weight training

ive been exercising for a long tym(1yr) doing cardio for 60 mins and a few crunches here and there. ive also been dieting /eating healthy. ive lost the weight butstill got a bit of tummy flab. will weight training help to get it more toned? if so any specifics? lunches? dumb bells?etc and how long to actually see the results?  thanx

There really isn't such a thing as get "toned". I think when people say that they mean lose fat, and that is best done through cardio generally. Weight lifting will build muscle for you, which in the long term will help you burn fat as well. Regarding your stomach issue, you cant spot reduce just one area. I would keep the cardio if you have fat to burn, but instead of always doing 60 minutes of steady state, try a day or 2 of high intensity intervals (HIIT). You probably need to change up your cardio routine a bit and intervals are the best for fat loss in my experience.

Also try core work, postures in yoga and pilates will help strengthen your stomach area outside of just doing basic crunches.

And finally building muscle in your upper body will help narrow the appearance of your lower body  - broader shoulders evens out larger hips and makes waists appear smaller, etc.

Diet, weight training and cardio...in that order.  Keep doing it.

A agree with the others.  Look at exercises that strengthen your core.  I've got somewhat of a belly left over myself.  I am working it down :-)

Why do people suggest 'strengthening the core' when someone wants a smaller waist?  Why don't we take this advice to other body parts? if someone wants to shrink their upper arms would anyone recommend bicep curls and tricep extensions?

Why are 'core muscles' so special that they get smaller the more you work them while other muscles get bigger?

When the core muscles strengthen, they tighten your midsection and stablize your lower body.  As far as biceps and triceps go, if you want lean strength, then you do more reps with lighter weights.  This creates lean muscle mass rather than bulging muscle mass.

She said she was doing crunches and I offered core work as an alternative to just crunches, I suggested the cardio as means to "shrink" the waist. I also agree with what wes said, core work will also help with her posture which helps with overall appearance. .

Original Post by floggingsully:

Why do people suggest 'strengthening the core' when someone wants a smaller waist?  Why don't we take this advice to other body parts? if someone wants to shrink their upper arms would anyone recommend bicep curls and tricep extensions?

Why are 'core muscles' so special that they get smaller the more you work them while other muscles get bigger?

 

Completely agree......focus on dropping the bodyfat

Agreed.  Core exercises tend to burn that layer of fat we humans like to develop in our midsection  ;-)

Original Post by floggingsully:

Why do people suggest 'strengthening the core' when someone wants a smaller waist?  Why don't we take this advice to other body parts? if someone wants to shrink their upper arms would anyone recommend bicep curls and tricep extensions?

Why are 'core muscles' so special that they get smaller the more you work them while other muscles get bigger?

 Remember the bicep is just a muscle but the core surrounds a gooshy soft middle.  Lax muscles will allow inside parts to bulge out.  Tight muscles better hold gooshy insides in.

Original Post by wesmckean:

Agreed.  Core exercises tend to burn that layer of fat we humans like to develop in our midsection  ;-)

 Exercising a certain muscle does not cause fat to be lost from the area the muscle is in.  Core exercises burn very few calories which leads to very little fat loss (and that fat loss is not directed at the fat covering the core muscles).

Original Post by obrules15:

 Remember the bicep is just a muscle but the core surrounds a gooshy soft middle.  Lax muscles will allow inside parts to bulge out.  Tight muscles better hold gooshy insides in.

 The core muscles surround the 'gooshy soft' internal organs, I think most peole are more concerned with their abdominal fat (which is on the outside of the core muscles) 'bulging out' than they are their pancreas sticking out.

This is an article posted by another user in one of the other forums.  It may shed some light on your situation.  This lady was doing endless cardio every week, but still had body fat - esp around her mid section.  Then, she started on interval training.  The before and after is very impressive.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by wesmckean:

Agreed.  Core exercises tend to burn that layer of fat we humans like to develop in our midsection  ;-)

 Exercising a certain muscle does not cause fat to be lost from the area the muscle is in.  Core exercises burn very few calories which leads to very little fat loss (and that fat loss is not directed at the fat covering the core muscles).

We'll just agree to disagree then....

Original Post by snapshot8d:

This is an article posted by another user in one of the other forums.  It may shed some light on your situation.  This lady was doing endless cardio every week, but still had body fat - esp around her mid section.  Then, she started on interval training.  The before and after is very impressive.

Interesting article, but my experience was different from hers.  I lost fifty pounds training for my first marathon and half Ironman, and I did very little "intensity".  As a matter of fact, I only lost 6 pounds training for my Ironman over six months that had a good bit of intensity at the end.  Who knows, maybe that is why I finally lost those six pounds.

I realize that it is harder for females to lose fat in the midsection, so everybodies mileage may vary.  But there has to be something to losing 44 pounds over 18 months going long and slow (running, swimming, biking), then losing a further six pounds over 5 months with higher intensity in the final 1-2 months.

IMHO

wes - were you eating the same amount when you were training for your marathon and training for your Ironman?

Thanks for the article, I had a very similar experience a couple years ago training for a triathalon. For me personally, long steady state does not do much for fat loss. At least it didnt for me. Heavy weights and high intensity cardio is what works for me.

Long steady cardio is how I lost 50 pounds in six months.  Of course I controlled my diet as well.

Original Post by amethystgirl:

wes - were you eating the same amount when you were training for your marathon and training for your Ironman?

When I started running, I switched to five meals a day.  I would eat 300 calories for breakfast, have a 100 calorie snack at 10:30, then eat a reasonable lunch.  I would then have a 1-200 calorie snack at 4 PM then a reasonable dinner.  What was reasonable for me was portion control.  No portion bigger than my fist and no seconds.

Training for Ironman involved long 8-10 hour days.  I had to fuel myself while training.  I would burn 3000 calories on a 7 hour bike ride but eat and drink 2000 calories while doing it.  When I got done, I would be starving and head to the nearest McD's for a 800 calorie meal.  It is hard to lose weight when you have to eat like this to train.  That might explain why I lost more weight training for my half Ironman, since I maintained the same diet of 5 meals a day as I did during marathon training.

My goal during marathon training and half iron training was to always stay a little hungry, but not enough to bonk during my training.  The more calories you burn and the less you need to eat to make it to the next meal, the better.

So, your weight loss when training for the marathon and half-Ironman was due to diet (deficit), and your lack of weight loss when training for the full Ironman was also due to diet (probably close to or at maintaining level, considering your level of activity).

It just seems a little misleading if all you point to was the type of exercise you were doing as proof of one working and not the other.  If you aren't at a calorie deficit (no matter how those calories were burned), I don't think anyone is suggesting you are going to lose weight, no?

Or maybe I'm missing something (came into the discussion late, and don't have time to go back and read carefully).

Original Post by amethystgirl:

So, your weight loss when training for the marathon and half-Ironman was due to diet (deficit), and your lack of weight loss when training for the full Ironman was also due to diet (probably close to or at maintaining level, considering your level of activity).

It just seems a little misleading if all you point to was the type of exercise you were doing as proof of one working and not the other.  If you aren't at a calorie deficit (no matter how those calories were burned), I don't think anyone is suggesting you are going to lose weight, no?

Or maybe I'm missing something (came into the discussion late, and don't have time to go back and read carefully).

 

 I think you hit in the real point.  We have a lot of discussions about what type of exercise is better or best for weight loss and the truth is it doesn't matter, what matters is deficit. 

The same happens when discussing what types of food you should or shouldn't eat and the truth is it doesn't matter, what matters is how much you eat; deficit to lose, equilibrium to maintain, and surplus to gain.

Edit: The type of exercise doesn't matter for weight loss, it does matter for other reasons such as health and / or other goals.