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.
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
This doesn't make much physical sense to me. If work is force x distance, the distances are equal and the force is (pretty significantly) greater for the faster ride, how can the slower ride take more energy? How does Garmin assess calories burned?
Brian Sharkey, author Fitness & Health, the Human Kinetics book that is sort of a Bible of accessible exercise physiology for people like us
I appreciate for the reference, I'll give it a read.
I think the type and duration of exercise, though important, may be less important than the type and duration of the eating before, during, and after the exercise.
If you haven't seen it, check out this funny but sobering slideshow that computes how much time you need to run, swim, do hatha yoga, or have sex to burn off the calories ingested via staples of our fast food diet.
www.thedailybeast.com/.../
Sample: Chipotle Steak Burrito (tortilla, rice, black beans, tomato salsa, cheese, sour cream, guacamole, lettuce) = 1,125 calories
Running: 1 hour and 15 minutes
Swimming: 2 hours and 15 minutes
Hatha Yoga: 4 hours and 30 minutes
Sex: 3 hours 40 minutes
First, the bad news: A loaded Chipotle steak burrito packs as many calories as 14 pieces of string cheese. Now, the good news: You can burn the Mexican staple off in 3 hours and 40 minutes of sex! That is, if you can find a romantic partner after eating a steak burrito.
Now, the good news: You can burn the Mexican staple off in 3 hours and 40 minutes of sex!
So THAT'S what Elvis meant when he sang about "burning love!" :doh: The man was a true visionary.
So THAT'S what Elvis meant when he sang about "burning love!" :doh: The man was a true visionary.
or maybe he meant a reference to a veneral infection!
:
:
:
However, the great variability in response between individuals would preclude the prediction of both the "fat burning" zone and MFO, indicating a need for measurement in the laboratory. If laboratory testing is not possible, the practitioner or subject can be reasonably confident MFO lies between 60.2% and 80.0% of the maximal heart rate.
The above stands out for me -- your mileage may vary. There is a great difference in physiology between people so what works best for one may not work best for another. Keep in mind that it is an energy balance that will dictate weight gain or loss, I'd maintain that exercise regimen has a lot more to do with body composition.
I try to keep mixing things up so I don't hurt myself. The combination of aerobic and anaerobic workouts (swimming, lifting, yoga) has worked well, but it may not work as well for you. But the energy balance thing always works.
This is incorrect. The only time this would be true is when your walking speed and your running speed are about the same.
Thats' right. Over the same distance running will burn approximately 33% more calories.
