Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Totally wish I could get by with the 30-45 min workout! A full body workout for me is hard to do in under 2 hours., but if the gym is empty, it can be done. I try to get at least 2 in each week, I'm happier with 3, but its hard to do that and have any kind of relationship. Maybe I'm more into the muscles...I don't know. I also do a 30 min cardio session (running, stepmill, etc) each day at lunch. The older I get, the harder I have to work.
Agree. I've always heard from both my physician and the dietitian alike that sometimes all you have is thirty minutes and/or three times per week. There's only so many minutes in a day. People listen to the "you should work out 4-5 times per week......." mantra and it only ends up discouraging the very same people that need to integrate fitness into their lives. America is much bigger than 5'6 and 150, so I think that compromise and moderation needs to be preached to the masses. Taking into account people's individual circumstances and tailoring programs from there.
That's why I pretty much stick to strength training: better results in less time, and it speeds up your metabolism for a longer period of time than cardio, thus no need to work out 5 days/week. I used to do cardio 5 days/week, but I ditched than and switched to weights, and the results were like night and day. Don't get me wrong, I love running and usually manage to get a nice long run in once/week, but if I have to choose one over the other, weights will win out every time, because it's the most efficient use of my time.
The carbs we should be eating should be mostly from veggies... greener the better.
White breads and sugar and pasta should be limited.... not cut out altogether, but not having meals based on them... they should be used like a condiment...
That's why I pretty much stick to strength training: better results in less time, and it speeds up your metabolism for a longer period of time than cardio,\
That's why I pretty much stick to strength training: better results in less time, and it speeds up your metabolism for a longer period of time than cardio, thus no need to work out 5 days/week. I used to do cardio 5 days/week, but I ditched than and switched to weights, and the results were like night and day. Don't get me wrong, I love running and usually manage to get a nice long run in once/week, but if I have to choose one over the other, weights will win out every time, because it's the most efficient use of my time.
If I had to just pick just one (God help me if I did) I'd go the other way. Better for my heart, better weight maintenance, for me. But we all work differently.
What people don't know, is how really hard it is to make that extra lean muscle and how little an extra 1lb of muscle can actually burn without exercise. People will say 50-60 calories per 1lb of muscle (lol) try less than 8 calories at rest.
I never bought into the usefulness of muscles as calorie-burners myself, especially for women. It looks leaner because muscle is denser than fat, but strictly in terms of calorie burn, it really doesn't make that much of a difference.
Formula for losing weight is really simple. If you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight. If you burn less calories than you consume, you will gain weight. Thats all there is to it. The issue most calorie counters have, is they miscount their calories. Frequency of meals, types of foods you eat, eating breakfast is all just inconsequential noise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.