Best for fat burning----walking or running

[Nelson Montana]

Advaik: So close.

As one becomes more conditioned, less and less fat is burned. Hey, they just had the Marathon in NYC. I saw a lot of people with a lot of jiggle crossing the finish line.

Regarding jboldmans study: Eight women who lost a drop of fat isn't exactly conclusive proof. But lets examine the testing. The first 3 tests were in the fasted state. The final test was not. Well, a lot can happen from one to the next but what's MOST significant is the fact that fat loss slows down as BF gets lower. We all know that. And that's probably what happened here. Do the test in the opposite manner -- the first 3 runs with food and the last fasted and I'll bet the results would be the same. This is a perfect example of how tests are skewed, erroneous and/or misinterpreted.

 

[jboldman]

andy: Of course we ALL know that when someone in a research study says "significant" they are talking about statistically significant, so yes, there was a statistically significant difference and not only that, given that we do not lose weight all that fast per exercise bout and all that easily anyway while exercising, don't you think that a 32% increase in fat burning per exercise session is significant? I do! Just becasue the per exercise bout is small, in aggregate, the total could be much different, ah, 32% different.

Nelson: this same comment applies to you. As well as your criticism of the paradigm, your "betting" that the result would be different if the order of trials were reversed is a good suggestion for a further experiment but also a is a typical criticism of those that have no other hard evidince, what we have here is your opinion against a well controlled study. I will grant that the "n" is pretty low but it still surpasses "opinion".

As far as cardio vs no cardio vis a vis overall cardiovascular health, there was just a study posted in the NEJM(as I recall) that I posted that demonstrated that weight lifting resulted in a very large reduction in cardiovascular risk (good) but that a combination of weightlifting and jogging or walking was "significantly" better. I have also NEVER been able to find a single study that showed low intensity aerobics(of reasonable duration , NOT marathon running) results in reduction of LBM, rather the opposite, typically resulting in lbm gain. I really think that the myth of cardio causing loss of lbm was created by lazy bodybuilders and trainers.

The real question here, i believe, is what is the nature of the weight loss exeperienced as a result of calorie deficit in the absence of cardio? Is it all resulting from fat loss or is there a lbm component. I guess I will have to dig out my exercise physiology textbook and do some digging.

 

[jboldman]

andy: Of course we ALL know that when someone in a research study says "significant" they are talking about statistically significant, so yes, there was a statistically significant difference and not only that, given that we do not lose weight all that fast per exercise bout and all that easily anyway while exercising, don't you think that a 32% increase in fat burning per exercise session is significant? I do! Just becasue the per exercise bout is small, in aggregate, the total could be much different, ah, 32% different.

Nelson: this same comment applies to you. As well as your criticism of the paradigm, your "betting" that the result would be different if the order of trials were reversed is a good suggestion for a further experiment but also a is a typical criticism of those that have no other hard evidince, what we have here is your opinion against a well controlled study. I will grant that the "n" is pretty low but it still surpasses "opinion".

As far as cardio vs no cardio vis a vis overall cardiovascular health, there was just a study posted in the NEJM(as I recall) that I posted that demonstrated that weight lifting resulted in a very large reduction in cardiovascular risk (good) but that a combination of weightlifting and jogging or walking was "significantly" better. I have also NEVER been able to find a single study that showed low intensity aerobics(of reasonable duration , NOT marathon running) results in reduction of LBM, rather the opposite, typically resulting in lbm gain. I really think that the myth of cardio causing loss of lbm was created by lazy bodybuilders and trainers.

The real question here, i believe, is what is the nature of the weight loss exeperienced as a result of calorie deficit in the absence of cardio? Is it all resulting from fat loss or is there a lbm component. I guess I will have to dig out my exercise physiology textbook and do some digging.

To the guy who said, I'm not a women so this does not apply, well, what can I say!

 

[rj420]

well

while we are on the topic of cardio I might as well throw this in. Many BB's today are not doing cardio cause of the catabolic effects, and would rather achieve leaness through better diet and drugs. My ? is this: Isn't it important to raise V02 max, thus supplying the body with more O2 rich blood, less C02, lowering of Hydrogen Ions and lactic acid? Wouldn't better aerobic conditiong equate to better performance in anaerobic actions, leading to an increased anabolic environment? I know trying to do both simultaneously would render in anabolic failures, but shouldn't a cycle of both types of conditioning occur for the best possible output? Just wondering what you guys think.

 

[Nelson Montana]

jboldman: This is the problem:

You assume that because a "study" was done it is "hard evidence," as you say. But I just disproved the study! It was not well controlled! It wasn't even conducted properly! Yet, that logic eludes you. You say I am not offering "hard evidence."Logic is evidence, bro. A misconducted study is bullshit. But some people love the numbers and the titles, ya know?

And another thing. Just because a study doesn't exist doesn't mean something isn't so. A_LOT OF PEOPLE NEED TO GET THAT THROUGH THEIR HEADS!!! There isn't a single study to show that poking a five inch fork into my eye is any worse than poking a four inch fork into my eye. But LOGIC tells me it's gonna hurt.

BTW, there are plenty of studies that show aerobic activity lowers testosterone, so let it go man. You're wrong. BUT...you can do and believe whatever you want.

 

[guards]

I always assumed that the "running on an empty stomach" theory was to prevent cramping and elongate your run.


My 2 cents

 

[Triple J]

I believe the most effective running workout is wind sprints. However, given this is short bursts, perhaps it is actually anaerobic. I am just talking 60yd dash, folks. About 10 sets. Each sprint balls out. 1-2 minute rest in between.

This will result in a degree of maximum nervous system recruitment unlike what you will get in any weight workout. And it will stimulate GH output, having a stonger anabolic and thus fat-burning effect than any long distance run.

Of course you have to be in fairly decent shape to try this. And it can cause injuries if you are not.

 

[Andy13]

Re: well

while we are on the topic of cardio I might as well throw this in. Many BB's today are not doing cardio cause of the catabolic effects, and would rather achieve leaness through better diet and drugs. My ? is this: Isn't it important to raise V02 max, thus supplying the body with more O2 rich blood, less C02, lowering of Hydrogen Ions and lactic acid? Wouldn't better aerobic conditiong equate to better performance in anaerobic actions, leading to an increased anabolic environment? I know trying to do both simultaneously would render in anabolic failures, but shouldn't a cycle of both types of conditioning occur for the best possible output? Just wondering what you guys think.

I know what you are saying... And it makes sence..

But the next time you hit the weights, strap on one of those heart rate moniters (the one's worn by the folks in spin class).

Now see how high your heart rate gets when you lift.. Ex phys is not my bag.. But I would have to say that a good, 45min weight workout with only enough rest between sets so that you can walk out of the gym rather than crawl, would accomplish what you are trying to gain better than aerobics.

Andy

 

[Seth]

Counterstrike

how do you suggest for one to deal with shin splints? i started jogging a while back 2 miles 3 times a week tog et in shape but stopped for 3 months b/c shin splints never went away and got worst. If i start running is that too hard for a beginner or atleast one that been layback for a while? will it improve endurance and stamina faster than jogging? I want and need distance like up to 5-6 miles so I don't think sprint will work for me.

I get shin splints easily also. You have to take it slow, don’t increase speed or distance too much, and get a lot of rest, don’t run everyday.

You can also do exercises to help build your shin muscles. Sit on a tall chair and put a 5lb dumbbell on your toes and lift it up and down. Or sit on a chair and stick your feet under a heavy piece of furniture and try to lift it. It doesn’t matter if you can lift it, just keep trying until you feel the burn in your shin.

Also, go to a New Balance store and have them fit you for some good shoes. They have extra wide shoes and shoes to correct the way you run if you run on the inside or outside of your foot.
There are a lot of websites that have info on shin splints – the New Balance site has some good info.

Seth

 

[woje3]

The bottom line is calories in vs. calories out. You can run for 2 hours a day but if you're still eating more calories than your burning, your not doing too much good besides getting your heart rate up and strengthening your cardiovascular system. In terms of the way your gonna look, you have to take in less calories than you burn to lose fat, and also make sure you're getting enough protein to maintain as much muscle as possible. You don't burn the same amount of calories walking as you do running. Think about it, if you run for 20 minutes and burn 300 calories, walking you'd probably burn half that in 20 minutes. Their aren't any magic tricks to burning fat. DNP is as close as you'll get to that, but even taking DNP if your maintenance calorie level a day is 2400 and you take 200mg of DNP a day, you're gonna burn 2880. Some people think they can eat like 6000 calories a day because they're on DNP. NOT TRUE. It's more about hard work and a diciplined diet than anything else.