What is better 2*5000m with a break or 10,000m or something else to lose weight

[Loby]

Hello together,

I am 39 years old and my weight is 94 kg at 1.83m

I start rowing in july 22, now i row since November 22 3 * 10.000m in a week , my personal bestmark is 43min 24.5second. I start rowing to lost weight, but ive lost nothing.

Whats the Problem, i row at 5 an habe a drag factor of 117 the most time.

I row at normal speed and at the end I go full throttle again for 1000m.

Sometimes i get very bored in rowing 10.000m, therefire my question ist there a difference in the result of i row 2*5000 with a break (2-3min) to row 10.000m without a break.

Should i change the Level higher or lower or is it better to row 5*5000m (could i Do in the morning) in a week then 3 *10000m (could i only do in the evening)

Sry for my english iam from germany

[Sakly]

Hi from another German guy, you English is good enough to understand well

If you do not lose weight it is due to your diet, not your sports activities. It is important WHAT you eat and of course how much of it.
Sports activities are only supporting and lead to a more active metabolism, which is helpful. They add a few burned calories to the equation, but not as much as you probably think.

[MPx]

Welcome! We're the same height and weight - the difference being I'm not trying to lose any! Anyway, your question on 10k or 2x5k.... It really doesn't matter - the important bit is total active seat time so just split it up however you find most enjoyable. I very rarely do 10k because I find it boring, but I do 2x5k; 3x3333; and 5x2k very often. I also vary the pace and sometimes the rate during a piece to keep me concentrated on hitting a specific number or set of numbers. However, this is all steady state training below my Aerobic threshold - which is where you need to be. If you're working hard over the last 1k then you're moving out of aerobic (fat burning) training and using different fuels. That can be good for improving performance, but not for weight loss. So slow down a bit and you may be more successful in your goal - although as Sascha says its really all about reducing/improving intake rather than trying to burn off any excess!

[ukaserex]

Let's back up for a moment and take a look from further back, so to speak.

There are 24 hours in a day. Rowing is excellent, but even if we row every day for 60 minutes, depending on how fast you row it, and your body weight and composition, the calories burned and the type of weight loss (muscle, fat and/or water) isn't going to be much, compared to your individual average of daily calories burned. In your case, just guessing, it's about 3k calories per day that you're burning, not including your exercise.

So..in order to reduce our weight - presumably fat, not muscle, you have to determine what a healthy amount of weight per day/week is right for you. It has to be something you can maintain for a while.

To do this, you have got to determine how many calories are going in your body, and then compare to how many are being burned.

It can be very tedious making a note of not only what you eat, but the size of your portion. Especially if you're cooking in batches, like a pot of chili, or beef stew. It's best to add up the total calories going into the pot and then portion out the entire bit and just do some math.

There are a lot of free web sites that can help you do this, or, apps that you can download to your smartphone to help you track.

Even so - consider a banana. Weigh it. 89 calories in a 100 grams.

Or is there? Not all bananas are the same! Some bananas will have slightly more or slightly less. The only way we can know for sure is to burn it up, and it's not going to be edible after that. So, we use the tables that the internet gives us as a guess.
It's the same with meat. And, to further complicate things, your microbiome will also impact how many calories you absorb from what you eat, which may be different than the calories someone else may absorb from the exact same portion!

So, you should know in advance, there IS guesswork involved, but if you are consistent, and weigh yourself at roughly the same time under the same conditions (like after you use the bathroom in the morning, with the same clothing, or no clothing), then you can monitor your progress.
Some folks step on the scale every day. Some do so once a week or rarely. We're all different.

So, by all means, keep rowing. But understand to lose fat/weight, you need to know how much your eating. And sometimes, if you're lifting weights in conjunction with rowing, it's possible to gain weight, but your clothes fit better! It all depends on your diet, and additionally - what you're doing when you're not exercising. If you're playing video games 14 hours a day, you will most likely need to do a lot more than row a few times a week to make any progress.

I suggest limiting calorie intake to 200 calories less than your BMR for 6 days, and on the 7th day, intake the full amount of your BMR, so your body doesn't think you're in a famine.
Sounds crazy, but the slower the weight comes off, the longer you'll be able to keep it off permanently. Millions of people lose 10-30 pounds, but often they gain it right back and have to try again. Try not to be one of those people. Lose it and keep it off by learning the calories you burn each day and what you eat each day, do some math, and then just row as like a fat burning supplement added to your diet.

[JaapvanE]

I start rowing to lost weight, but ive lost nothing.

Please also realize that when starting to do serious excercise, you actually gain weight as muscles weigh more than fat. So pkease, don't be blindsighted by a number. Most important is how you feel and if you can move freely.

[Loby]

Thank you all for your tipps.

I will change my Training in more intervall, As i understand if i row i burn calories and ist not so important if i row 10.000m oder 2*5000m both burn calories and yes i know that the most weight is lost im the kitchen. Muscles created a lot since i begann to row.

[Loby]

Now iam writing after my first 3*3333m, thats great, pace and intensity is higher but the break between the splits ist great, use ist to focus and drink a little bit and that is not so boring As to row 10km in one part

[MPx]

Now iam writing after my first 3*3333m, thats great, pace and intensity is higher ...

Not sure "pace and intensity higher" is a good thing, although "great" is obviously a good thing. For fat burning you need to keep the session in your aerobic zone (around 70% of max Heart Rate). Assuming you don't know your heart rate, then that would be maintaining a pace where you would find it easy to answer someone's questions if they came over and talked to you while erging. Such a pace does feel very slow, but if you go faster and elevate your heart rate over 80% then you wont be targetting the fat burning bit that you say is your goal.

[Sakly]

Now iam writing after my first 3*3333m, thats great, pace and intensity is higher ...

Not sure "pace and intensity higher" is a good thing, although "great" is obviously a good thing. For fat burning you need to keep the session in your aerobic zone (around 70% of max Heart Rate).

I am quite sure that this is not true.
There is no "fat burning heart rate". You burn fat on every pace as long as it is not only your anaerobic zone (which is obviously not possible going for 3x 3333m).
Going for a harder session does not mean you burn no fat. Mainly it means your body tries to burn more carbs, but the overall energy burned is higher. So even if the percentage of burned fat is lower the overall value of burned fat can be higher due to more energy needs for the workout.
For a good training progress it is important to mix up slower long sessions (which can consist of these intervals as well) and shorter harder sessions like short intervals or mid distances on a hard pace. This is true for performance increase as well as fat burning to lose weight.

[foreverfreedom]

There is no such thing as a heart rate "Fat Burning Zone". Fat burning only works in the absence of insulin; insulin is only low in absence of blood glucose and glycogen in the muscles/liver; this generally only happens first thing in the morning. The moment you start eating/drinking food with any glucose/starch in it, you will have both glucose and insulin in the blood stream. To burn fat efficiently, get out of bed in the morning, have a drink of water and get on the rower - when you have finished your session, then you can eat/drink tea, coffee or whatever. If you want a scientific reference, try Chapter 5 of "Human Metabolism: A Regulatory Perspective, 4th Edition Paperback – Illustrated, 26 April 2019 by Rhys Evans (Author), Keith N. Frayn (Author)".

[MPx]

For fat burning you need to keep the session in your aerobic zone (around 70% of max Heart Rate).

I am quite sure that this is not true.
There is no "fat burning heart rate".

There is no such thing as a heart rate "Fat Burning Zone".

Ok...I stand corrected. But answer me this. If you workout for 30 minutes in your aerobic zone well below AT (say 70% HR) compared doing a 30 min TT as fast as you can manage such that your HR is above AT for a significant amount of the session, which will contribute more to weight loss? Note here I'm specifically targetting weight loss not performance. I can see that the TT uses more energy/calories so maybe it is that. So is it the fact that we can't sustain a daily TT but but can sustain a daily SS that means that over time the slower stuff is better for weight loss?? I'm intrigued as I've seen loads and loads of advice for overweight people to do long slow sessions and absolutely none to say do them as fast as you can manage.

[Sakly]

So is it the fact that we can't sustain a daily TT but but can sustain a daily SS that means that over time the slower stuff is better for weight loss??

^^ mainly this.

You can also assume that an untrained individual cannot sustain a 30min TT at all, burn before end would be very likely. So the general recommendation is to start slowly and gradually increase distance in endurance sports to build base stamina. After you got it, start adding some serious stuff, also increasing gradually in time and volume.

[MPx]

I'm not yet convinced ... and certainly not alone in perpetuating this particular myth. Just google heart rate training zones and fat burning and you get a gazillion hits. They all vary slightly (which adds weight to your argument!) and nearly all calc HR on 220-age (which adds even more weight to the thought that its nonsense!) but essentially there's alot of group-think out there that terms higher level aerobic training zones as "fat burning". Here's just one such https://www.medicinenet.com/what_is_a_f ... rticle.htm

[Sakly]

We should clearly define about what we are talking/discussing.
There is a heart rate optimum, where the percentage of burned calories is highest from fat burning energy systems - this is what all these articles mean.
What I say: higher intensities burn more fat overall, but less percentage, as the amount of burned calories is (much) higher in the same amount of time. Obviously the higher intensity cannot be maintained for the same duration or at least for the same number of workouts per week. This is the reason, why mostly (if not all) sessions should be done at this low intensity - you can maintain your training regime for a long time, if you stay motivated.
After adaptions of the body these heart rate zones move, so intensities could/should be adapted during training.

[p_b82]

My understanding of the "fat burning zone" is also more about the ability to sustain the pace, rather than the specific metabolic functions occurring at the time.

Kinda put simply - doing an exercise for 90 mins verses 60 mins will likely consume more calories, and as such generate a higher intake to out goings deficit.
In an example from my logbook, my TT 1hr @2:21 burnt 724 (generic weight unadjusted figure) a 90 min @2:46 burnt 848; my HM (105min)@2:29 burnt 1155.

HR across all three were different, and the harder you work the more energy you will consume, but if you can only do 3x 95-100% efforts per week vs 6x 70% efforts, you're likely to create a smaller deficit due to volume; hence why you see so much literature calling it a fat burning zone when you work "less hard".

To the OP, if your body shape is changing, then you're on the right path, even if your weight doesn't alter, you're "healthier" due to a different muscle/fat ratio + most likely improved cardio as well.
If you want to change your shape further after that point, you'll need to reduce the calorie intake a bit - but much better to do it slowly via a gradual alteration of habits - as already advised.

Unless I wake up hungry, on non-rowing days I skip or have a much smaller breakfast, that for me is, the only difference I need to make when balancing my weight as I'm not a big snack eater so don't need to alter any other habits.