Latest news with #gymgoers
CNET
22-07-2025
- Health
- CNET
Lose Weight With Strength Training -- Here's How to Cut Fat by Lifting
Weight loss isn't easy, especially when you aren't sure exactly what kind of activity to do to get there. Although cardio is known to be the go-to for getting to that ideal body fat percentage, you can totally lose weight with strength training. It's easy to ignore strength training when you're focused on weight loss, but it's an excellent way to change your body composition, boost your metabolism and lose weight by burning fat. There are a ton of Reddit threads discussing whether aerobic exercise is the best for strength training or whether you should do strength training. There are varied opinions on this, but we know one thing for sure -- it is definitely possible to lose weight with strength training. You can actually use strength training to your advantage even if you're not a bodybuilder or don't spend hours at the gym. Strength training can help you build lean muscle, helping your body keep burning calories even when you're not working out. It's also not as heavy on the joints as high-impact cardio, which makes it a good place to start for all kinds of fitness levels. Whether you're just getting started with resistance exercise or aren't sure where to start, even two sessions a week can make for game-changing results in your fitness routine. Looking for more fitness tips? Check out how many calories you need to burn to lose weight, simple ways to shed body fat at home and how to achieve that elusive balance of losing weight while gaining lean muscle. Strength training can help you burn more versus strength training There's a constant back-and-forth argument about which is more efficient in reaching your ideal physique: cardio or strength training. According to New York City-based personal trainer Oscar Colon IV, cardio is ideal for burning more calories during a workout session -- and it's key to keeping your heart strong -- but strength training affects your body differently. "Strength training has a two-pronged effect because you burn calories during the workout and during the recovery and restoration of muscle groups you worked," he says. As a result, you get more results for your effort. It's still a good idea to incorporate cardio and strength training into a well-balanced fitness plan, so you can reap all the benefits. How much you do of one or the other may also depend on your current goals. If you're training for your first marathon, cardio will be your main focus as you build endurance, whereas strength training will be a priority when you're trying to get stronger or build muscle. Buillding muscle helps you burn calories even at rest. Getty Images How muscles affect your ability to burn fat As mentioned, strength training can help you burn more calories during and after your workout. This is thanks to the lean muscle you gain as a result of strength training. If your goal is to lose weight, having more lean muscle can help the process. This also means that the more lean muscle you have, the higher your resting metabolic rate will be. Your resting metabolic rate, or RMR, refers to the total number of calories your body burns when it's at rest. Biologically speaking, resting metabolism aids your organ functions, neurological functions, breathing and blood circulation. Rachel MacPherson, an American Council of Exercise-certified personal trainer, performance specialist and Garage Gym Reviews expert, explains that muscle is metabolically active, meaning it burns calories even at rest. Although the effect is small, it's significant and does add up over time. "This also helps to counteract the decline of metabolism and muscle mass as you age, which can contribute to middle-age weight gain," she says. Strength training also has fat-burning benefits when you're fresh off a workout. "Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption is the process of your body regulating itself back to homeostasis after a strenuous workout," Colon explains. In other words, you're still burning calories as you recover, because your body stays warm for a while as it cools down. Studies have shown that beginners tend to put on muscle faster than those experienced with strength training. Getty Images How long it takes to put on muscle Now that you know that lean muscle is the key component in fat burning, you're probably wondering how long it takes to build muscle. This will vary from person to person, as genetics, hormones, gender, diet and other factors play a role in how much muscle you put on and how quickly. "If you consistently train three to four times a week for 30 minutes each session, you should realistically start to see results in three to four weeks," Colon says. MacPherson says you can put on muscle mass each week, and doing a 12- to 16-week hypertrophy training program is ideal for seeing a significant amount of muscle gain. "You can expect upwards of five to 10 pounds of muscle gain during this time," she says, adding, "As you become more advanced you will need to work harder for less gain but you will still see results." That's another interesting aspect of strength training: If you're a beginner, you tend to have an advantage over someone more experienced when building muscle. This is what some people refer to as "newbie gains," which refers to your body's muscle-building response to lifting weights because it's not used to this kind of stimulus. Research has shown that untrained individuals (those with minimal to no strength training experience) can put on muscle faster than someone who's already experienced with strength training. Generally speaking, men and women also have different results when building muscle mass. "Men can build muscle mass much easier and faster than women due to testosterone, while women can still build substantial amounts of muscle but will never look as large or full as men unless they use anabolic steroids," says MacPherson. "It's vital that women lift enough volume and weight while also eating enough to support muscle gain." This means letting go of the old-school mentality of dieting and shrinking yourself, otherwise it'll inhibit your ability to build muscle. Besides a well-regimented workout plan, a diet that supports muscle-building is key too. "In order to build muscle, you need to eat in a calorie surplus with plenty of protein," MacPherson says. She explains that eating in a surplus will lead you to gain some body fat, which is normal and necessary to gain muscle. "You can lose it afterward and it will be easier since your body has become better at burning calories due to increased muscle mass." Strength training has excellent health benefits. Getty Images Other benefits to lifting weights Besides helping you metabolize and get stronger, strength training has other benefits. Colon says it's also important for bone development and density. "Weight-bearing exercises put temporary stress on your bones, sending a message to bone-building cells to take action and rebuild bones stronger," he says. Another benefit tied to strength training is reducing your risk of injury by improving the strength, range of motion and mobility of your muscles, ligaments and tendons. "This can reinforce strength around major joints like your knees, hips and ankles to provide additional protection against injury," Colon says. Another plus is for your heart, because strength training is shown to help decrease blood pressure. You can also reduce the chances of type 2 diabetes, improve blood circulation and lower LDL (bad) cholesterol. Exercise has been shown to even have a positive effect on your mental health and resistance training has been found to ease anxiety as well. Bottom line It's helpful to know the unique effects strength training has on your body as you establish a consistent exercise routine. Not only will you naturally burn more fat by having more muscle but you'll maintain strength as you age and improve other functions of your life as well. If you don't have access to a gym, you can start your exercise regimen at home and still get the same results, as long as you have the proper equipment. Even if your goal isn't weight loss or body recomposition, strength training provides many benefits that make it worth adding to your lifestyle, and it'll only improve your well-being in the long run.
Daily Mail
11-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Why women are paying £1 per minute to get muscly men with a 'maternal' side to hug them in train stations
Young, lonely women in China are paying money to 'man mums' promising them stress-relieving hugs. Muscular gymgoers have been charging 50 yuan (£5) for five-minute embraces, combining traits like 'gentleness' and 'patience' with their impressively brawny physique. Social media groups have praised the services, according to South China Morning Post, admitting they have sought out cuddles at places like underground stations and shopping centres to cope with daily stresses, including bad bosses or hectic academic schedules. One woman's post garnered more than 10,000 comments, the outlet reported, with a search for the term 'man mum' bringing up call outs from women seeking hug-services. But not just anyone can qualify. These men must have a particularly 'maternal' temperament and buff body type. Women often ask to speak with them before a physical meeting. As per SCMP, sometimes 'tall, athletic women' are sought out too. Costs range from 20 - 50 yuan (£2 - £5) for five minutes. In one social media account, a user explained how she purchased a coffee and book for her 'man mum'. After their 'brief hug', they simply chatted. Social media groups have praised the services, according to South China Morning Post , admitting they have sought out cuddles at places like underground stations and shopping centres to cope with daily stresses, including bad bosses or hectic academic schedules 'What made me happier than the hug was the warmth from a stranger,' she reportedly explained. Elsewhere, a 'man mum' himself added that he got a 'sense of self worth' from his work, while another - who earned 1,758 yuan (£180) in one month from hugs - said it allows him to soothe others' anxiety. He also admitted that while he works hard to ensure a good 'experience' - putting on make-up and perfume to elevate the hug - charging money helps him maintain a healthy emotional distance. In the same vein, women using the services expressed that keeping the service transactional helps avoid lines being blurred and boundaries becoming crossed. Online opinion has been divided - social media users have hit out at the practice, claiming that it was just a way to conceal 'physical desire'. Many also questioned why you would seek out a stranger's embrace - rather than that of a family member or loved ones. Another added that the trend was just 'a good example of monetising everything'. Others felt sympathy for those looking for hugs from strangers, writing: 'Jokes apart but I think half of the population in this world need hugs which they never get.' Online opinion has been divided - social media users have hit out at the practice, claiming that it was just a way to conceal 'physical desire'. Stock image used 'I would love to join this because knowing the situation each and everyone passing through the world really needs a hug,' another added. It comes following new research that suggests Gen Z are turning their back on traditional relationship styles. In December, it was revealed that the amount of young couples getting married has dropped by almost a third since the 1960s amid a 'deeply troubling' fall-off in matrimony, campaigners say. And trends indicate that fewer than six in ten of those born between 1997 and 2012 will ever tie the knot. Projections from the Marriage Foundation suggest that 58 per cent of women and 56 per cent of men in that 'Generation Z' age bracket will say 'I do' at some point in their lives. It compares with up to 67 per cent of millennials [born between 1981 and 1996], up to 82 per cent of Gen X [born between 1965 and 1980] and up to 96 per cent of the baby boom generation [born between 1946 and 1964]. Separate research suggests the decline of marriage among the young could be even more dramatic, with figures showing that only 15 per cent of men and 23 per cent of women have been married by the age of 30 – compared with 64 per cent and 77 per cent, respectively, in 1960. The Marriage Foundation – a charity set up 'in response to the epidemic levels of family breakdown' – says their figures reveal a 30 per cent in decrease in marriage among younger age groups since 1960. Its report, part of a study called The Collapse Of Marriage Among Gen Z, also notes that the UK now has the highest rate of marital breakdown since records began, with almost half of all children not living with both of their biological parents. It found that 80 per cent of couples stay together if they were married before their child was born, 68 per cent stay together if they married later on, and only 39 per cent remain together if they never marry. Researchers said: 'The trend away from marriage has profound consequences for stability and children's outcomes. 'We already have the highest level of family breakdown in recorded UK history. Nearly half of all teenagers are not living with both natural parents.' Sir Paul Coleridge, founder of the Marriage Foundation and a former High Court judge, said: 'If the current government really wants to improve the lot of 'working people' this is the area they should focus on. The effect would be very significant for individual couples, children and also on the Exchequer.'
Telegraph
18-05-2025
- Lifestyle
- Telegraph
I'd rather rent forever than do batch cooking on a Sunday
It's Sunday morning and light is streaming through the curtains, gently mottling your duvet with the promise of a new day. Your favourite newspaper awaits you on the doormat, a coffee (or tea) is moments from your lips and there is a robin offering its sweet song not far from your window. In this moment of bliss, a brief, idyllic respite from the vagaries of life, I offer a simple question: do you know what you're going to eat for dinner on Thursday? Have you already earmarked salmon, potatoes and peas? Is it casserole night? Are you the custodian of a freezer packed with fastidiously labelled boxes to provide the next month's nutrition? For your sake, I hope not. To have sucked the joy from food, one of life's great pleasures, in the name of efficiency, is to be grieved, not lauded. And yet, I'm urged more often than ever to give up that simple daily pleasure in the pursuit of saving time and money. Once the preserve of students and interminably focused gym goers, 'meal prepping' has broken ranks and forced its way to almost fashionable status. Shifting from economic necessity or protein-enforced drudgery, the soul-destroying act has become de rigueur, with social media accounts dedicated to boxing up your sustenance clocking millions of subscribers. Neatly arranged tubs are laid out across a kitchen surface and diligently filled with some combination of protein, greenery and carbohydrate, while victory is declared against having to think about food for the next seven, or even 30 days. But never has a victory been more pyrrhic – what benefit is there to be gained from working to make your life more miserable? Food is magnificent and joyful, and unlike most good things, which are by their nature scarce, expensive or damaging, we are forced each and every day to sustain ourselves, so we should embrace it. It has never been simpler to find quick and easy recipes – the 'easy dinners' portion of the Telegraph's recipe section alone runs to more than 600 ideas. There are a wealth of pasta sauces that can be rustled up in the time it takes to boil your spaghetti, with the simplest requiring only olive oil and garlic. But while I hate meal prepping or (shudder) 'batch cooking', it is only one miserable symptom of a wider, more pervasive trend that deserves even greater ire – the steady redefining of life as one in which efficiency is valued over joy. It is this school of thought that leads a millionaire to take his son's blood in order to live forever, or our government to insist we never take a risk lest we use the NHS. It is the theory espoused by the very people who bang on about their air fryer, never once telling you that their meals are made more enjoyable, only easier, quicker or cheaper. But what am I to do with the 10 minutes of time that the air fryer saves me, or the 6p per use saving over a conventional oven? Sure, I don't have to think about what Tuesday's meal is, but what if I don't want chicken and rice that night? Call me a snob, but there's more pleasure to be had from both cooking and eating than simple efficiency. The time and money we save from other activities must eventually be spent on something, else we'll rattle through our lives at a remarkably effective pace, never having gone to the pub, splurged on the superfluous or eaten what we wanted. If removing the joy from eating is the price of owning a home, I'll happily rent forever. When they bury me, at least my epitaph will read something other than: 'Here lies an efficient man'.
