Rowing machine or Treadmill… help!

Options
2»

Replies

  • TeamScorpioRI
    TeamScorpioRI Posts: 56 Member
    Options
    I had the same decision to make the other week, and I went with the rower. Engages more muscles, and is low impact so it should be easier on those knees. Plus they take up less space than a treadmill (which was also a big deal for me).

    I got a decent deal at Dicks Sporting Goods for mine. They had a deal on a Sunny Fitness rower. Was $400, marked down to $250. Its nothing fancy, but it gets the job done
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,398 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    aCountryVegan wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    There is not fat burning zone, as: not a zone where the body burns fat relative to... what actually? Also, this whole method is woo pretty much as about 35% of all people have a HR where this method would result in them overdoing things or not doing anything at all. Heck, my running HR is usually just below 180, and has been for the past 8 years. Does that mean I'm still a toddler?
    But yes, starting very slowly is important, and actually is the most important thing to do when starting to run.

    When you run you are either using fat or carbs as a fuel source. If you run in your MAF zone which is close to your HR zone 2 or lower, you will be primarily burning fat and not as much carbs. As you get your HR into zone 3 you start burning a mixture and once you go anaerobic you are burning primarily carbs. If you want to lose weight fast stay in zone 2 or below.

    Most runners will say that they can never run via MAF training, because its too slow, but once they do it, they are amazed at how poor their aerobic system really is and that is the purpose of running slower to run faster, building that aerobic base. Don't knock something unless you have tried it. The science behind this has been researched for over 40 years.
    https://philmaffetone.com/

    Really, it doesn't matter.

    If you're in a calorie deficit overall, you'll burn fat sooner or later to make up that deficit. It doesn't matter if you burn it in the moment during exercise, or later while you're asleep, or anytime in between.

    The idea of doing more moderate workouts to improve conditioning and speed is kind of motherhood and apple pie, very reasonable. That's a training effectiveness reason. For fat burn, what matters is the calorie deficit. Any exercise burns more calories than not doing the exercise, which can increase one's calorie deficit, but I'd still argue that going all in on exercise to create calorie deficit is a sub-ideal strategy for both fitness and weight loss.

    After all, we burn nearly 100% fat when we're asleep. Does sleeping more result in faster weight loss? Of course not. The mix of moderate and intense exercise is more about training effects, not fat loss . . . unless/until excess fatigue is triggered (can reduce all day calorie burn) or in a training situation where fueling strategy matters.

    Endurance athletes need to worry about when/whether they're burning relatively higher percentages of fat vs. glycogen, because the fast-access glycogen is somewhat limited in long-duration exercise, and needs to be managed well for best performance results. For people who are not endurance athletes, the fat-burning zone is mostly academic, not a practical consideration.

    This! All of this. Damn you, different time zones!

Categories