Weight Loss vs Muscle Buildup

[marvy1]

Hello. I have been rowing on a model D for about 1 year. About 3-4 times per week. But there have been some breaks when I injure my back (back injury NOT related to rowing!)

My stats are: 30 minutes per session at about 2:35/500m meters. Total meters: About 5,800 per session. I am 61 years 'young'. 200 lbs.

I haven't seen much weigh loss from rowing. So here's my question:

Could I just be building muscle mass and not seeing a weight loss because muscle is replacing fat?

Hope that makes sense Thanks! Marvin

[Citroen]

Could I just be building muscle mass and not seeing a weight loss because muscle is replacing fat?

It's unlikely unless you're taking anerbolic steroids and pumping big iron. The ergo is primarily a CV machine, it's not weight lifting unless you have a crap technique and row everything on a 205 drag factor.

[dancogan]

Beg to differ. Especially if you were not particularly active before you started rowing. The onset of activity can produce muscle mass in place of fat, which weighs more than fat.

[tbartman]

At your pace, you're burning about 600 calories per hour (or 300 calories per 30 minute session), 3-4 times per week. (according to Concept 2's math - probably a decent ballpark +/- 20%).

Assuming 3.5 workouts per week, that should give 3500 calories (one pound of fat) burned every 3-4 weeks.

Of course, popping 4 Oreo Double Stuffs after one of your workouts negates the entire caloric burn of the 30 minutes. One good muffin and latte from Starbucks negates the entire week.

I'd try to take up the workouts a bit. My dad (72 years old, 6' 0", 195 lbs) sat on my erg for the first time last month and pulled 2:00 for 4 minutes. According to Paul's Law (you can row twice as long in time for every 5 seconds slower the split) he'd be able to do 32 minutes at 2:15.

One week focus on rowing faster (aim for 2-3 seconds faster splits than the week before). The next week keep that new split, and add a couple minutes to the workout. Alternate weeks like this. Within a few months you should be up to 45-50 minutes at 2:15-2:20 and then I bet you start to notice some changes (as long as you don't snack away your efforts).

Tom

p.s. good fat burn really doesn't begin until 20+ minutes into the workout. One 60 minute workout activates fat metabolism better than two 30 minute workouts. This is why I'm suggesting trying to get up to 45+ minutes at least.

[iain]

At your pace, you're burning about 600 calories per hour (or 300 calories per 30 minute session), 3-4 times per week. (according to Concept 2's math - probably a decent ballpark +/- 20%).

Assuming 3.5 workouts per week, that should give 3500 calories (one pound of fat) burned every 3-4 weeks.

Of course, popping 4 Oreo Double Stuffs after one of your workouts negates the entire caloric burn of the 30 minutes. One good muffin and latte from Starbucks negates the entire week.

I'd try to take up the workouts a bit. My dad (72 years old, 6' 0", 195 lbs) sat on my erg for the first time last month and pulled 2:00 for 4 minutes. According to Paul's Law (you can row twice as long in time for every 5 seconds slower the split) he'd be able to do 32 minutes at 2:15.

One week focus on rowing faster (aim for 2-3 seconds faster splits than the week before). The next week keep that new split, and add a couple minutes to the workout. Alternate weeks like this. Within a few months you should be up to 45-50 minutes at 2:15-2:20 and then I bet you start to notice some changes (as long as you don't snack away your efforts).

Tom

p.s. good fat burn really doesn't begin until 20+ minutes into the workout. One 60 minute workout activates fat metabolism better than two 30 minute workouts. This is why I'm suggesting trying to get up to 45+ minutes at least.

Firstly, while not an authority on the subject. However, from other posts I understand that the calorie burn from the erg is more likely to be over than under. At your rate almost half of the calories burned are for existing and going up and down the slide (i.e. not from pulling the handle). 1/3 of these would be burned if you went about a normal day. The other part depends a lot on the efficiency of the stroke and your rating, but the erg gives the same for everyone.

The assumption above is that you are eating exactly what you would require if you had not expended any energy while you were erging. Even assuming the reading is accurate, even if you assume that you previously had a constant weight and do not decrease any other exercise when you are tired from the erg, you would only need to eat 120 cals per day more to negate the benefit of the extra exercise. This would be easy even without the snacks mentioned above.

Paul's Law is what the average ergoer should be able to achieve. In practice only those aerobically fit from other activities or lacking in strength can meet this standard without aerobic training.

I understand that opinion is divided on multiple shorter workouts. If they are more intensive and performed within a few hours then there is support that the 2 can be more beneficial than one long workout. So I would recommend increasing the exercise even if to do so you can only fit in shorter sessions.

Sorry to be negative. The good news is that if you follow the suggested progressive training program and eat sensibly, you will see benefits.

Hope it goes well.

Iain

[michaelb]

I don't think we know the answer about how much, if any, muscle you can build up just rowing. But your post comes up regularly, and there was one just like it last month or so.

I think you can gain muscle mass rowing, and I think that can offset weight loss on the scale. Do you feel and look better, bigger or stronger? The rowing you are doing is great, so it is certainly worth keeping that up. Tbartman is also right at least for me that I can eat up in junk the calories I am burning by rowing, so I can row a lot and not lose weight.

I stopped weightlifting maybe 15 years ago or more. I started rowing on my C2 now 11 years ago. I don't think I am any smaller now then I was then in terms of muscle mass, and actually some muscles, like my traps, are probably bigger. Maybe getting bigger traps is just a by product of aging, but I don't see how that could be (I don't have accurate body measurements from before or for now, so this is a purely subjective judgment).

[TabbRows]

One way to calculate how many calories you are burning off by rowing is to find your hourly basal metobolic rate (BMR) and multiple it by your Physical Activity Rate (PAR) then multiply that result by the amount of time you row.

In Marvin's case, assuming he's around 6' tall, his BMR is around 1800 calories a day, or 75 per hour. The UK C2 site has a good BMR calculator.
Of course, if he's shorter BMR will be somewhat lower and if he's taller BMR will be slightly greater.

Eddie Fletcher has a table in his Indoor Rowing Marathon Manual showing PAR for various 500m splits. These are based on Watts which measure the amount of energy you are expending. For a 2:35 pace, PAR is around 7 -7.1 as Watts is below 100.

So Marvin'c caloric expenditure above the 37.5 calories per 1/2 hour needed to sustain 200 lbs, is 225 ((75*7*.5)-(37.5)). We'll assume he's at a 1 in terms of physical activity. That means he'll need to row over 15 hours just to lose 1 pound; assuming his only intake is 1800 calories a day. That's about 10 weeks worth of work. At most, Marvin would have expected to have lost 5 pounds if he had rowed the full year. Since he was off for some time and according to his comments has lost some weight but not as much as he expected (he didn't say eaxact amount), it's quite likely he has lost weight due to rowing. But it's not much and depending upon how long he was off the erg due to injury and his actual diet, it's quite possible he added back pounds in recovery. Your muscles will tone up, but not bulk up, as strength increases and fat declines. But there's not a 1:1 ratio of fat loss to muscle gain.

Tom's overall advice stands: Row harder and longer and watch the caloric intake.

One way to progress is to break up the workout. Pyramids are good ways to do this if you don't want to physically stop. since pyramids work on a hard/easy principle, you don't have to go full out the whole time and your average will be faster and you'll be able to work up to longer rows at a higher over average intensity. The Wolverine Plan's Level 4 workouts are another way to increase both intensity and length of time without having to go all out. Check out the posts in this forum for more details on the WP.

[iain]

One way to calculate how many calories you are burning off by rowing is to find your hourly basal metobolic rate (BMR) and multiple it by your Physical Activity Rate (PAR) then multiply that result by the amount of time you row...

In Marvin's case, assuming he's around 6' tall, his BMR is around 1800 calories a day, or 75 per hour. The UK C2 site has a good BMR calculator.
Of course, if he's shorter BMR will be somewhat lower and if he's taller BMR will be slightly greater.

Eddie Fletcher has a table in his Indoor Rowing Marathon Manual showing PAR for various 500m splits. These are based on Watts which measure the amount of energy you are expending. For a 2:35 pace, PAR is around 7 -7.1 as Watts is below 100.

So Marvin'c caloric expenditure above the 37.5 calories per 1/2 hour needed to sustain 200 lbs, is 225 ((75*7*.5)-(37.5)). We'll assume he's at a 1 in terms of physical activity. That means he'll need to row over 15 hours just to lose 1 pound...

Sorry to be a pedant, but felt this might put off some people from erging to lose weight.

I can't say I follow the calculations completely, but aren't you calculating 225cal / row and so it is 15 sessions that losses a pound of fat? Or are you using a different calorific requirement for the fatty tissue? If so, your conclusions are still valid, but those trying to lose weight can take comfort that the weight loss will be twice as fast as calculated above.

Also, level of physical activity / absolute food intake is fairly irrelevant, the important point is that after 15 rowing sessions, assuming activity and food is otherwise the same, you will be a pound lighter than you would have been. So you don't need to drop to 1800 cals to lose weight if you are active.

Regards

Iain

[TabbRows]

iain,

Not to hijack this thread into a discussion of BMR calculations, IMHO, people seeking to lose weight solely by erging, need to focus on intensity and time on the machine, not on the calorie counter. And not for easy fixes that reframe one's eating habits, i.e., "I rowed 45 minutes, so that I can eat that double scoop of ice cream and still lose those extra pounds." Or, more familliarly to me, " WOW!! I dropped 4 pounds after that 30 minute session! This machine rocks!" And then have one of those "Biggest Loser" moments where a week later you wonder why after all that work you actually gained weight. Just be aware that the extra expenditure of calories over and above what's needed to maintain weight isn't that great in a short period of time.

I think using the ergometer is a great way to improve one's fitness. I've stepped down this past year to being on the cusp of a lightweight and my power and performance hasn't suffered. Mr. Bartman, above, is a very fine example of how using the erg can improve one's health. I hope Marvin continues with his erging for all flavors of healthy reasons whether he never rows faster than 2:25 or breaks 7 minutes in a 2K at the 2009 Crash Bs.

[marvy1]

I think you can gain muscle mass rowing, and I think that can offset weight loss on the scale. Do you feel and look better, bigger or stronger? The rowing you are doing is great, so it is certainly worth keeping that up.

Ladies and Gents,

Thanks for all your replies to my original question. Some of the technical jargon is over my head, but the paragraph quoted above sums it up for me. I DO feel better... and look a little better

So thanks for your replies. I will keep erging and try to increase my times.

Marvin

[thomaspinckney]

Why not lift weights & erg? Keep things simple.

I discovered a while back that at 5000 meters per session (2:30 pace) that the weight didn't come off that fast. However, I upped it to 45 minutes at the same pace (and at times one hour) and weight comes off at about 1 - 2 pounds per week. I also eat six times a day (same # of calories per day as before - I just spread them out).

[marvy1]

Why not lift weights & erg? Keep things simple.

I discovered a while back that at 5000 meters per session (2:30 pace) that the weight didn't come off that fast. However, I upped it to 45 minutes at the same pace (and at times one hour) and weight comes off at about 1 - 2 pounds per week. I also eat six times a day (same # of calories per day as before - I just spread them out).

Thomas - Thanks for your reply. I forgot to mention. I do about 40 situps/crunches before I row. I do it partly as a warmup and to build up my abs and back muscles.

I will try to up my time to 45 minutes.

Thanks! Marvin

[cpt.gabriel]

Yes, I think you're just building muscle mass and not seeing a weight loss because muscle is replacing fat. Plus, in the beggining of training (firts few months) your body is retaing more water than ussual. The first thing you have to notice short after the first session in an improved body held due to better muscular condition.
So keep your sail in wind !

[Cynic]

Possibly, but after a year of rowing, I'm pretty sure your body has adapted to the workout form. You're probably eating over your AMR (Adjusted Metabolic Rate) in calories. It doesn't matter how long you workout, if you eat too much, you won't lose fat, and might even put some on.

Try using fitday.com to track what you eat and how much. Fitday is a free site and a well known one, so don't think I'm spamming.

You might also consider a premium food tracker. Fitday make their own, but there is also CalorieKing and a few others.

But the bottom line is: you need to know how much you can eat and how much you are eating.

Another thing to investigate is HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training). It has a much longer EPOC than simple SS (Steady State) cardio at the expense of making you hate life.

[lightweight8]

In general, 3500 calories = 1 pound. SO....to lose 1 pound a week, you would have to do a combination of erging (let's say you're burning approx. 300 calories a session x 3/ week, so that's 900 calories.) The rest would have to be made up by a *reduction* in food intake calories. You would have to eat about 370 calories LESS than you're eating now per day to make up for it.

If you are looking to lose weight, the erg COMBINED WITH a restricted diet will get you there! Once you're at your goal weight, then you can keep an eye on your weight and balance your caloric intake accordingly.

Right now I am on a hard-core diet/ exercise program to lose weight and then to maintain once I reach my goal. I am eating no more than 1000 calories a day, PLUS doing 60 minutes on the erg (about 600 calories) x 5 days/ week. My erg work alone is burning approx 3000 calories a week, and I've taken my food intake down by about 5000 calories a week, a total of 8k lost calories a week. I have lost an average of 2-3 pounds a week since I started 6 weeks ago (15 lbs). I have 25 more to go.

Losing weight is hard...but think of it this way...it took me YEARS to put it on, but with some very hard work and discipline, it will be off in less than a year.