Intense 15-20 min cardio vs. moderate 30-45 min cardio

[Nobledude]

Would one burn more fat if he walks at a 4-5 miles/hour pace for 30-45 min, as opposed to a 7-8 miles/hour run for 15-20 min?

Why?
Tx

 

[*Bunny*]

I think the answer to this depends on way too many factors and you will get reasons why EACH would be better.

IMO you would need to find what works best for you, I had better results with shorter HIIT cardio sessions but changing things up or a mix of the two could also be a good thing.

If you dig around I am sure someone has once posted studies on why one is better than the other... not that those findings would hold true for everyone though.

 

[Windkun]

If you have the time I say you do a consistant moderate 30 or so minute cardio when you feel like you have free time during the day and dont wanna break too much of a sweat, then a few hours before or after do the quick intense burst.

I assume you'll get double the results you would rather than just doing one of them.

 

[Protobuilder]

Yes, b/c the body burns more fat than carbs at low/moderate intensities (assuming of course that 4-5mph is a low/moderate intensity for you).

But here's the bigger question that you're hinting at: does it MATTER whether you "burn fat" or "burn carbs"? So long as you're in a caloric deficit, you will lose fat. People get thin on intense intervals. They also get thin on long, slow cardio. In the end, the fuel burned during cardio is less important than overall caloric balance.

 

[JKurz1]

Would one burn more fat if he walks at a 4-5 miles/hour pace for 30-45 min, as opposed to a 7-8 miles/hour run for 15-20 min?

Why?
Tx

just do it first in the am.......walk on an incline........keep size and lose fat....

 

[SDHW]

Would one burn more fat if he walks at a 4-5 miles/hour pace for 30-45 min, as opposed to a 7-8 miles/hour run for 15-20 min?

Why?
Tx

you can use both, but if I only could pick one, it would be HIIT over the other any day of the week.

 

[pumped marbles]

Stick with the short, high tempo cardio. It will help your lifting endurance as well as keep the fat off.

 

[Rabid_Goose]

I don't think it matters really unless you are trying to shave off the fat to get to 6% Body fat or something obscene like that.

Otherwise, either one would be good because you are on a tread mill, doing cardio, burning calories. In the end, that is all that matters.

 

[Svetislav_aka_Waczlaff]

new trensport 'walking'... haha - never seen any people who 'walk' and are looking sportive - this is only a sport for lazy people who wanted to salve their consciences and fat people who misunderstand the fatburning rules.... or don't have the discipline/will and ambition to give all what they have and power out....
nobody can tell me that you will 'loose' a lot of fat and will change your body composition when you WALK for a while on a treadmill - it's not worth to wear sportsclothes for this.... intensity is the key for changing - if lifting or cardio...
HIIT-Cardio is very good for the cardivascolar systems and raise up to metabolic rate a lot - if you doing it really intensive.... 1-2x per week beside lifting should be enough otherwise you will feel burnout fast....

Fratzlaff

 

[tach]

But here's the bigger question that you're hinting at: does it MATTER whether you "burn fat" or "burn carbs"? So long as you're in a caloric deficit, you will lose fat. People get thin on intense intervals. They also get thin on long, slow cardio. In the end, the fuel burned during cardio is less important than overall caloric balance.

If you consider cardio by itself, it wouldn't matter. When you factor your weight training things may change.

A 5x5 protocol with squats/deads three times/week, combined with HIIT? heh good luck.