better, worse, the same

T0M_K

So I posted this question on my wall..got little response so far so I thought i'd poll the larger crowd.

Are the following two forms of cardio exercise the same, one better, one worse and why for fat burning.

1. Steady state cardio - say a 10 mile for 3 miles - 30 minutes
2. Intervals on a treadmill of - 1 min 4MPH walk, 1.5 min 7MPH jog for a 30 minute session

I know that #2 is NOT HIIT because its not intense enough, so the two may basically have the same effect of just burning cals and little to do with torching any fat per-say aside from the benefit of adding to your calorie deficit.

Thanks

rybo

It doesn't matter. Don't train for calorie burns, train for the physical stimulus and adaptation.
For fat loss, it's pretty irrelevant which of those you do.
Hopefully you are doing some strength training so minimize muscle loss.

DX2JX2

Anaerobic vs. aerobic isn't the end all be all at low to moderately intense exercise levels for weight loss. For all of the buzz that the 'fat burning' zone gets, anaerobic actually burns slightly more total calories all else equal.

For mileage-based exercise, it's better to measure calorie burn based on body weight and distance.

For walking (any speed below ~5mph), net calories burned is body weight (in lbs) X distance (in miles) X 0.31
For running (or anything above ~5mph, net calories burned is body weight (in lbs) X distance (in miles) X 0.63.

For a 200 pound person, option one would burn about 375 calories. Option 2 would burn about 330 calories.

Option 1 burns more because it covers more distance at running speed (3 miles vs. about 2 miles).

T0M_K

rybo wrote: »

It doesn't matter. Don't train for calorie burns, train for the physical stimulus and adaptation.
For fat loss, it's pretty irrelevant which of those you do.
Hopefully you are doing some strength training so minimize muscle loss.

Definitely, I'm doing stronglifts currently. plus a couple extra's like pullups/some dumbbell curls here an there. happy with strength training, just wanted to ensure I wasn't missing some benefit on the cardio side. I don't have really much weight to lose, probably down to my last 10lbs of fat or maybe a little less.

BrianSharpe

Running at a steady state will burn about 63 cal per 100lbs of body weight. With the intervals you'd be spending 12 min walking (that would be just under one mile & walking burns about half of what running does) and the other 18 minutes would be running 8.6 min miles or about 2.1 miles which would put you very close to the same distance as the steady state run but with about 1/3 walking so your calorie burn would be very slightly lower.

As rybo pointed out the purpose of exercise is fitness and health not calorie burns. Personally I'd probably alternate them as the intervals will provide a slightly different adaptive response as steady state does (for the same reason that I'll run steady state most of my runs but incorporate speed work once or twice a week)

Fat loss is a result of eating fewer calories than you expend and does not rely on the fuel source used during exercise. feel free to ignore the whole "fat burning" zone stuff as it's really only of relevance to endurance athletes.

T0M_K

BrianSharpe wrote: »

Running at a steady state will burn about 63 cal per 100lbs of body weight. With the intervals you'd be spending 12 min walking (that would be just under one mile & walking burns about half of what running does) and the other 18 minutes would be running 8.6 min miles or about 2.1 miles which would put you very close to the same distance as the steady state run but with about 1/3 walking so your calorie burn would be very slightly lower.

As rybo pointed out the purpose of exercise is fitness and health not calorie burns. Personally I'd probably alternate them as the intervals will provide a slightly different adaptive response as steady state does (for the same reason that I'll run steady state most of my runs but incorporate speed work once or twice a week)

Fat loss is a result of eating fewer calories than you expend and does not rely on the fuel source used during exercise. feel free to ignore the whole "fat burning" zone stuff as it's really only of relevance to endurance athletes.

that's really confirming what my last couple weeks have been. I've been doing some intervals one a couple mornings a week and then longer distance steady state running on weekends, plus the 3 days a week lifting.

Thanks!