I Took 20 YEARS....!!!

[Nelson Montana]

Now we're comparing going uphill compared to downhill? lol. This is the silliest turn of a thread ever.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Thank you. Exactly the point i was trying to make in regard to high intensity versus low intensity

This is hilarious. That is exactly why weight training is better than aerobics for burning fat but I know I'd get an argument over that too! lol

 

[Brapbrap07]

I wasn't referencing the uphill downhill post

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EliteFitness

 

[RickRock13]

This is hilarious. That is exactly why weight training is better than aerobics for burning fat but I know I'd get an argument over that too! lol

Who would you get an argument from? Isn't that exactly what I was saying? You are right.....this is hilarious

 

[RobertD1885]

Heart rate has nothing to do with fat loss and the calculation that's been used by all the personal training certifications is just "made up" bullshit.

http://www.cyclingfusion.com/pdf/220-Age-Origins-Problems.pdf

I am confused as the linked study does not even discuss fat loss, let alone prove that heart rate has nothing to do with fat loss. The study only demonstrates that the HRmax= 220-age prediction formula is incorrect. At the end of the study they suggest a better (but not perfect) prediction formula... HRmax=206-(0.685)*age.

 

[billfred]

Incorrect. You burn considerably more when running. The faster you go the more you burn. You sucked at science in high school right.

W = F x D