Burning calories vs not consuming calories

[patro]

I am trying to lose weight now. I lift 3 days a week and run 3 days a week. I run at just about a maximum pace possible for 20 minutes. The treadmill I run on says that I burn about 330 calories at that pace.

Now here's my question: Assuming that's true, if I were to simply consume 330 fewer calories in the day, would I end up with the same results? Is burning calories the same as not consuming calories?

Of course there are cardiovascular benefits of running, but do these benefits aid in weight loss in any way? Or is the only fat-burner, or weight loss promoting activity calorie burning?

Because damn, if just to lose 330 calories I have to work that hard.........forget it. I'd rather not eat.

-Patro

 

[diamonddiceclay]

you are better off eating the calories because eating often will keep metabolism going properly-eating less may put the body into starvation mode which you do not want

 

[patro]

Thanks....but I'm trying SO HARD to keep my caloric intake low....I just find it damn tough to eat frequently and keep it down.....

 

[Happy]

You are def. better off burning the cals off while running as opposed to taking less calories in because the cardio you perform will give your body better calorie burning ability through the day by raising your basal metabolism.(metabolism at rest)

 

[Hbone]

Patro 1. Dont believe the cal expenditure. Damn near impossible to burn 300cals sprinting for twenty min. 2. Need more info, weight Bf and try to establish the Bmr. Then its simple science cals in cals out. It is much more effective for body fat loss to eat a sub maintence level of calorie.

Also much more affective to do your lifting then do a slow pace fat burning workout on the treadmill after you have depleated blood sugar while lifting. This I refer to as your fat burner.

 

[Audacious1]

A slower pace on the treadmil is going to burn more fat...running is more for your heart than anything else. I can back that up b/c my treadmil has settings for fat burn, aerobic, and performance, and the fat burn is the lowest setting above warm up...and i have a fat calorie counter on my treadmil too (not sure how accurate any of that is) but i do notice the fat calorie counter goes up faster when i am doing a fast walking pace instead of running or when i use my incline too

 

[FitFossil]

You're better off eating more calories and exercising rather than eating less and not exercising. Make sure you're eating clean calories that will fuel your workouts. Eating small meals every 2-3 hours keeps your metabolism higher. Not only does your body burn calories digesting the food, you'll have more energy, not get as hungry, and be less inclined to overeat at meals. This is because your blood sugar stays more stable with small frequent feedings.

If you go too long between meals, your blood sugar gets low, then when you finally eat, it shoots way up to compensate. Your body will tend to store more fat like this, because it's always sensing possible starvation. Don't ever eat carbs all by themselves, because that will really jump your blood sugar, and take your body out of fat burning mode. Always try to balance it with some protein and/or fat (healthy fat).

It might be possible that your calorie intake is too low. When this is the case, your body will hold on to whatever extra fat it has and try to shed muscle.

 

[riskybizz007]

written by Paul Cribb
"Do you lose more fat by cutting
calories or by doing more exercise?

A recent study published in Medicine Science Sport & Exercise (Dec, 1999) reported that the evidence slightly favors exercise. Especially because exercise elevates your metabolism while cutting calories slows your metabolic rate and reduces your bodies ability to burn calories.However this is only when a low fat, low cal diet is followed.

A 13 week study on non-obese women showed that while one group restricted calories and remained active, they lost body fat. The group that maintained their normal eating pattern while incorporating an exercise regime, lost more fat. Cutting calories drastically, will always result in weight gain in the long term.

Maarit Korkeila and colleagues at the University of Helsinki, Finland followed 3536 male and 4193 female "dieters" aged 18 to 54yrs, for a period of 6 to 15 years and tracked their attempts at weight loss. After every unlivable "diet"self imposed by the subjects, weight gain resulted in the following years. Adding up to a steadily escalating weight as the subjects got older.

A lot of people tend to "panic diet" upon certain stimuli (to look good for a special occasion or after weighing themselves etc.) They want results like yesterday! However research shows; chronic dieting will get you nowhere, however a slight reduction in calories combined with more activity will work."

I would agree w/ the article primarily... i see better results w/ the cardio.

 

[Tha One CrumCake]

Definatly Eat them, then burn them.

 

[=w=]

This is good info so far - Do you guys think this would also hold true when bulking? Would I be able to stay leaner while bulking if I encorporated even more calories above maintanance then I normally bulk on along with some low intensity cardio?