Von zwei anonymen Schreiberlingen aus der weiten Welt des Netzes.
Einzige Kritik meinerseits: Ausser Acht bleibt der höhere Anteil der "Nachverbrennung" bei schnellen Trainingseinheiten.
"I lost 10 pounds for my last marathon and became an entirely different runner--turbocharged.
The approach is a no-nonsense one that really works and is based upon pure common sense and math. Give it a try. It will do the job.
I'd like to start out by saying that while I am neither certified as a trainer nor am I doctor, I have over 25 years' experience in the area of health and fitness, am an accomplished runner, and have a high degree of knowledge about nutrition, exercise physiology, and the human body . . .
. . . Most of our fat rides below the skin and over the muscles and, in fact actually covers up the muscles so that we can't see them too well. A really good indicator of how much fat you carry is how much definition you can see in your muscles. In someone with very low body fat (perhaps 5%), you can see every little crease and striation. Their abodminal feature what many affectionately call a "six-pack", which is where you can see the individual segments of the rectus abdonminus. The more fat you add, the more doughy and rolly the body appears. Fat can account for many extra inches around hips, middles, arms, and thighs, so losing it is the best way to change your body shape.
There are alot of so-called experts out there who advocate all sorts of fancy diets, pills, and the like for doing this. I can guarantee you these will fail every time.
Losing fat is really very simple, though it takes some work. All you have to do is burn up more calories than you take in. Nothing else will do it, and despite what people tell you, it doesn't matter whether the calories your dealing with come from carrot sticks or french fries; they're all the same to your body. What's needed is used, and any extra is stored as fat. If you don't take in enough, the body goes to the fat and takes some out, and you lose weight. Now some foods are obviously healthier for you in other regards, and some make it easier to take in alot of calories quickly, so what you eat DOES matter.
Now we're going to answer your question. First off, strength training is a good adjunct to any weight loss plan because the more muscle you carry on your body, the more calories it needs to fuel itself. You essentially run a more fuel-hungry engine all day long when you carry around more muscle, so you can eat more calories without gaining weight. Note that strength training itself doesn't actually burn up nearly the calroies that cardio workouts do but, again, the extra muscles that it creates helps rev up metabolism.
Adding a good cardio workout really lets you burn some extra calories each day, and running burns calories better than almost any exercise out there--about 100 calories per mile (this varies a bit according to weight).
So if you run 5 miles, there's an extra 500 calories you can eat in a day. One pound equals about 3,500 calories, so if you ate just enough calories to provide for your normal daily activities then ran five miles a day, in a week, you'd lose a pound.
The other important thing to know is that running faster barely burns any additional calories, but it's very hard on the body and it's hard to do for any length of time, so slow and steady gets the job done. For instance, a 140 lb. athlete running 10:40 mile burns about 87 calories per mile while the same athlete running twice as fast (5:20) only burns 97 calories. Most reasonably fit athletes can run a 10:40 mile for a real long time--anywhere from 5 to 20 miles, thus burning from 435 to 1,740 calories. Except for the most elite runners, few people can run more than a few miles at the 5:20 pace. So while you might burn a few more calories over the mile, overall, you burn far less.
Keep in mind, however, even slow running is harder on the body than low-impact exercises like biking. So if you are carrying alot of extra weight or have joint problems, you might want to start with something else or ease into it in a careful manner. The general rule is never increase speed and distance together and never increase either more than 10% per week.
Of course, the last and most important part of the puzzle is figuring out a weight loss plan.
First, despite what alot of people will tell you, I can say from experience that if you are able to lose 0.1 lbs. per day, which is 0.7 lbs. per week or 3.4 lbs. per month, you are doing really well. This entails eating 350 calories per day less than you burn.
To monitor your weight, weigh yourself daily and take an average at the end of each week. Don't worry about daily fluctuations. You can go up or down several pounds depending upon hormonal changes, the amount of salt in a meal, the fullness of your digestive tract, and so forth. But watch those averages over several weeks. They should be trending down. It's kind of like the stock market, alot of ups and downs day to day but an overall drift in a certain direction. (For the market, we like up, for weight, we like down.) Many will tell you not to check daily. I disagree. When you check once a week you may get a reading influenced by the aforementioned factors. Check daily, but only put stock in the weekly average. Recent studies also show that people who check daily do a better job of losing weight and keeping it off. Use the same scale at the same time of day.
Also, simply look at your muscular definition. Increased definition is the surest sign of weight loss. Lifting helps a little, because bigger muscles will be more visible under the skin, but the change won't be that dramatic. Weight loss gives a dramatic change in appearnce.
Lastly, you have to figure out your target calories. I have found the long-used Harris-Benedict formula to be quite good.
This formula allows you to calculate what's known as your BMR or basal metabolic rate. This is the number of calories your body needs just to keep itself alive--breath, run the brain, digest food, and so forth. It doesn't take into account any activity but lying perfectly still. It is as follows:
BMR = 88.362 + (4.799 x your height in centimeters) + (13.397 x your weight in kilograms) - (5.677 x your age)
Note that 1 inch = 2.54 centimeters, 1 pound = 0.45 kilograms, and I assume you would want to base your weight on your IDEAL body weight, not your current body weight, unless you are already at your ideal body weight; that's because having extra fat doesn't really contribute to the caloric needs of your body.
Once you have this number, you have to add in the calories for going about your daily business. One way to do this to multiply by 1.3 if you are sedentary, 1.5 if you are moderately active, and 1.7 if you are very active. What I have found works quite well is to pretend that I am sedentary, so multiply by 1.3, then add in the extra calories for my exercise (There are a number of books and table out there that can provide this information. The one I have shows 130 lb. athlete running an 10:00 mile to be burning 82 calories per mile. For a 150 lb. athlete, the number rises to 94, and for a 170 lb. athlete, it rises to 106).
Lastly, subtract the calories need for weight loss, and you've got a target.
So say you want to lose 0.1 lbs. per day, that you weigh 130 lbs. and are running 3 miles a day at a 10:00 min. mile, and that your BMR works out to 1,500 Calories.
Your calories for going about a sedentary day are 1,500 x 1.3 = 1,950.
Your calories are running for 82 x 3 = 246.
The defecit required for the desired weight loss is 0.1 lbs. x 3,500 Cal./lb. = 350.
So your target intake should be the 1,950 required to run your body at a sedentary level, plus the 246 for your exercise, minus the 350 for weight loss, or 1,846.
You may have to tweak the formula a bit until you find the exact number that's right for you, since this is really an estimate, but this should get you pretty darn close. Also, you probably need to keep a journal of the calories you eat each day, because when you're only trying to restrict your intake by such a small amount, an extra piece of toast and a yougurt, and their goes your loss for the day.
But hopefully this helps you to see that it's no the running per se that will help you reshape your body; it's careful attention paid to diet.
Sorry this is so long. Hope it helps. It worked for me. I lost 10 lbs. for my last marathon and as a result was able to break a record that had eluded me for 5 years!
"I was a very fit, accomplished runner o more than 25 years, had competed in numerous marathons, and was enjoying numerous PRs and growth in my running. My goals at the marathon distance had eluded me however despite peaking at 70-80 miles per week.
I was under the impression that I was working out so hard, that I could pretty much eat what I wanted, and this turned out not to be true.
My coach is an engineer and former auto-racing enthusiast. He explained to me that weight was everything, and since I was at about 10% body fat and spending a decent amount of time in the gym, that I might be able to further improve performance by laying off the lifting and losing a bit of weight. I dropped ten pounds simply by making sure that I ate about 250 calories less per day than I was burning.
Not only did I take a good 15 minutes off my average marathon time (the rule I've heard is 3 secs per mile per pound lost) I became phenomenally fast at every other distance. I'm shaving off a few more pounds for this year's Boston, and I'm setting PRs left and right.
And in fact, running fast does little to make you lean. If you look at the caloric demand for various speeds, going from a 10 to a 5 minute mile burns almost no additional calories. Plus, since you can run it for but a fraction of the time, you burn almost no calories by comparison.
Think about it, if I handed you a forty-five pound weight and told you to sprint up a 400-meter hill, you'd slow down considerably. Take away the weight, and you'd be faster. I can't think of a sport where this isn't the case--car racing, horse racing, running, etc.
A related issue is shoe weight, where every once of reduction is good for about a second per mile. This has more to do with swing weight of the leg than the unsprung weight one loses in fat. Again, we see the same issues in car racing.
Moving on, I agree that 1,300 calories seems way too low for anyone training seriously. I have heard that starvation diets force the body to shut down weight loss, though there are so many myths out there, I am a little suspicious about that.
The fact is, again, that weight loss does matter and it is based on some pretty simple math: take in a few hundred less calories than you burn up and weight will come off.
I wouldn't restrict my intake too much, but at the same time, I don't understand why eating more would ever really help if you are trying to lose weight (unless the aforementioned theory about starvation diets is true).
As to ideal race weight, again, you don't want to carry around any extra fat or muscle on race day. To do otherwise is to waste energy carrying around baggage that isn't contributing to your speed. For men, I think this means having your percent body fat at about 5% and for women at about 8%. There are people who are the exception, but for most of us, it's a bit unhealthy to go any lower.
Still, many accomplished athletes are not at these levels and could benefit from being so."
ich halte diese kalorienzählerei nicht für praktikabel. ist mir zu lästig und wie zähle ich im restaurant ?
ausserdem finde ich, dass die kalorienangaben beim sport nicht stimmen. nach den formeln müßte ich aussehen wie ein kenianer, was ich definitiv nicht tue.
und so einfach wie dort dargestellt ist das mit der physik auch nicht.
es ist zb. ein unterschied ob ich die gesamte kalorienmenge in einer malzeit oder über den tag verteilt zu mir nehme. auch wirken gewisse kombinationen aus KH und EW unterschiedlich. (Insulin)
wer mit dem kalorienzählen - weight watcher ist ja im grunde nichts anderes - erfolg hat, super.
bei mir hats nie funktioniert.
hier mal der tenor der bodybuilder, die sich da ja auch ganz gut auskennen:
1. kalorien reduzieren - logisch
2. krafttraining - verbraucht viel kalorien und die muskeln danach ebenfalls
3. cardiotraining als intervall nicht länger als 45 minuten. - hoher kalorienumsatz, stoffwechselaktivierung, nachbrenneffekt,kein übertraining (negativ für den fettstoffwechsel)
4. disziplin
5.disziplin
6.disziplin
ist ein interessantes thema und mich würde es freuen hier mal ne diskussion darüber in gang zu bekommen.
re kalorienzaehlerei: verlangt ja keiner und will auch keiner wirklich, solche rechnereien sind mE eher blosse augenoeffner. essen ist mehr als nur nahrungsaufnahme.
re timing der mahlzeiten: das macht sicherlich einen unterschied, genauso wie individuell genetisch vorgegebene brennfaehigkeiten, verkompliziert ein eigentlich einfaches prinzip aber unnoetig, weil es im gesamtbild quasi irrelevant ist.
mE sind alle tips die ueber das "input<output" hinausgehen augenwischerei und spielen eine zu vernachlaessigende rolle. ich kann natuerlich in alles zimt reinschmeissen (hallo KS ), aber der wahre nutzen von dadurch eingesparten kaloriechen ist eher minim. wer jetzt natuerlich sich all' dieser kleinen tricks annimmt und diese auch konsequent umsetzt, wird langfristig durchaus erfolg haben. man kann aber auch einfach mal ein bierchen weglassen und hat den gleichen effekt...
ich hab mir das abnehmen erst einmal angetan und schlicht ab 18h nichts mehr gegessen. hat funktioniert.
Eigentlich eine ganz alte Weisheit in einen langen Text verpackt: Negative Energiebilanz.
Aber es funktioniert . Wenn ich einfach nur auf Bier, Chips, Kuchen, Süßigkeiten verzichte und den Teller mittags nicht ganz so voll packe, nehme ich auch ca. 3 kg pro Monat ab. Außerdem wie beschrieben jedne Morgen auf die Waage, die Ergebnisse brav aufgeschrieben und sich von täglichen Schwankungen nicht verrückt machen lassen (heute war ein toller Tag, 2 kg abgenommen!). Im Januar / Februar habe ich das erfolgreich gemacht und 5 kg verloren, dann kam eine Phase von Stress und Inkonsequenz, mittlerweile sind sie durch die Nach-Roth-Regeneration wieder locker drauf. Außerdem ordentlich Sport treiben - da kommen in 2 Stunden schneller 1500 kCal zusammen als bei einer Woche Kalorienreduzierung. Werde jetzt versuchen, mal wieder zu reduzieren und Sport zu treiben ...
__________________
Die meisten Radwegbeschilderungen wurden von Aliens erschaffen.
Sie wollen erforschen, wie Menschen in absurden Situationen reagieren.
das entscheidende ist wohl immer noch WAS ich esse. von Grünzeug (Salat, Gemüse) und Obst wird man auch bei größeren Mengen eher nicht zu nehmen.
schwierig finde ich vom Volumen, das man bei hohen Trainingsumfängen zu futtern vermag (ohne zuzunehmen) wieder runterzuschalten man gewöhnt sich doch allzu leicht daran
das entscheidende ist wohl immer noch WAS ich esse. von Grünzeug (Salat, Gemüse) und Obst wird man auch bei größeren Mengen eher nicht zu nehmen.
schwierig finde ich vom Volumen, das man bei hohen Trainingsumfängen zu futtern vermag (ohne zuzunehmen) wieder runterzuschalten man gewöhnt sich doch allzu leicht daran
es mag sich unterschiedlich auswirken, was du isst, aber einfach "kalorienarm=gut" funktioniert eben nicht.
erstens - wie du es bereits bemerkt hast - dehnst du deinen magen dabei aus, sprich das saettigungsgefuehl kommt spaeter, und zweitens leert sich der magen schneller und das hungergefuehl ist wieder da.
bevan docherty sagte mal zu mir: "it pays off if you put a little butter on your toast."
gemeinsam zwiften |
youtube |
forum heute
Rechner
), aber der wahre nutzen von dadurch eingesparten kaloriechen ist eher minim. wer jetzt natuerlich sich all' dieser kleinen tricks annimmt und diese auch konsequent umsetzt, wird langfristig durchaus erfolg haben. man kann aber auch einfach mal ein bierchen weglassen und hat den gleichen effekt...
man gewöhnt sich doch allzu leicht daran 
