|
Preface:
I am by no means fat, but by no means skinny. 27 BMI(25 is reccomended). I enjoy doing the stair machine much more then other cardio but I don't have enough endurance to get the rediculous calories burned per hour it rewards.
The Plan
Find the speed at which you will burn 1000 calories per hour on the stair machine. We'll call that X.
Starting at 5 minutes of speed X, work out every other day adding one minute every workout. By this logic, it would take 109 days to reach 1000 calories burned per workout.
Looking forward, if the goal is reached, make it so 1000 calories is burned in 40 minutes and add a minute every two days again, eventually reaching 60 again, with even more calories.
[b]The Arguments[b]
Pro: Burning a ton of calories eventually, setting up a consistent workout schedule.
Con: Calfs being extremely strong(remedied by switching between treadmill at speed X and Stair Machine at speed X possibly?)
It is debateable(atleast to me), whether or not it is healthy to burn 1000 calories per workout.
So, TL, do you think this makes sense? Or is it just a gamer's little impossible dream?
 
|
It sounds cool but I'm pretty sure that X would get pretty dam high. 1 thousand calories per hour for most people is going to be like a dam high speed number.
|
I think the workout in general is silly.
#1 thing I want to recommend, being fit is 80% healthy eating and 20% working out. If you are eating instant noodles, pop tart, pizza pops, or just going out to McDonalds often, changing your diet is necessary. Try having more meals, and smaller ones, and if there's one thing to stay away from, it is chips and oil heavy foods. Treat yourself to an apple if you feel a slight hunger for example, and slow cooked foods tend to be healthier. If you must have snacks buy those 28g chip bags, resist buying 250g bags and prevent the temptation.
As for the workout, running is in every way better than the staircase for losing weight. Walking up stairs for an hour will tire out your muscles, that is not what you want to do, what you are trying to accomplish is to tire out your heart and lungs (You can see if you are limited by your breath or sore muscles). And unless your physique is quite excellent this can only be achieved with running and cycling. Running up a 2% angle for 45 minutes a day 5 times a week and having a healthy diet will achieve so much for your overall health. If you are looking to put on muscle do research on customized workouts that suit you, but first I would focus on accomplishing your weight loss goal.
And remember, running or walking up stairs wont give you muscle, it will make you look like a marathon runner.
Edit: I am a 17 year old 5'10 and 155 pounds, 205 max bench-press. I was in a similiar situation where I felt I was getting chubby two years back, and working on my body is something I really enjoy, so it's mostly from my experience what I found to work, if you have any questions I can gladly help, because I know what it was to be there, even though it was at a young age.
|
I don't know whats stopping you from just burning close to 1000 calories per workout right off the bat - why the huge build up?
|
On August 10 2011 15:09 GrapeD wrote:
It sounds cool but I'm pretty sure that X would get pretty dam high. 1 thousand calories per hour for most people is going to be like a dam high speed number.
Indeed, running or biking 800 calories / hour is a very impressive number, for running for example you'll need to run at 7.5mph for an hour straight. ~
|
If you want to do cardio, try rowing.
|
Honestly when it comes to burning calories you pretty much need to diet. Exercise will only burn a ton of calories if you are very heavy (like 250+). The lighter you are, the less calories you burn via exercise because you have less mass to work.
Even if you are 250+ pounds, jogging continuously for 30 minutes will still only burn like 400 calories. That's like 2 cokes, which is pretty sad. Instead of running for those 30 minutes you could switch to diet coke and achieve the same net loss of calories.
So yeah your best bet is to look at diet. If you're like me and you don't like feeling hungry, then try adding more protein (meat and vegetables) to your diet. Protein does a good job at making you feel "full" on a small amount of calories. Breads and fruits, not so much.
|
On August 10 2011 15:39 RoboBob wrote:
Honestly when it comes to burning calories you pretty much need to diet. Exercise will only burn a ton of calories if you are very heavy (like 250+). The lighter you are, the less calories you burn via exercise because you have less mass to work.
Even if you are 250+ pounds, jogging continuously for 30 minutes will still only burn like 400 calories. That's like 2 cokes, which is pretty sad. Instead of running for those 30 minutes you could switch to diet coke and achieve the same net loss of calories.
So yeah your best bet is to look at diet. If you're like me and you don't like feeling hungry, then try adding more protein (meat and vegetables) to your diet. Protein does a good job at making you feel "full" on a small amount of calories. Breads and fruits, not so much.
Pretty much this. Diet is the key factor for weight loss/gain. If you're serious about losing weight you should drop by the TL Health & Fitness Initiative 2011 thread in the community forum. There's more than enough information just in the OP of that thread to get you started. Post you're goals and you'll get lots of quality feedback about the best way to reach them.
EDIT: Also why is calfs being strong a con?
|
Like everyone else has already said, exercising is great, but controlling your diet is really important if you're aiming to control your calories. Cut out soda and snacks and oily/fatty foods. Eat less. Don't eat till fully satisfied or full. Stop when you are just satisfied and learn to eat small and healthy snacks. Drink a lot of water.
|
1000 calories and hour is an incredibly high figure and is something which you can't really sustain for 5 minutes let alone an hour.
Losing weight is more about nutrition than exercise. Think about it you're spending maybe 3-4 hours at the gym a week exercising but you're eating at least 3 times a day every single day. You do 1 much more than the other so it has a greater effect.
|
dont believe that diet shit. athletes have to consume enormous amounts of calories because of not only the exercise they do, but the adjustments your body makes after the exercise in repairing muscle and stabalizing temperature.
i started working out two months ago, did not change a single thing diet wise. i was 6'1, 233 pounds, 19.9% body fat. after the first month, i was 234 pounds with a 17.6, and just recently i weighed in at 232 with 15.5% body fat. did not change a single thing diet wise. i did no cardio as well, because well for big people cardio is just an awful experience, and i wanted working out to be enjoyable.
so my strategy was working out two hours a week, two days a week. i did a variety of standard exercises (deadlift, bench press etc) with nominal weight as many times as i could until muscle failure, then a few more after that when the muscles were burning like crazy. did 3 sets of everything everytime. workouts were fun but intense, didnt have to do any silly cardio or anything, and got great gains.
|
I just wanted to add that the above posters are correct.
I recently decided to live and eat more healthily, and quickly learned that weight loss is 90% nutrition and 10% working out. Working out is more about body recomposition, strengthening your weak areas and making you look better when you're not very overweight.
If you're just interested in looking a bit better, you should try lifting weights while eating more nutritious foods.
|
On August 10 2011 16:09 esla_sol wrote:
dont believe that diet shit. athletes have to consume enormous amounts of calories because of not only the exercise they do, but the adjustments your body makes after the exercise in repairing muscle and stabalizing temperature.
i started working out two months ago, did not change a single thing diet wise. i was 6'1, 233 pounds, 19.9% body fat. after the first month, i was 234 pounds with a 17.6, and just recently i weighed in at 232 with 15.5% body fat. did not change a single thing diet wise. i did no cardio as well, because well for big people cardio is just an awful experience, and i wanted working out to be enjoyable.
so my strategy was working out two hours a week, two days a week. i did a variety of standard exercises (deadlift, bench press etc) with nominal weight as many times as i could until muscle failure, then a few more after that when the muscles were burning like crazy. did 3 sets of everything everytime. workouts were fun but intense, didnt have to do any silly cardio or anything, and got great gains.
I just want to address you quote at the top "athletes have to consume enormous amounts of calories."
First of all, a BIG thing to understand, carbohydrates are energy, fat and oil isn't a good source of energy, it just makes you feel heavy. Eating lots of fruit is a lot of fructose, but it is good in nature if it's in the right amounts.
The reason athletes eat 6000-8000 calories a day is because they do lots of strenuous exercise. You don't see them eating 8000 calories in potato chips however. Calories are good, if you are working out for a while it is perfectly fine to consume 3500 a day, but 100 calories of fruit is not 100 calories of bacon because of different vitamins and fats they have attached to them. And you'll be putting on putting on weight if you consume 4000 calories a day and sit in front of the computer for 10 hours a day. Athletes aren't trying to lose weight.
And to explain your situation, quite frankly you changed something, you were doing cardio (even walking 30 minutes a day) or you are bullshitting. Benchpressing wont make you lose fat and tone your body no matter how much you want it to.
|
Gogo Teamliquid Health and Fitness Initiative. Also your plan is bad, but in the OP of that thread you can find everything you need.
|
On August 10 2011 16:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2011 16:09 esla_sol wrote:
dont believe that diet shit. athletes have to consume enormous amounts of calories because of not only the exercise they do, but the adjustments your body makes after the exercise in repairing muscle and stabalizing temperature.
i started working out two months ago, did not change a single thing diet wise. i was 6'1, 233 pounds, 19.9% body fat. after the first month, i was 234 pounds with a 17.6, and just recently i weighed in at 232 with 15.5% body fat. did not change a single thing diet wise. i did no cardio as well, because well for big people cardio is just an awful experience, and i wanted working out to be enjoyable.
so my strategy was working out two hours a week, two days a week. i did a variety of standard exercises (deadlift, bench press etc) with nominal weight as many times as i could until muscle failure, then a few more after that when the muscles were burning like crazy. did 3 sets of everything everytime. workouts were fun but intense, didnt have to do any silly cardio or anything, and got great gains. I just want to address you quote at the top "athletes have to consume enormous amounts of calories." First of all, a BIG thing to understand, carbohydrates are energy, fat and oil isn't a good source of energy, it just makes you feel heavy. Eating lots of fruit is a lot of fructose, but it is good in nature if it's in the right amounts. The reason athletes eat 6000-8000 calories a day is because they do lots of strenuous exercise. You don't see them eating 8000 calories in potato chips however. Calories are good, if you are working out for a while it is perfectly fine to consume 3500 a day, but 100 calories of fruit is not 100 calories of bacon because of different vitamins and fats they have attached to them. And you'll be putting on putting on weight if you consume 4000 calories a day and sit in front of the computer for 10 hours a day. Athletes aren't trying to lose weight. And to explain your situation, quite frankly you changed something, you were doing cardio (even walking 30 minutes a day) or you are bullshitting. Benchpressing wont make you lose fat and tone your body no matter how much you want it to.
Some of this is wrong. Fat is an amazing source of energy. Also, lifting weights potentially burns more calories than cardio in a smaller amount of time.
|
the stairmaster is my favorite gym machine as well, i had troubles with my knees so that is the best workout i can do for them. started of with low speed for about 30min and next time,35, 40, 45, 50, 55, until i finally hit 60 minutes. that´s when i started upping the speed. my machine had 1-30 range of speeds, i started at 5, last time i was there i went 1hour on speed 10. doesn´t sound like a lot but the machine said 750 calories burned, machines tend to say more calories then they actually burn, but then again i´m bigger then average (100+kg) so 750 probably was pretty accurate.
i do believe your best approach to this would be starting at low speed for longer times, the pace you have to hold for 1000kcal is ridiculous and you won´t really be able to extend the time you are on the machine very fast, or even the pace you are aiming at.
1000 calories /hr is by no means impossible on a stairmaster, it sure is hard, but doable!
anyway, glhf!
|
Zurich15364 Posts
As others have pointed out, 1000kcal per hour for a full hour is a very high fugure, and something you probably won't be able to reach within 100 days. Well, not if you can't do say 20-30 minutes already I should say.
When I did interval sprinting I raised my time from 20 minutes to 45 minutes over about 100 days, which was about 600kcal. But I was already pretty fit doing the 20 minutes.
And yeah, drop by the TLHF thread, tons of information and people to help over there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
