I'm not overweight but I was wondering what would burn more body fat:
long distance type of workouts with a lot of even-paced long swim sessions or sprint workouts with mainly sprint intervals.
Thats' right. Over the same distance running will burn approximately 33% more calories.
Is it because you move your arms more with running?
I hadn't had the chance to look through this thread, but it prompted me to review some past running and cycling activities on Garmin connect. For every activity, when I run or cycle a mile faster, I burn fewer calories than doing a mile slower. An example from last Sunday's ride:
Mile 2, 17.1 mph, calories 56
Mile 3, 13.8 mph, calories 68
Of course there are other factors in this, such as heart rate (which the Garmin takes into account as long as I wear my HR monitor), and elevation changes (which it also takes into account using online calculations), and I'm sure others I'm not addressing.
It is quite obvious that if I run a mile in 10 min, then stop, I'm burning calories for that full 10 min, plus the after effects. But if I run the same mile in 8 min, then stop, I only get 8 min of the full calorie burn, then whatever after effects there are. Are the after effects enough to offset 2 min less of exercise?
So I take from all this that if you are working out for an hour nonstop, regardless of the activity, you'll burn more calories if you do it faster. But if you are doing a set distance rather than time, you don't necessarily burn more calories running/cycling/swimming faster for a shorter duration.
Thats' right. Over the same distance running will burn approximately 33% more calories.
Is it because you move your arms more with running?
I hadn't had the chance to look through this thread, but it prompted me to review some past running and cycling activities on Garmin connect. For every activity, when I run or cycle a mile faster, I burn fewer calories than doing a mile slower. An example from last Sunday's ride:
Mile 2, 17.1 mph, calories 56
Mile 3, 13.8 mph, calories 68
Of course there are other factors in this, such as heart rate (which the Garmin takes into account as long as I wear my HR monitor), and elevation changes (which it also takes into account using online calculations), and I'm sure others I'm not addressing.
It is quite obvious that if I run a mile in 10 min, then stop, I'm burning calories for that full 10 min, plus the after effects. But if I run the same mile in 8 min, then stop, I only get 8 min of the full calorie burn, then whatever after effects there are. Are the after effects enough to offset 2 min less of exercise?
So I take from all this that if you are working out for an hour nonstop, regardless of the activity, you'll burn more calories if you do it faster. But if you are doing a set distance rather than time, you don't necessarily burn more calories running/cycling/swimming faster for a shorter duration.
