"The Crow" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:
Quoted message said:Hi.
I've read several times that if you want to burn fat, you need to do
slower lower aerobic workouts. I've also heard, an equal number of
times, that this is rubbish, and callories in vs callories out, is the
same equation whichever way you look at it.
What's the story here? Is it better to, aerobically speaking, workout
at a lower level for longer, in order to burn fat? And, if so, what
kind of level is this? I've been on the C2 rower before, and gone too
hard, so hard that I've ended up being sick. I've also trundled up and
down the slide for half an hour, getting gently out of breath and hardly
breaking sweat. In terms of fat burning, which is the right end of the
scale, and does it matter?
Thanks.
It's a misconception based on an actual quirk of physiology.
When you exercise intensely, you draw on energy stores within your muscles,
not on fat stores. If you exercise more slowly, and for long enough, your
body will be able to fuel your exercise from fat stores. That's where the
story comes from.
But if you exercise slowly, even though a greater percentage of the energy
comes from fat stores, you're burning calories at such a slow rate that you
burn less fat per minute than if you exercised more intensely. Furthermore,
once you've done your intense exercise, your body still needs fuel to get
through the rest of the day. Unless you go eat a piece of cheesecake, that
energy will come largely from fat stores. That's why, at the end of the day,
calories in/calories out is all that matters for most of us.
Hugh
--
Run like hell and let the clowns deal with the bull.
