Couch to 5k - any good?

[browno]

Has anyone on here tried (and more importantly, been successful!) with doing this? The reason I ask is that I had a good telling off from my doctor yesterday for my weight as I was in for a scan with suspected gallstones, and they also found the beginnings on some fat deposits on my liver. That's definitely enough to give me a kick up the backside to do something! I'm 33, 6' and 18st and definitely need to shift quite a bit of weight - I don't drink much (an honest 2 pints a week, with big nights coming fairly infrequently). I've started being more sensible with food (mainly avoiding puddings and snacks at work), and that's helped me lose half a stone so far, but I know there's a long way to go - I'm setting my initial target at getting down to around 14 1/2 stone.

I know that less food alone won't do the trick though, and so need to do some exercise. I've been a member of several gyms and have found it too easy to find reasons not to go. Because of that, I thought about doing something from home - the first idea was getting a concept 2 rower (having used these in the past a fair bit, then know they're a great exercise, and thought the big cah investment might make me a bit more dedicated!).

Before blowing a grand though, I thought about having a go at running (which is something that I am not good at!), and came across the NHS couch to 5K podcasts. From the information I've read on the web, this could be a good plan IF I can stick to it. I live in a fairly rural area, so have got some mice quiet places to run from my front door (either road or over fields). My plan is to get some decent gear sorted (some decent trainers, I guess being a must-have) and start next week.

So, has anyone done this, and if so do you have any tips or words of encouragement to help me get going, and to stick with it along the way?

[pano amo]

hi Browno, I took up running a while back and I really enjoy it. It can be tough going at first but I promise you it doesn't take long to see and feel the benefits and as soon as you do, you won't need any more motivation. I wasn't overweight when I started but I was out of shape. I'm feeling at whole lot better these days. I tried gyms over the years and I hated them. Found it very hard to motivate myself in them and I got very pissed off with all the vain people constantly looking at themselves in the mirrors (and that was just the blokes!)

I don't know of this nhs initiative but my post is really just to say good luck and I hope you stick with it. It can change your life. Get out there, take it slowly and do a bit more everytime. In this month's Mens Running mag, theres a feature of an booze-loving overweight bloke who took up running. Might be worth a read for some inspiration.

[Myc]

I've also not heard of this NHS initiative but undertook a similar exercise attempt myself a few years ago.

I started of barely able to run a couple of hundred metres and ended up being able to run 6K very comfortably.

The way I did it was to simply start running very short distances think 400 metres, run 400m every 1 or two days for a week, dont be tempted to increase it towards the end of the week. Then run 600m for a week, then 800 etc etc. you will find by the end of each week the distances get easier. But at the same time you've not pushed yourself so far that you are risking injury or aching so bad te next morning that you dont want to do it again.

I'm by no means an expert, just mentioning something that worked for me.

I'm a fatty again now, thanks to a very bad leg break imobilising me for a while and am adopting a similar strategy to getting back in shape this time and already seeing my capabilities increasing after each session.

[supermd]

I think the Couch to 5k is a great way to get moving.
I started in about November last year, after no exercise for probably a decade.
I was really getting into it, got to end of week 3 and the snow started which scuppered me. Its a nice mix of walking & jogging, gradually going into more jogging less walking.
In the few weeks I did it, i can honestly say I felt better for it and looked forward to it after being desk bound all day.
I havent got the NHS Podcast, but use one from an American guy called Robert Ullrey. Its good to time the walking/running sections by but the music isnt exactly to my taste.
Now the snows gone I need to get motivated to start again, will probably go back to start week 2 again.
Good luck with it.

[browno]

Thanks for the encouragement - sounds like the couch to 5K could be the way to go then - with starting slow and building up...

My plan is to start tonight and take it from there.

The food is going ok so far - I'm using an iPhone app called my fitness pal to keep track of my food and calories and keep it to their suggested 1670 calories per day (which is the target it has generated for me to lose 2lbs a week).

I'll try to keep this thread updated with my progress - and to try and keep me honest so I don't slip back to my old ways within a week!

[Ordinary_Chap]

1670 Calories is waaaaaayyyy to low for a chap of your size.

Using the standard Harris Benedict equation I estimate your daily calorific needs to be 2790 calories (with no exercise) and most suggest a 500 calorie drop a day to be about the max unless you want to go extreme but if you do that you'll also end up with your body eating it's own muscle for energy.

I'd suggest you start with 500 calories a day less and then see how you go, if you are ok with that you may want to drop more but you must understand that if you start running on a regular basis your daily calorific needs will be much higher anyway.

So as an example if you run say 3 times plus a week your daily calorific needs will be somewhere around 3,600 per day.

If you want to understand more about this follow the below link and have a look at the standard equation for this;

http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/

Good luck and be sensibile, you don't need to starve yourself to lose weight. If you do it intelligently in fact you never need to be hungry and eating in this way will help to get rid of cravings too.

If you understand nutrition you shouldn't need to go hungry and you will also find it's the quickest way to lose weight over everything else. Exercise is a vital part of the process and will get your body going but the diet is what will strip the fat in conjunction with the exercise.

Without pimping myself, if you search for my thread I lost a huge amount of weight in less than 60 days and went from lard to a pretty decent shape, that was done with intelligent training and nutrition.

Here are a couple of excellent resources around nutrition;

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ - This guys is considered the genius of nutrition
http://www.brinkzone.com/ - This chap is all about good common sense and provides a ton of videos on different subjects.

Edited by Ordinary_Chap on Friday 14th January 10:35

[paulrockliffe]

In terms of training for weight-loss, it's difficult to see a better option than getting out on a bike.

If you can run for 5 minutes, you'll be able to cycle for 20 minutes, in a few weeks you'll be able to cycle for an hour and more. You'll take a long time to get up to being able to run for that long.

In terms of calories burned per minute, running is a more time efficient way of losing weight, but the key to weight loss really is the amount of time you spend training rather than the intensity. Nevertheless, biking up hills is pretty hard work.

Additionally, if you're 18 stone, you've a decent chance of injuring yourself through running because you're supporting your own bodyweight. You won't train and achieve your goal if you're injured. You're massively less likely to injure yourself on a bike.

Cycling is also a more practical way of getting around, so you could probably incorporate it into your daily routine a lot easier than with running. You travel further, see more and it's generally more enjoyable in my opinion.

[Ordinary_Chap]

paulrockliffe said:

In terms of training for weight-loss, it's difficult to see a better option than getting out on a bike.

If you can run for 5 minutes, you'll be able to cycle for 20 minutes, in a few weeks you'll be able to cycle for an hour and more. You'll take a long time to get up to being able to run for that long.

In terms of calories burned per minute, running is a more time efficient way of losing weight, but the key to weight loss really is the amount of time you spend training rather than the intensity. Nevertheless, biking up hills is pretty hard work.

Additionally, if you're 18 stone, you've a decent chance of injuring yourself through running because you're supporting your own bodyweight. You won't train and achieve your goal if you're injured. You're massively less likely to injure yourself on a bike.

Cycling is also a more practical way of getting around, so you could probably incorporate it into your daily routine a lot easier than with running. You travel further, see more and it's generally more enjoyable in my opinion.

Why is the key to fat loss amount of time spent?

Can you back that up with facts?

[supermd]

I like cycling, but it requires more equipment, bike, lights, helmet etc. And the dark nights arent the greatest to go for a ride in.
With jogging, you pretty much need a pair of trainers.
Your right though, its easy enough for a big guy to strain something running. Be careful of your knees especially.
I've got a playing field near me and I pretty much run laps on that, when I say run, its a slow jog at best. I find running on the road or path harder on the joints, and uneven paving and surfaces increase the chances of hurting yourself.

[okgo]

If you can run for 5 mins you can cycle for twenty?

What utter tosh.

[Georgiegirl]

I quite fancy doing this too! Whats the gist of it, is it like walk a minute run a minute etc?

[paulrockliffe]

Ordinary_Chap said:

paulrockliffe said:

In terms of training for weight-loss, it's difficult to see a better option than getting out on a bike.

If you can run for 5 minutes, you'll be able to cycle for 20 minutes, in a few weeks you'll be able to cycle for an hour and more. You'll take a long time to get up to being able to run for that long.

In terms of calories burned per minute, running is a more time efficient way of losing weight, but the key to weight loss really is the amount of time you spend training rather than the intensity. Nevertheless, biking up hills is pretty hard work.

Additionally, if you're 18 stone, you've a decent chance of injuring yourself through running because you're supporting your own bodyweight. You won't train and achieve your goal if you're injured. You're massively less likely to injure yourself on a bike.

Cycling is also a more practical way of getting around, so you could probably incorporate it into your daily routine a lot easier than with running. You travel further, see more and it's generally more enjoyable in my opinion.

Why is the key to fat loss amount of time spent?

Can you back that up with facts?

It's a fact that if you burn calories at a rate of x, if you train for twice as long you'll burn 2x calories.

From my own experience, if I burn x calories running for a period of time, I'll burn 0.7x calories cycling for the same period of time. What is key is that if I'm fit enough that a steady run is about an hour, then a similarly steady bike ride would be around 3 hours conservatively. If we assume 1000 calories an hour for running then those sessions give you 1000 calories used running against 2100 calories cycling.

Obviously if you're time-limited to an hour, or whatever running is more efficient, but that goes back to what I'm saying about the more time you put in, the more weight you will lose.

It's unlikely that the example in this thread is time-limited, but is fitness limited, so if we re-work the example assuming the subject is capable of only running for 10 minutes running would be 167 calories, but he would be capable of cycling for 30 minutes conservatively, which is 350 calories.

I've not touched on the fat-burning zone theory, because I don't know more than the basic principle, I don't know how it translates into the real world, but for someone that is unfit running is likely to push their heart above the optimum fat burning level, whereas the generally lower heart rate that would occur with cycling would keep them in the fat burning zone. That being the case, this would bring the rate of calories burned that translate into weight loss closer together.

[paulrockliffe]

okgo said:

If you can run for 5 mins you can cycle for twenty?

What utter tosh.

If I told you to run until your legs fell off, how long would that be? If you did the same on a bike, how long would that be?

[okgo]

I was suggesting that cycling is VERY VERY easy compared with running.

Anyone can cycle for 1 hour unless they're over 25 stone, not everyone can run for 5 mins though.

[Ordinary_Chap]

paulrockliffe said:

Ordinary_Chap said:

paulrockliffe said:

In terms of training for weight-loss, it's difficult to see a better option than getting out on a bike.

If you can run for 5 minutes, you'll be able to cycle for 20 minutes, in a few weeks you'll be able to cycle for an hour and more. You'll take a long time to get up to being able to run for that long.

In terms of calories burned per minute, running is a more time efficient way of losing weight, but the key to weight loss really is the amount of time you spend training rather than the intensity. Nevertheless, biking up hills is pretty hard work.

Additionally, if you're 18 stone, you've a decent chance of injuring yourself through running because you're supporting your own bodyweight. You won't train and achieve your goal if you're injured. You're massively less likely to injure yourself on a bike.

Cycling is also a more practical way of getting around, so you could probably incorporate it into your daily routine a lot easier than with running. You travel further, see more and it's generally more enjoyable in my opinion.

Why is the key to fat loss amount of time spent?

Can you back that up with facts?

It's a fact that if you burn calories at a rate of x, if you train for twice as long you'll burn 2x calories.

From my own experience, if I burn x calories running for a period of time, I'll burn 0.7x calories cycling for the same period of time. What is key is that if I'm fit enough that a steady run is about an hour, then a similarly steady bike ride would be around 3 hours conservatively. If we assume 1000 calories an hour for running then those sessions give you 1000 calories used running against 2100 calories cycling.

Obviously if you're time-limited to an hour, or whatever running is more efficient, but that goes back to what I'm saying about the more time you put in, the more weight you will lose.

It's unlikely that the example in this thread is time-limited, but is fitness limited, so if we re-work the example assuming the subject is capable of only running for 10 minutes running would be 167 calories, but he would be capable of cycling for 30 minutes conservatively, which is 350 calories.

I've not touched on the fat-burning zone theory, because I don't know more than the basic principle, I don't know how it translates into the real world, but for someone that is unfit running is likely to push their heart above the optimum fat burning level, whereas the generally lower heart rate that would occur with cycling would keep them in the fat burning zone. That being the case, this would bring the rate of calories burned that translate into weight loss closer together.

The reason the question was asked is because most sports scientists now seem to believe that intensity is more important than duration. I'm open to new or old ideas on training and was wondering where your logic is coming from.

It's the reason for the popularity of HIIT training. Personally I've had spectacular results with HIIT training where as I used to train for long amounts of time in the gym.

If the intensity is massively increased, then generally so is the amount of calories used so using time to define calories alone will never work in any scenario.

I'm not suggesting the op should carry out HIIT training but I am suggesting long duration cycling may not be the be all and end all of cardio work and I'd not recommend he just cycles either since he will never build all round fitness doing that.

I think the wise thing for the OP to do is run and aim to run for 15 mins and keep extending how long he can run for in the first instance, that will build fitness and have a very positive effect on fat loss.

HIIT training is generally for those with a reasonable fitness level and above as it's pretty brutal on the body.

Also the fat burning zone is pure nonesense in my book since it doesn't work at all until you are of a decent fitness level since most exercises will cause you to breach the zone it targets.

[paulrockliffe]

okgo said:

I was suggesting that cycling is VERY VERY easy compared with running.

Anyone can cycle for 1 hour unless they're over 25 stone, not everyone can run for 5 mins though.

Ok, we're in agreement on that then, I was being conservative because I'm not sure how it extrapolates either side of my personal experience. Eg, if 5 minutes running translates to an hour cycling, I'd be able to bike for about a day and a half. It's a non-linear translation I think, so better to er on the side of caution when using it to support a point of view.

[paulrockliffe]

Ordinary_Chap said:

The reason the question was asked is because most sports scientists now seem to believe that intensity is more important than duration. I'm open to new or old ideas on training and was wondering where your logic is coming from.

It's the reason for the popularity of HIIT training. Personally I've had spectacular results with HIIT training where as I used to train for long amounts of time in the gym.

If the intensity is massively increased, then generally so is the amount of calories used so using time to define calories alone will never work in any scenario.

I'm not suggesting the op should carry out HIIT training but I am suggesting long duration cycling may not be the be all and end all of cardio work and I'd not recommend he just cycles either since he will never build all round fitness doing that.

I think the wise thing for the OP to do is run and aim to run for 15 mins and keep extending how long he can run for in the first instance, that will build fitness and have a very positive effect on fat loss.

HIIT training is generally for those with a reasonable fitness level and above as it's pretty brutal on the body.

Also the fat burning zone is pure nonesense in my book since it doesn't work at all until you are of a decent fitness level since most exercises will cause you to breach the zone it targets.

Ok, you might be right, but I suspect it depends on the individual circumstances. If the basic fitness isn't there to sustain a high intensity for a suitable period of time, then the calories burned will be low or negligible. If you're fit enough to run 10 miles in under an hour, you're going to burn a lot of calories, but if you're not fit enough to run for more than 5 minutes, running isn't going to contribute much to weightloss, no matter how hard your heart is working.

My advise is purely in the context of someone who's stated aim is to lose weight. If there was a desire to build muscle/improve definition etc, then I'd recommend something else as well as cycling, but I'd also advise to concentrate on reducing weight first if there are time constraints. I do think that cycling strikes the best balance between rate of calories burn, perceived effort, duration achievable and injury prevention, but running is more convenient and generally cheaper. Though you could pay £100 for a pair of trainers and £50 for a bike if you chose to.

I admit I'm not up to speed with the science, but if I was being sceptical I'd want to know what the vested interest of the research you mention is; you're talking about the sort of classes that personal trainers and gyms can charge £5-£10 a pop from and don't take up a lot of time. So they fit in with time-restricted lifestyles and bring more money to an industry. I'm not saying that's what's happening at all and I know from experience that those sorts of classes are very good training, but I'd want to know a lot more before agreeing that they were an optimum way of losing weight.

Agree re fat burning zones, if you're unfit and cycle at 120bpm, you're probably not doing any work at all, you'd need to do it for hours. Probably there's a more appropriate measure than heart rate that takes fitness into account, but would be impractical to measure.

[BigTuna]

I've done couch to 5k a number of times it's a brilliant way of getting into running or building cardio back up, once you get to the 5k mark which is 30 minutes of constant running you'll find it very easy to add distance onto your runs.

[browno]

Looks like I've started some healthy debate here anyway!

Firstly, thanks for picking up on the calories - the thing I was using gave me that number as being what I should use (with extra allowed to cover any exercise) - looking further it's seeming way out - so I'll change that!

The good news is that I have finished my first run - I managed 2.01 miles in 31.24 at an overall average of 15.38/mile. I was definitely tired at the end, and had to slow to a walk early on my 3rd running segment since I was going up a reasonable hill - but overall feel like it was manageable.

I'll see if it has any nasty effects tomorrow, but am pleased with my first step on the way. Next run will be Monday (I'm off to the PH show on Sunday, so will do lots of walking!) - will update again then...

[browno]

Time for another update. Just back from run 2 of week 1, and all is going very well. Managed to keep running on all sections (even though it worked that most of my runs were uphill!) and feel good after.

The other good news is that I've seen an improvement - today was 33.04 and I ran 2.24 miles at an average of 14.46/mile. Really pleased that by using run keeper on my phone I can really see an improvement and quantify what I felt was better.

Bring on Wednesday for run 3...