PDA

View Full Version : Stomach Fat


Slimeboy
February 19th, 2002, 03:42 AM
What is the quickest, cheepest & easist way to loose stomach fat?

Raptor
February 19th, 2002, 03:46 AM
aerobic exercise (running. cycling) first thing in the morning before you eat anything. Also eat less carbohydrates in your diet. You dont have to starve yourself, just eat less things like potato, crisps, bread etc.

BigJim
February 19th, 2002, 03:50 AM
best be in MM

Slimeboy
February 19th, 2002, 04:17 AM
thanks BigJim

Am I tight or not?
February 19th, 2002, 10:14 AM
there's no fast way to lose stomach fat, I'm afraid.

for men I believe that's the main fat storage and the last to go.

if you want to lose it you have to eat healthy and do lots of cardio. you'll start losing weight, but uniformly. eventually your stomach fat will go away too.
you can't just lose fat in one place.

blah
February 19th, 2002, 11:02 AM
There are many ways that you can lose weight. However, there are few ways that you can lose weight and keep it off. Some diets you may lose weight very fast, but you may starve yourself, lose muscle, and may others.

If you want to lose fat, then you need a combination of diet and exercise. When you eat, you want to make sure you are burning more calories than you are consuming. Usually you want this difference to be about 200 calories. The diet should be about 30% fat, 55% carbohydrates, and the rest protein. Make sure you don't cut out fat. Fat makes you feel full, and is essential for your health. If you do cut out fat, make sure it is saturated fat.

Now when you exercise, you will want a combination of weight training and aerobics. Weight training will boost your metabolism. Aerbobics (Cycling, Walking, Running, X-C Skiing, Swimming...) is a great way to burn calories. When you walk or run, the amount of calories that are burned are the same for the distance you run, not time. So, if you run 4 miles, you will burn the same amount as if you walk 4 miles. This would burn about 400 calories.

Also, make sure you consume as much water as possible!

Am I tight or not?
February 19th, 2002, 11:21 AM
So, if you run 4 miles, you will burn the same amount as if you walk 4 miles. This would burn about 400 calories.


this is very hard to believe.

the ammount of energy your body uses is proportional to the effort you make. running wastes more calories than walking.

for me, theoretically, in 30 minutes:

Walk: 3.5 mph (17 min/mi) 156 cal
Walk: 4.5 mph (13 min/mi) 194 cal
Running: 5 mph (12 min/mile) 311 cal
Running: 6 mph (10 min/mile) 389 cal

taken from http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/ju...te/calculat.htm (http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/jumpsite/calculat.htm)

blah
February 19th, 2002, 11:30 AM
this is very hard to believe.

the ammount of energy your body uses is proportional to the effort you make. running wastes more calories than walking.

for me, theoretically, in 30 minutes:

Walk: 3.5 mph (17 min/mi) 156 cal
Walk: 4.5 mph (13 min/mi) 194 cal
Running: 5 mph (12 min/mile) 311 cal
Running: 6 mph (10 min/mile) 389 cal



I don't remember where I heard it from, I'm a runner myself, and I think I read on Runner's World somewhere where they said that you burn more calories per hour (or any other unit of time) running than walking, but if you walk the same amount of distance as you run, then you burn about the same. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. :)

Raptor
February 19th, 2002, 01:14 PM
yeah the important thing to remember is that u cannot just burn fat inone place, u must lose it all. And doing crunches will not burn the fat around that area

Nightshade Enchantment
February 19th, 2002, 05:07 PM
To add on to what Raptor said, just doing crunches will build your muscles and possibly make your stomach look *bigger* especially if you're not adding aerobic exercises to your routine.

Selfesteemboy
February 19th, 2002, 06:04 PM
So, if you run 4 miles, you will burn the same amount as if you walk 4 miles. This would burn about 400 calories.


this is very hard to believe.

the ammount of energy your body uses is proportional to the effort you make. running wastes more calories than walking.

for me, theoretically, in 30 minutes:

Walk: 3.5 mph (17 min/mi) 156 cal
Walk: 4.5 mph (13 min/mi) 194 cal
Running: 5 mph (12 min/mile) 311 cal
Running: 6 mph (10 min/mile) 389 cal

taken from http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/ju...te/calculat.htm (http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/jumpsite/calculat.htm)


joules of energy used will be the same walking 4 miles or running, the difference is in the time interval, and j/s is equal to a watt...so the energy expended is the same,but this doesn't account for an increased metabolism with greater intensity...the body adjusts to high intensity to a much greater degree than low intensity exercise...

on a side note, jogging is much more damaging to the body than other aerobics, i would choose some sort of aeorbic workout that you can do very intensely for 15 or 20 mins

skittleknows
February 19th, 2002, 06:29 PM
if you see my post in the preffered physique thread you'll see that there are ways to cut down on puffy stomachs, although other than diet and rigourous excersize there is no way to get those awesome ricky martin/janet abs. The depouf technique is only temporary, once you stop. your tummy will get poufy again.

Barefoot Matt
February 19th, 2002, 09:49 PM
I like the "pouffy" and "depouf", etc. :lol:

skittleknows
February 19th, 2002, 10:38 PM
i used those terms because sometimes its not always flab, just genetics, water retention, gas etc. :D

skittleknows
February 19th, 2002, 10:40 PM
self esteem boy... is that you in your avatar? you're cute! :wink:

Selfesteemboy
February 20th, 2002, 01:32 AM
self esteem boy... is that you in your avatar? you're cute! :wink:


its my evil twin brother

goofball
February 20th, 2002, 11:42 PM
aerobic excercise is the fastest, because it burns fat directly.

anarobic excercise is more permamnt, because it raises your metabolism

ideally you want a combination of the 2

skittleknows
February 20th, 2002, 11:51 PM
self esteem boy... is that you in your avatar? you're cute! :wink:


its my evil twin brother

hehe :evil2:

Selfesteemboy
February 21st, 2002, 01:17 AM
aerobic excercise is the fastest, because it burns fat directly.
---no it uses the glucose(carbs) in your body first, then fat

anarobic excercise is more permamnt, because it raises your metabolism
---yes weight lifting or more intense interval training does

ideally you want a combination of the 2
---you dont need aerobics, intense weight training elevates the heart rate just as cardio does

Am I tight or not?
February 21st, 2002, 11:29 AM
aerobic excercise is the fastest, because it burns fat directly.
---no it uses the glucose(carbs) in your body first, then fat


for the first 15 or 20 minutes it burns sugar, after that it burns fat.

so 40 minutes of cardio = 20 minutes of fat burning. and doing cardio regularly is good for you. weight lifting doesn't improve your cardiovascular system (heart and lungs)

I've been doing cardio regularly for the past few months and I've lost about 10 to 12 pounds (I know I should be doing weight training also, but for now I'm concentrating on cardio)

Selfesteemboy
February 21st, 2002, 05:00 PM
weight lifting doesn't improve your cardiovascular system (heart and lungs)



the highest recorded heart beats were at some military base, a soldier was doing weight training in a circuit and got his heartrate over 210

wowzers
February 22nd, 2002, 10:07 AM
you burn more calories per hour (or any other unit of time) running than walking, but if you walk the same amount of distance as you run, then you burn about the same.


yah, thats pretty obvious if you think about it... cuz you expend the same amount of energy to lift your leg, but if you lift your leg faster for 30 minutes than you will have lifted your leg more times [and thus used more calories] during those minutes .........

Am I tight or not?
February 22nd, 2002, 12:14 PM
you burn more calories per hour (or any other unit of time) running than walking, but if you walk the same amount of distance as you run, then you burn about the same.


yah, thats pretty obvious if you think about it... cuz you expend the same amount of energy to lift your leg, but if you lift your leg faster for 30 minutes than you will have lifted your leg more times [and thus used more calories] during those minutes .........


running increases your metabolism (your heart beats faster, you breathe more and burn more energy in time) so even if you run the same distance in less time, running will still consume more energy in the end.

AbnormalBob
February 22nd, 2002, 04:08 PM
When you walk or run, the amount of calories that are burned are the same for the distance you run, not time.


i disagree here, at my gym, there is this little binder thingy that helps you on different muscle groups and other things, one of the sections was aerobic conditioning, it did say that time, not distance is important