Running vs Walking for fat burning

[Raw1]

Pintoca That pretty good man! Sounds good Synpax- ill do that... One more thing Does it really make that big of a diffrence if i work out before breakfast? Let me know what you guys think.

 

[texasbrainsandbeef]

damn this is a good thread.

 

[Synpax]

Pintoca That pretty good man! Sounds good Synpax- ill do that... One more thing Does it really make that big of a diffrence if i work out before breakfast? Let me know what you guys think.

Empty stomach is what I've read in a book on the subject but I do not have any science behind that. I can speculate though and see how it makes sense.

Just get a nice protein shake after.

 

[redguru]

Here's a question, may be a stupid one. When you say 75-85% MHR, do you mean 75-85% of the difference between RHR and MHR or 75-85% of absolute MHR?

 

[sublime35]

Here's a question, may be a stupid one. When you say 75-85% MHR, do you mean 75-85% of the difference between RHR and MHR or 75-85% of absolute MHR?

It means 75-80% of MHR.

I have something to add about how high intensity burns more cals from fat and cals. in general. I couldn't find the original article but this site pretty much sums it up.
http://www.health-care-information....low-intensity-training-isn-t-the-best-fo.html

Here's part of it that shows what I'm talking about.

"Low-intensity training burns about 50% fat for energy while high-intensity training burns about 40% fat for energy. This is not a huge difference.

Say, for example, walking for 20 minutes burns 100 calories. Then 50% of 100 calories is 50 fat-calories burned.

Now say 10 minutes of interval training at a high intensity burns 160 calories. Well, 40% of 160 calories is 64 fat-calories burned.

By doing the high-intensity work, you’ve just burned 14 more fat calories in half the time. Starting to sound good? There’s more... "

 

[Synpax]

It means 75-80% of MHR.

I have something to add about how high intensity burns more cals from fat and cals. in general. I couldn't find the original article but this site pretty much sums it up.
http://www.health-care-information....low-intensity-training-isn-t-the-best-fo.html

Here's part of it that shows what I'm talking about.

"Low-intensity training burns about 50% fat for energy while high-intensity training burns about 40% fat for energy. This is not a huge difference.

Say, for example, walking for 20 minutes burns 100 calories. Then 50% of 100 calories is 50 fat-calories burned.

Now say 10 minutes of interval training at a high intensity burns 160 calories. Well, 40% of 160 calories is 64 fat-calories burned.

By doing the high-intensity work, you’ve just burned 14 more fat calories in half the time. Starting to sound good? There’s more... "

I looked at that article and there is no science behind it.

It's simple - your body can only burn, at best, X calories from fat. So why not get your body in that 'zone' and go no faster - so that you can hold that speed for the longest period of time and preserve glycogen for the gym.

I can literally show you the chart from my own V02 Max test showing the types of fuel my body is burning and this is as clear as day. Depending on how an injury resolves, I'll do another one this week and will post it up.

 

[sublime35]

thats awesome. Where can you get that done? Any old doctor or health facility?

 

[Synpax]

At the facilities of an elite training company or maybe at a university with a big phys ed department. In MS, I'd go for the latter. I'm sure the school of one of those big football teams they like down there has a facility.

Costs range from $100+ for tests, but might be cheaper at a uni.

 

[Improvise]

I am the "buddy" that distortion is talking about. I was basically trying to tell him the exact thing that synpax is saying. Your body only burns glyco for the first 15-20 mins of cardio, it is not till after that till you really start to burn fat. For cardio, all I do is 60 minutes of walking intervals at an incline on a treadmill. I do intervals of 3 minutes at the highest incline and no incline. I usually burn about 650 cals doing this and it's simple.

You don't need to wear yourself out by running 2 miles. If you can run for an hour, then good - DO IT, but whats the point when you can burn the same amount of fat by simply getting your heart rate up for a longer period of time?

I work at a club in northern California and we do offer the V02 Test or Metabolic Test. I haven't done it yet but it is the BEST way to do cardio. It costs $150 for the test and we design a 3 month cardio program for you to do. It is easily the best way to do cardio and burn fat.

 

[necr0potenc3]

Know what the most important training event is for most track and distance athletes (other than super short sprinters?) The long run.

funny, what about fartlek and all of it's variations that include high intensity periods with low intensity ones? its also proven that HI/LI periodization brings more anaerobic and aerobic gains than simply one or another (strict) type of training. in addition, atheletes don't train in a single method, they use several programs in a year or so. sticking solely to one thing is stupid

the heart zone for fat loss is 60-70% (not bigger than 75%) of the MHR. and... argh... the usage of fast twitch or slow twitch fibers has nothing to do with the heart rate. its about the intensity applied to the muscle


sorry but you guys have an annoying simplistic view of things. "your body has only two sources of energy" and "the important is how many calories you burn during the exercise" hurt my eyes. the thing about heart rate and fast/slow twitch fibers... =/

I already talk about this whole "burn glycogen or fat" view in the "What should I do to burn fat withouth burning muscles" topic:
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?t=388678