[Lekgolo555]

What is the best way to lose belly fat, and keep it off? By best I mean safest, most efficient, fastest, convenient way to do it.

I box so my upper body is good, and I run so my legs are ok, but i have just this ring of fat around my belly, and sides that makes me look very unsymmetrical

[Mokele]

Diet and exercise.

Seriously, the idea that fat can be preferentially lost from certain parts of the body is a myth long refuted by actual studies. While your genes (including your gender) determine how you store fat (males often have a pattern your describe, myself included), your metabolism treats it all the same and burns fat from everywhere.

The best thing for you would be more running, since you do that already. It's actually far more metabolically expensive than boxing (don't be fooled by tiredness; big muscles in your legs can last longer before crapping out, but burn a lot more too), and can consume lots of calories quickly.

IMHO, you should try restricting calories a bit more than currently, upping your running a bit (but to something you can sustain and do regularly), and patience. It took time to put that weight on, and it'll take time for it to go away.

Mokele

[Bluenoise]

^^^ Yeah I second that. Lots of people think they get rid of belly fat by downing abdominal exercises. While those will build muslce in your stomac they will not preferentially remove belly fat. For that you need to expend more calories than you consume. Whether it be by exercise or dieting.

Well that or lyposuction. But that's really gross and pathetic, if you're doing it just to loose belly fat.

[Lekgolo555]

yeh I would never consider lypo.

Is swimming a good substitute for running because I really do not run that long at long. I cannot because my knees and feet start hurting and I just give up. I have been told in order burn fat while running, I have to at least run for 30 minutes first. I can barely run 20 minutes straight.

I thought that boxing was an HIIT type exercise. Do those burn fat as well?

[Lekgolo555]

Oh and is there a difference between running on a treadmill and run outside? I notice that I can run longer on a treadmill without hurting than outside.

[weknowthewor]

I vote for YOGA..

As consistent doing yoga help to reduce the body weight and increases the efficiency of human being.

[Mokele]

Quote

Is swimming a good substitute for running because I really do not run that long at long.

Very good, swimming will give you quite the workout too.

Walking also is fine. The calories burned per unit distance don't change between walking and running; you just burn them faster in running because you cover the distance in a shorter time. Running a mile and walking a mile will both burn the same number of calories.

Quote

I thought that boxing was an HIIT type exercise. Do those burn fat as well?

Pretty much everything burns fat, the question is how much for how long. HIIT seem to be good for cardiovascular conditioning (and may help you run longer as an effect), and boost your basal metabolic rate for a while.

Quote

Oh and is there a difference between running on a treadmill and run outside? I notice that I can run longer on a treadmill without hurting than outside.

It has to do with the compliance of the tread vs the ground. Treadmills are better for your knees and ankles than running on concrete or asphalt, but worse than running on dirt. During running and walking (but forces are higher in running), your legs are acting as shock absorbers. Some of the energy is absorbed by the muscles, but some is absorbed by the joints, and hard surfaces mean the joints have to take up extra the energy that would otherwise be dissipated by the deformation of the ground.

Quote

As consistent doing yoga help to reduce the body weight and increases the efficiency of human being.

Caloric expenditure in Yoga is minimal, and won't significantly help loss of weight compared to active exercises like running or swimming.

Mokele

[Rocket Man]

cycling is a good one, zero impact (normally) and you can go as long and hard as you like.
IIRC, the first 40 seconds burns your phosphates (a good hard start), the first 2 mins is anaerobic, the next 20 mins won't touch your fat stores. but after that, just go.

i never used to excercise, but i started cycling to commute and i clock up 70km every week on average.

[ecoli]

swimming is also zero impact, though not as satisfying in the winter.

[Mokele]

Quote

IIRC, the first 40 seconds burns your phosphates (a good hard start), the first 2 mins is anaerobic, the next 20 mins won't touch your fat stores. but after that, just go.

That doesn't sound accurate. While there will be a brief period as your lungs and heart gear up in which you're running on energy and oxygen stored in the muscle, 2 minutes is definitely not the case, even for a hard start.

Furthermore, fat is constantly metabolized, just as sugar is, including in muscular activity; the concept of a "cardio zone" vs a "fat-burning zone" is nonsense without a firm basis in science.

Honestly, it's really as simple as "calories burned > calories consumed". How you get to that state, and the degree of the difference is details; if you burn more than you ingest, you'll lose weight.

Mokele

[Bluenoise]

If you really do get pains in your knee's and feet after running for less than 20 minutes on a treadmill you may want to consider doing something about it. See a doctor, or physiopherapist. You can often overcome these problems by strength training your legs.
I spent the past summer working in Denmark. They have bike paths everywhere and most cities were faily compact. So I was doing about 2 hours of biking a day getting around, plus alot of walking. This was in stark contranst to the previous year I had spent living accross from campus never needed to walk more than 5 minutes. Well I have to say my knees seemed pretty shot after this summer of elevated activity.
I was able to remedy the problem by weight training my legs. Basically doing a combonation of lunges, squates, and wall sits. My pain quickly started to receed. I then incorporated some additional wieght (70lbs) while doing them, started doing a couple hundred jumping jacks a day (which only cause pain on the soles of my feet from bruising lol).
Now I'm pulling 40 minute runs every second day with no knee problems whatsoever. Anyways this was all of the recomendation of my doctor and physiopherapist, and worked really well. So you may want to see a doctor about this. She also said that a prostetic sole would help as I have a very large inner heel roll which effectively flattens my feet, though I do have a good arch in them. But that would have cost $400 and exercise is free :), so I decided to try that first.

Anyways if you cant run 20 minutes without knee pain you should go see a doctor to have them looked it.

It maybe something as simple as needing a better pair of running shoes.

[Lekgolo555]

thanks for the advice

I get pains i quess because i have high arches. That is one of the reasons why i want to lose, so i do not put too much pressure on it and cuz probs later in life

[Rocket Man]

Mokele said:

While there will be a brief period as your lungs and heart gear up in which you're running on energy and oxygen stored in the muscle, 2 minutes is definitely not the case, even for a hard start.

Mokele

i read that from a handout at a gym. it's actually pretty accurate. when i go on a hard start on a bike, the first 30-40 seconds are just flat out, i don't start really breathing until 1min30 to 2 mins later.
that's the point where lactic acid builds up and your joints ache.
after that, the pain goes away without reducing your load.
it said the first 20 mins run on blood sugar. when you run low on blood sugar, you start attacking fat.

[zapatos]

Weight training helps in losing weight. In addition to burning calories during the workout it helps increase your metabolism. This is due to the fact that the extra muscle you build requires the burning of additional calories during rest.

While any type of exercise helps you lose weight, it is arguably more important to consume fewer calories. You can wipe out the caloric loss benefit of running three miles per day with minimal snacking. And remember that all calories count. You can gain weight by eating too many fruits and vegetables.

[Marat]

A better approach than trying to get rid of abdominal fat as it appears would be to prevent its appearance in the first place. A major cause of caloric intake turning into abdominal fat deposition is beer drinking.

[Ahsan Iqbal]

Mokele, on 10 February 2007 - 07:45 PM, said:

Very good, swimming will give you quite the workout too.

Walking also is fine. The calories burned per unit distance don't change between walking and running; you just burn them faster in running because you cover the distance in a shorter time. Running a mile and walking a mile will both burn the same number of calories.

I don't think it is correct. Most of the energy consumed by muscles is not converted into mechanical work, but heat. And during running, greater amount of heat is produced per unit distance as compared to walking.

[CaptainPanic]

My advice to Lekgolo555 is to combine exercise with useful things. Cycling or walking to work, friends or the shops is great, and costs very little extra time (since you'd otherwise be waiting for a delayed bus, standing in a traffic jam, or circling around searching for a parking spot). That removes the excuse that exercise costs too much time. For me (lazy), exercise is a matter of removing enough excuses until I do it.

Mokele, on 11 February 2007 - 05:39 AM, said:

That doesn't sound accurate. While there will be a brief period as your lungs and heart gear up in which you're running on energy and oxygen stored in the muscle, 2 minutes is definitely not the case, even for a hard start.

I agree with you that 2 minutes sounds long for almost any exercise - except cycling.

My experience when cycling is that, indeed, the first kilometer or so, my breathing is significantly slower than the rest of the trip (although I don't hold my breath - I'm quite fond of breathing)... That period can easily be as much as 2 minutes. It's at this point worth mentioning that I do relatively serious cycling, and usually try to keep a constant speed through the whole trip.

Could it be that (1) cycling is mostly done by muscles in the legs which are big and can store more oxygen, ATP's, or whatever is needed (notice that I just cycle a lot, but know little about our metabolism), or (2) that the reason is that unlike running, the breathing does not need to synchronize with the movement of the legs because you're essentially sitting or (3) because in cycling you have gears and you can therefore optimize which muscles you use?

I'll expand a bit on (3) because I think it comes closest to making sense (but who am I to say that). I heard that we humans have broadly speaking 2 types of muscles: for explosive actions and for endurance activities. With running, although it is endurance, you also have some more explosive actions (parts of each step are like a jump). With cycling, the movements are much less sudden, especially when you choose a gear that you like, and therefore breathing may not have to go up so fast?

But then again - there's a reason I hardly ever post on the medical science forum, and lots on the engineering forum. Looking forward to hear if this post made any sense.

Marat, on 6 January 2011 - 06:31 PM, said:

A better approach than trying to get rid of abdominal fat as it appears would be to prevent its appearance in the first place. A major cause of caloric intake turning into abdominal fat deposition is beer drinking.

There is only one massive problem with the diet you advise, and that is that it involves drinking less beer.

[Ahsan Iqbal]

CaptainPanic, on 10 January 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

There is only one massive problem with the diet you advise, and that is that it involves drinking less beer.

Everything comes at a cost. If you want to look, better, you will have to pay the price for it whether it is in terms of drinking less beer or exercising for hours.