Losing Weight Vs. Fitness

[old] DaveJ · Post by **[old] DaveJ** » June 17th, 2004, 5:02 pm

I have been rowing for a while but recently purchased a Polar HRM. Before using the HRM I was rowing a 15k at about 2:13-2:14 pace. I bought the HRM with the idea that if I stayed within my target maximum heart rate (75% MHR) I might encourage 'better fat burning' and lose a little more weight. I find that in order stay under the 75% of Aerobic range I have to slow way down. Here's my question. Given that I would like to lose about 10 more pounds (and maintain my current fitness level), am I better off rowing at the slower pace? From what little I've read (Covert Bailey) and talked to (The Polar HRM sales guy), it seems the answer would be yes. I don't mind slowing down if it's beneficial. Othewise I could simply row at the pace I've always been comfortable with, even though it's about 20 bpm above my target HR. Thanks Dave J

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » June 17th, 2004, 5:44 pm

The idea behind slowing down is that at lower exertion levels you burn a greater percentage of fat, and obviously fat is what you want to be rid of! Here are some made-up numbers to illustrate why this isn't generally the best plan: Slow rowing Time: 30 mins Calories burned: 400 Fat burn rate: 50% Fat burned: 200 cals Fast Rowing Time: 30 mins Calories burned: 500 (because you're working harder) Fat burn rate: 40% Fat burned: 200 cals So you used up just as much fat, more calories overall (which will hopefully come from fat, or prevent the deposition of fat, later in the day), got a better workout, and have a revved-up metabolism that will continue to burn calories for longer. Remember, these numbers are made up just to illustrate a point. The only case where the slower rowing might be better is if it lets you row for considerably longer, to more than make up for the lower calorie burn. Most people are limited by time, however, so in general faster is better than slower (if you do have spare time it's probably more beneficial to add in some weights to help burn fat). Cheers, Paul

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » June 17th, 2004, 6:06 pm

Dave, Exercise is excellent for helping to optimize and rearrange energy stores. This has many benefits but won't help to lose weight as much as the #1 method, which is diet. Exercise and exericise working together is best. I do most of my rowing at a very easy no effort 50% of heart rate reserve. Twice a week I go up to 85%. Other than this I do a few sprints. If you could sustain 80 to 85% every day, that would be great. But, again, the best way to lose weight is with diet.

[old] Janice · Post by **[old] Janice** » June 17th, 2004, 6:06 pm

What Paul said I've been losing weight steadily for almost a year now and have not found the intensity between rowing at a slow to moderate and that of a moderate to fast to impact my weight loss. What does happen though, is that your body will get use to a certain exercise routine and eating pattern (certain foods), so you might find to lose the 10lbs more that you need to change things up. If you are stalled, give the bike a try a few times a week, and shake up what you're eating.

[old] drkcgoh · Post by **[old] drkcgoh** » June 17th, 2004, 7:32 pm

Exercise Intensity is the guiding principle in weight loss. When you exercise at a high intensity, the body switches to using carbohydrates as the source of energy, and your fat stores remain little used. You may feel utterly exhausted, and may even lose a lot of weight initially through fluid loss, but in the long run, the body fat stays high, and the average weight stays high. There are some arguments that the total amount of calories you burn when exercising at high intensities is much higher than when you exercise at low intensities, but look at all those highly competitive exercisers who still cannot manage to lose weight. It is not just a question of calculating calories burnt during exercise. We are trying to teach the body to use fat as the main source of fuel, and competitive marathon runners have been successful in doing so. To them a sub 5 minute mile is still in the fat burning zone, whereas to the recreational runner, even an 8 minute mile is in the carbohydrate burning zone. Some research has been done and published in the MSSE, the official journal of the American College of Sports Medicine to determine the optimal intensity during exercise to lose weight, and they have come out with the figure of 74% of VO2max. This is not equivalent to 74% of Maximum Heart Rate. You need Karvonenn's formula to calculate it. 220-age to predict maximumheart rate gives just a low estimate. Compounded with the straight percentage of this figure reached, you get an unrealistically low heart rate to aim at. The Heart Rate monitors are good to get an idea of the pace you need to keep it slow, and in the fat burning zone. I keep it high to gain weight, and low to lose weight when I want to. So the key to sustained weight control is slow (use your imagination to keep it interesting) long duration exercise + sensible eating. No fad diets, no supplements needed. KC62/5'10'/146 lbs/Body fat 16.1% byDEXA

LindaM · Post by **LindaM** » June 18th, 2004, 10:04 am

Since losing 18 pounds (13% of my body weight), I know I've lost strength as well as fat. The erg tells me loud and clear that 2:38 is my new comfortable conversational pace for 10K, where 2:33 was before. However, I feel more, not less, fit. I judge that by how much quicker I can climb my local mountain - 50 minutes as compared to 55-6 minutes at my higher weight. How do strength and endurance relate to fitness? How would you measure fitness?

[old] rlbusby · Post by **[old] rlbusby** » June 18th, 2004, 12:04 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (drkcgoh @ Jun 17 2004, 11:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>... the optimal intensity during exercise to lose weight, and they have come out with the figure of 74% of VO2max. This is not equivalent to 74% of Maximum Heart Rate. You need Karvonenn's formula to calculate it.  </td></tr></table> Is there a way to calculate/estimate the value of VO2max using the C2?

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » June 18th, 2004, 12:11 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (LindaM @ Jun 18 2004, 09:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I feel more, not less, fit. I judge that by how much quicker I can climb my local mountain - 50 minutes as compared to 55-6 minutes at my higher weight.  </td></tr></table> I think that your measure of fitness might be slightly misleading - try putting 3 bags of potatoes in your backpack and then climb the mountain! Erging is somewhat unusual in that it doesn't penalize (some) extra weight much, whereas most normal activities (running, cycling etc) reward the loss of some weight. I'll let others post on how to measure fitness Cheers, Paul

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » June 18th, 2004, 9:42 pm

Linda, One way to determine your fitness is to divide your watts output by your weight, pounds or kg. A 2:33 pace at 139 pounds was 2.35 watts per kg. A 2:38 pace at 121 pounds is 2.59 watts per kg. Thus you are now generating 10% more power per weight than you were.

[old] Red Dwarf Fan · Post by **[old] Red Dwarf Fan** » June 19th, 2004, 11:01 am

My first posting on the USA site so hello folks from someone who regular reads and occasionally posts on the UK site. rlbusby The Indoor Rowing Training Guide gives brief details on how to estimate your VO2 max on the C2. I have the printed version which I can recommend, but I believe it can also be downloaded from the UK site. With just a 56k modem that was never an option for me. This gives an estimate +/- 10%. The only precise way to determine your VO2 max is through a lab test that involves measuring the difference in oxygen content between inspired and expired air. Take your current 2k time, and convert this to the average 500m split time. Use the conversion table provided in the manual to convert this split time into watts. Multiple this figure by 14.4 and add a constant of 65. For example, for a 2k time of 6:40 ( still some way off for me unfortunately! ), this equates to 1:40 / 500m. From the table, this equates to 350 watts ( 350 watts x 14.4 ) + 65 = 5105 ml/min or 5.105 litres/min ( +/- 10% ) Hope this helps a little Guy

[old] afolpe · Post by **[old] afolpe** » June 21st, 2004, 6:43 am

im not quite sure i buy this idea that if you train at higher intensity you aren't burning fat, etc. the bottom line as far as i can tell from personal experience is that if you burn more calories than you take in, you lose weight. simple as that. you can do it with diet (i find this very difficult), exercise or some combination (probably best). my own case (s) in point- i'm generally fairly active, riding my bike to work about 7 miles/day and kayaking at high intensity for 4 or 5 hours on the weekend. but, what with work and kids, i somehow managed to gain about 15 lbs over the last 5 years. so in october i added erging, about 40-50km/ wk, and i've dropped nearly 20 lbs. nothing else really changed at all (maybe i try harder to avoid the occasional donut, i guess). almost all these meters are done at 70% max HR or better, so presumably they are all "carbo burning"? another case in point- many of us probably played team sports in high school and college. i never ever even thought about diet then but just added tons of high intensity exercise during the seasons. always lost weight. really, this whole thing seems simple- work more and you will lose weight. af

[old] rlbusby · Post by **[old] rlbusby** » June 21st, 2004, 9:25 am

Guy: It helps a lot, thanks. I was looking for an estimate and that seems to fit the bill nicely. Rod

[old] tditmar · Post by **[old] tditmar** » June 21st, 2004, 12:39 pm

"So the key to sustained weight control is slow (use your imagination to keep it interesting) long duration exercise + sensible eating. No fad diets, no supplements needed." While I certainly would not go toe to toe with you on the science behind your opinions, but you seem over and over to be very biased toward your own style of exercise. You way a mere 146lbs, so you are obviously very thin. What about more muscular physiques? Don't people lose a lot of fat weight just by weightlifting alone and limiting their aerobic exercise? And not even by doing a lot of it or spending huge amounts of time, maybe 20-30 min. per session. If someone follows your key to fat loss, they wind up very thin. Don't we become the way we train? What about people who want to be faster sprinters, stronger lifters, and extremely agile? The old books on weightlifting advocate something entirely different for losing fat, and apparently it works as well. Do you disagree with them? How about NFL running backs or Decathletes, or sprinters that many track athletes say train the laziest sessions of all, running no distance workouts, yet have incredibly low body fat?

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » June 21st, 2004, 5:11 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>im not quite sure i buy this idea that if you train at higher intensity you aren't burning fat  </td></tr></table>You're burning fat at higher intensities, and probably more fat. That's all good. The only thing is it's not possible to go as far or as long, or recover as quickly, when the intensity is "too" high. So it's kind of a trade off.

[old] eurofoot13 · Post by **[old] eurofoot13** » June 21st, 2004, 5:58 pm

thing is, when you train at say, 90-95% VO2Max, you can't acheive the distance/time that you need to burn fat. your body has lots of glycogen stores in both the muscles and the liver, and when you start exercising, these are the first fuel stores that are expended. AFTER glycogen metbolization comes fat oxidation. that is why training long and slow works. you work through the glycogen and then start burning fat. the key is long - If you can do a long and fast workout - more power to you!

Concept2 Forum

Losing Weight Vs. Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness