that running can raise cortisol levels. Cortisol directly affects fat storage and weight gain. It might throw off your appetite too.

I prefer to walk briskly.

Running burns nearly double the amount of calories. I still haven’t found another exercise that elevate my heart rate as running does.

I'm not big. I burn 80 vs 60 cals per mile. The wear on my joints is just really not worth that 20-calorie difference. It was an injury that made me realize I could still stay fit without running.

I know plenty of people with joint problems--& people with ample fat storage--who were never runners or exercisers. Injuries can certainly happen, but I don't think that's a good reason for people to give up an exercise that's generally associated with good joint health, weight maintenance, & overall physical wellbeing. Honestly, you're more probably more likely to get injured if you don't make intensive physical exercise part of your regular regimen.

Where did PP say they were giving up on exercise you dolt? A regimen of strength training combined with walking would bury simply running for both someone's health and looks so badly it's not even funny. But keeping loping along if you want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the cals burned running vs walking just doesn't justify running for me.

The main thing is that running can raise cortisol levels. Cortisol directly affects fat storage and weight gain. It might throw off your appetite too.

I prefer to walk briskly.

Running burns nearly double the amount of calories. I still haven’t found another exercise that elevate my heart rate as running does.

I'm not big. I burn 80 vs 60 cals per mile. The wear on my joints is just really not worth that 20-calorie difference. It was an injury that made me realize I could still stay fit without running.

I know plenty of people with joint problems--& people with ample fat storage--who were never runners or exercisers. Injuries can certainly happen, but I don't think that's a good reason for people to give up an exercise that's generally associated with good joint health, weight maintenance, & overall physical wellbeing. Honestly, you're more probably more likely to get injured if you don't make intensive physical exercise part of your regular regimen.

Where did PP say they were giving up on exercise you dolt? A regimen of strength training combined with walking would bury simply running for both someone's health and looks so badly it's not even funny. But keeping loping along if you want to.

Apparently your current regimen isn’t doing much for your mental health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the cals burned running vs walking just doesn't justify running for me.

The main thing is that running can raise cortisol levels. Cortisol directly affects fat storage and weight gain. It might throw off your appetite too.

I prefer to walk briskly.

Yeah, running totally makes you store fat. I see so many overweight runners in the trails storing their fat

You actually do see a lot of tubby runners. Not as many as the bikers, but more than a few. Cardio makes anyone more hungry and you really have to watch calories.

Am I the only one for whom running makes me less hungry? I never feel like eating anything for several hours after a run. My body’s just like “nah, I’m good”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the cals burned running vs walking just doesn't justify running for me.

The main thing is that running can raise cortisol levels. Cortisol directly affects fat storage and weight gain. It might throw off your appetite too.

I prefer to walk briskly.

Yeah, running totally makes you store fat. I see so many overweight runners in the trails storing their fat

You actually do see a lot of tubby runners. Not as many as the bikers, but more than a few. Cardio makes anyone more hungry and you really have to watch calories.

Am I the only one for whom running makes me less hungry? I never feel like eating anything for several hours after a run. My body’s just like “nah, I’m good”.

No, you aren’t the only one. Running always means that I won’t be eating for a couple of hours afterwards, and I don’t get hungrier at any point to make up for it.

[Anonymous]

I love running and I'm glad to see this thread.

Aside from the weight loss benefits of running, one of the reasons I keep going back to the trail and treadmill is the stress reduction I get. It's like all of my problems go away for that 30 minutes to 2 hours that I'm running. And when it's over I realize that many times they never were that big to begin with.

But this is all. About the runners high and to get a runners high, i normally need to go at least 4 miles (i probably get it at about 2.5 to 3 miles though).

Walking and dancing are things I do when I can't run, but they're nowhere near as exciting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:running is great, I love it for the health benefits, but weight is easier to control with the diet.

This sums it up. Great job getting into a routine running. Keep it up as long as your body will allow it, listen to your knees. The health benefits are tremendous. For weight loss, you'll have to work equally hard or harder on the diet

[Anonymous]

It always baffles me why people tie themselves in a knot justifying why that don’t run. If you don’t want to run, don’t run. Plenty of other things to do. I both walk and run (and other things) for exercise. I just find running so incredibly efficient and easy. I just put on my sneakers and head out my door, and sure, walking a mile will burn 60 while running burns 80 (rough #s) but I will get that mile done in half the time running it vs. walking. That’s important for me to be consistent.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the thread. Looking to get back into running.
Live the run/sprint tip to music!! Please share song ideas for that trick?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the thread. Looking to get back into running.
Live the run/sprint tip to music!! Please share song ideas for that trick?

I like to have songs that represent my mood whether that be from work family relationships etc. So I have a playlist representing a lot of my mood I'll press next until I'm feeling it. This morning it was some Outkast with Atliens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the thread. Looking to get back into running.
Live the run/sprint tip to music!! Please share song ideas for that trick?

Totally depends on what music you like, but for me, I do that with songs by P!nk, Fallout Boy, and Muse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the thread. Looking to get back into running.
Live the run/sprint tip to music!! Please share song ideas for that trick?

I'm the PP who mentioned HIIT run where you kick it up during the chorus. My music is a bit dated (understatement!) but these are some of my playlist favorites:

Ke$ha, Taio Cruz, Pitbull, Nicki Minaj, P!nk, Britney, N'Sync, Outkast, LMFAO, Walk the Moon, Bruno Mars, Sia, DJ Khaled

[Anonymous]

Ok - in the run vs walk vein, I have a question. I like to do both / either depending on the weather, my mood, how my body's feeling, what workout I did the day before, etc.

So on Tuesday I did a 4.7 mi HIIT run (44 min / 9:21 avg pace including walking cool down at the end). Fitbit said 6,880 steps and 430 calories. 138 avg bpm

Today I did a 4.4 mi brisk walk (1:07 min / 15:30 avg pace). Fitbit said 8,012 steps and 495 calories. 115 avg bpm

What? I have always assumed that Fitbit's calorie burn calculation is some combo of steps taken and heartrate right? Yet my shorter distance (longer time) walk burned 15% more calories?

What am I missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok - in the run vs walk vein, I have a question. I like to do both / either depending on the weather, my mood, how my body's feeling, what workout I did the day before, etc.

So on Tuesday I did a 4.7 mi HIIT run (44 min / 9:21 avg pace including walking cool down at the end). Fitbit said 6,880 steps and 430 calories. 138 avg bpm

Today I did a 4.4 mi brisk walk (1:07 min / 15:30 avg pace). Fitbit said 8,012 steps and 495 calories. 115 avg bpm

What? I have always assumed that Fitbit's calorie burn calculation is some combo of steps taken and heartrate right? Yet my shorter distance (longer time) walk burned 15% more calories?

What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that devices that calculate calorie burn through exercise are HIGHLY inaccurate.

You should never rely on then to figure out energy balance. That is "my fit bit said I burned 600 calories during my run guess I can eat an extra 600 calories"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok - in the run vs walk vein, I have a question. I like to do both / either depending on the weather, my mood, how my body's feeling, what workout I did the day before, etc.

So on Tuesday I did a 4.7 mi HIIT run (44 min / 9:21 avg pace including walking cool down at the end). Fitbit said 6,880 steps and 430 calories. 138 avg bpm

Today I did a 4.4 mi brisk walk (1:07 min / 15:30 avg pace). Fitbit said 8,012 steps and 495 calories. 115 avg bpm

What? I have always assumed that Fitbit's calorie burn calculation is some combo of steps taken and heartrate right? Yet my shorter distance (longer time) walk burned 15% more calories?

What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that devices that calculate calorie burn through exercise are HIGHLY inaccurate.

You should never rely on then to figure out energy balance. That is "my fit bit said I burned 600 calories during my run guess I can eat an extra 600 calories"

Oh totally. I learned that lesson early on. But after 3+ years of workouts with my Fitbit (and really really consistent 6-7 day a week exercise over the last year), I have a good feel for comparisons between types of workouts and intensity and what Fitbit will say. This one just seemed noticeably odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok - in the run vs walk vein, I have a question. I like to do both / either depending on the weather, my mood, how my body's feeling, what workout I did the day before, etc.

So on Tuesday I did a 4.7 mi HIIT run (44 min / 9:21 avg pace including walking cool down at the end). Fitbit said 6,880 steps and 430 calories. 138 avg bpm

Today I did a 4.4 mi brisk walk (1:07 min / 15:30 avg pace). Fitbit said 8,012 steps and 495 calories. 115 avg bpm

What? I have always assumed that Fitbit's calorie burn calculation is some combo of steps taken and heartrate right? Yet my shorter distance (longer time) walk burned 15% more calories?

What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that devices that calculate calorie burn through exercise are HIGHLY inaccurate.

You should never rely on then to figure out energy balance. That is "my fit bit said I burned 600 calories during my run guess I can eat an extra 600 calories"

Oh totally. I learned that lesson early on. But after 3+ years of workouts with my Fitbit (and really really consistent 6-7 day a week exercise over the last year), I have a good feel for comparisons between types of workouts and intensity and what Fitbit will say. This one just seemed noticeably odd.

I have found that I get fewer steps running than walking. I think that at faster paces the pedometer misses steps.

Calories burned are also depended on time and exercise calories burned also include the number of calories you would have burned during that time even if you sat around doing noting. Lets say you were sitting around doing absolute nothing for an hour, you would burn say 100 calorie. If you were sitting around doing nothing for 45 min you would burn 75 calories. So the fact that you walked longer than you ran alone would count for extra calories burned.