What do you think burns more body fat?

Which is the context I was using it in, before miss feisty decided it was wrong, then went back to saying it's right, or whatever she is talking aout now. I think if I say the sky is blue, a few people here will start arguing about it and claiming it isn't. Sorry if I came across as argumentative,the geek in me wants to be precise.

I spent last 25 years being an engineering geek when I never really wanted to be one in the first place. I'm soooo over it, it's not even funny. Did you make as many basic "physics 101" mistakes in that job as you have in this post on the forum? Just wondering. Release the Kraken!

I think if I say the sky is blue, a few people here will start arguing about it and claiming it isn't. The sky is green with purple stripes.

I suspect lots of us have a burning desire to use our Physics 101 knowledge(see almost any thread involving swimming propulsion.) Calorie is useful in this context as it is the unit of energy traditionally ascribed to burning fuel,such as food and the bodily storing of energy(burning 1 gm carbs or protien gives 4 Calories,1 gm fat 9 Calories.It is generally said that you have to burn 3500 Calories to lose a pound.) Which is the context I was using it in, before miss feisty decided it was wrong, then went back to saying it's right, or whatever she is talking aout now. I think if I say the sky is blue, a few people here will start arguing about it and claiming it isn't.

:shakeshead: I think the real question here is how many armchair physicists it takes to derail a thread. :duel:

Sorry if I came across as argumentative,the geek in me wants to be precise. No problem :) Actually, you were the least argumentative, I was really aluding to couple other people, that I can't really figure out what their beef is. I hear ya on the geek thing, I used to be one..... I spent last 25 years being an engineering geek when I never really wanted to be one in the first place. I'm soooo over it, it's not even funny.

I've been doing 40 mins 2x a weeks since the begining of year...those who saw me in the fall last year and again at Zones or Nats can tell you if I looked leaner. I think I did but sometimes your eye sees what it wants to see. I don't diet or go without cake, cookies or beer...so I'm not ripped anyhow. I can tell you he's leaned out a lot using this technique. :applaud:

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.

To answer the original question, for a higher percentage of fat calorie burning, the long and steady approach clearly burns more fat than carbs. Moreover, you can do this a lot longer than the sprinting approach. Brian Sharkey, author Fitness & Health, the Human Kinetics book that is sort of a Bible of accessible exercise physiology for people like us, told me during a phone interview that he devotes one day a week to a many-hour long and slow workout, be this mountain biking, hiking, cross country skiing, or something else. He splits up the rest of the week with strength training 2-3 times and more interval-style high intensity training 2-3 times. www.amazon.com/.../0736056149 There are probably after burn effects and whatnot going on when you do a sprint workout, but very few of us can sustain more than a hour of really strong high intensity intervals, if that. On the other hand, a five hour hike or (in my case) four hours of tennis is not only sustainable but kind of fun. So, to answer your question: pragmatically speaking, you will do much better with the long slow approach, though I agree with Mr. Sharkey that if you are serious about performance, this should be just a part of your training. Parenthetical note: though I have not always agreed entirely with Ms. Conniecat's postings on other topics, her points here seem entirely valid to me, and I think it is perhaps time to consider cutting her some slack.

The sky is green with purple stripes. Haha, Fort! I heard that the sky is green with purple stripes too! Let's have a group hug now, kids! :cheerleader: