ONLY WAY TO DO SO!!!!!!!

JEK717

Hello all you fellow MFP users. I know that you all are busy exercising so i will keep this short. I wanted to let others know this VERY important fact and what better way then to put it here. Okay so here is the fact.

THIS IS FOR WEIGHT LOSS USING CARDIO-RESPIRATORY EXERCISES ONLY:
When you are exercising in either moderate or high intensity, the first 20 minutes means YOU WILL ONLY BURN THIS MORNING'S biscuit, egg and coffee AND LAST NIGHT'S MID-NIGHT SNACK. YOU WILL NOT BURN FAT. That is very important so i “bold” it After this 20 minutes, in which you must be doing moderate to high (this does NOT include low intensity), you will start to burn fat up to ONE HOUR. Therefore, from that first 20 minutes on up to one hour you will burn fat. After this NO MATTER HOW LONG OR HOW HARD YOU EXERCISE, YOU WILL NOOOOTTTT BURN ANY MORE FAT AFTER ONE HOUR. Why is that you may ask? Well your body is protecting itself. Imagine if you could burn fat as soon as possible and as long as your wanted to go at it. This would make your body burn ALL of your fat, even the necessary fat, and then it would start burning ANYTHING ELSE. So once, you have been doing a cardio-respiratory exercise for an hour, if you are ONLY doing it to lose weight, you might as well stop because your body has STOPPED BURNING FAT. If you exercise one hour in the mourning and one hour at night then you will receive BOTH benefits but other than that, NADA. You must have a few HOURS between exercises for it to actually give you the result you want.
IN ADDITION, YOU MUST HAVE AN ELEVATED OR RAISED HEART RATE TO LOSE WEIGHT. Therefore, this means NO WINDOW SHOPPING WALKING. If you are trying to lose weight then the ONLY WAY TO DO SO IS TO DO EXERCISES THAT RAISE YOUR HEART BEAT, (be cautious of how high though.).
Stay tuned for more helpful tips by Ellie

JEK717

So this does NOT help ANYONE:(

LarryPGH

from that first 20 minutes on up to one hour you will burn fat. After this NO MATTER HOW LONG OR HOW HARD YOU EXERCISE, YOU WILL NOOOOTTTT BURN ANY MORE FAT AFTER ONE HOUR.

umm... pardon? ok -- let's suppose you exercise for two hours. in that 20min-to-60-min period, when you claim there's fat burning going on, you're burning calories, right?

ok, then -- in that second hour, when you claim that you're not burning calories, you're... wait for it... burning calories, right? sooooo... if you maintain a net calorie deficit, you're depleting your fat reserves. end of story.

doesn't really matter when you "burn your breakfast" or "burn fat", as long as you maintain a deficit that adds up to 1-2 lbs / week of weight loss, then you're losing weight in a healthy way. period.

humblemonkey

ok so maybe im just stupid and confused??
youre saying that if you were to do a double workout day...i.e.- do 45 minutes or so of pure cardio in the am (running, what-not)...then do something like p90x in the afternoon/evening...most of that second workout would be null and void??

JEK717

To Larry:
I said you will not be burning FAT, you still will be burning calories. Whenever you exercise you burn calories. If you wanted to exercise for 3 hours you will still benefit from it. You will still burn calories and your metabolism will increase. But if you are looking to burn fat that you will NOT BURN MORE THAN WHAT YOU CAN BURN IN ONE SINGLE HOUR EVERY FEW HOURS OF EXERCISE. Period:)

JEK717

ok so maybe im just stupid and confused??
youre saying that if you were to do a double workout day...i.e.- do 45 minutes or so of pure cardio in the am (running, what-not)...then do something like p90x in the afternoon/evening...most of that second workout would be null and void??

Let's say you exercise at 9 am. And you do a full hour. You have to wait a few hours between your next exercise before you will be burning fat again. You will STILL be burning calories and will STILL benefit from exercise but you will NOT BURN FAT until a few hours later.
And you are not stupid for asking:)

LarryPGH

To Larry:
I said you will not be burning FAT, you still will be burning calories. Whenever you exercise you burn calories. If you wanted to exercise for 3 hours you will still benefit from it. You will still burn calories and your metabolism will increase. But if you are looking to burn fat that you will NOT BURN MORE THAN WHAT YOU CAN BURN IN ONE SINGLE HOUR EVERY FEW HOURS OF EXERCISE. Period:)

OK, then... let's suppose i eat an apple for breakfast -- about 100 calories. I then jog for two hours; that first 20 minutes burns about 100 calories (so, even though it doesn't matter, let's call this "burning my breakfast"). The next 40 minutes burns calories (again, immaterial, but we'll call this "burning fat"). In the second hour, I burn another 300 calories. Where, pray tell, are these 300 calories coming from, such that my body is completely unable to "burn fat" (again, poor visualization here) in this time?

HeatherShrinking

I'm confused. So when does the clock restart? I mean how much time do you need to put between exercising to be able to start burning the fat again?

I can't imagine you can work out at 11 pm and then 12 am, and have it restart because it is technically a new day. Is it when you go to sleep that your body resets itself? If that is the case, what if you just took a 20 minute nap midday, would that restart your body’s fat burning ability again? What if you just weight 8 hours between? That's the time equivalent of a night's sleep.

HeatherShrinking

Wait I think you answered my question, while I was writing it. Sounds like you just need to take a few hour break in between workouts.

LarryPGH

You will STILL be burning calories and will STILL benefit from exercise but you will NOT BURN FAT until a few hours later.

this doesn't make sense. if you're burning calories exercising, and you end the day with a calorie deficit, you're going to be losing weight (with the usual caveats -- unless you're retaining water, or have increased muscle mass, etc, etc). it makes no sense to say "this exercise burned food", "that exercise burned fat", "this other exercise is no longer able to burn fat", but "this exercise here, since it happened two hours after the prior one, actually burned fat". sorry...

JEK717

To Larry:
I said you would not be burning FAT; you still will be burning calories. Whenever you exercise, you burn calories. If you wanted to exercise for 3 hours, you will still benefit from it. You will still burn calories and your metabolism will increase. But if you are looking to burn fat that you will NOT BURN MORE THAN WHAT YOU CAN BURN IN ONE SINGLE HOUR EVERY FEW HOURS OF EXERCISE. Period

OK, then... let us suppose i eat an apple for breakfast -- about 100 calories. I then jog for two hours; that first 20 minutes burns about 100 calories (so, even though it doesn't matter, let's call this "burning my breakfast"). The next 40 minutes burns calories (again, immaterial, but we will call this "burning fat"). In the second hour, I burn another 300 calories. Where, pray tell, are these 300 calories coming from, such that my body is completely unable to "burn fat" (again, poor visualization here) in this time?

As one can see from my profile, i am only at the age of 18. I say this so that everyone knows that I AM NOT AN EXPERT. I am simply trying to help people. Therefore, i only know so much. Now i do NOT know the answer to your question but do me the honor of answering me. Riddle me this. John (a name that has no purpose other than to make this easier to say) gets up and eats breakfast. Let us say he eats 400 calories for breakfast. Now after he eats he goes out to work a 12-hour day in the field. (Yes as everyone knows, we do not work 12 hours usually but our bodies certainly can handle it since people used to do it all the time). Now let us go with what MFP says a person would burn with 720 minutes (12 hours) of (even though a man probably would burn more than this since he would not necessarily be gardening) where would that leave him? He would burn up all of his calories and then his body fat. After he burns up his body fat, tell me where would his body go to burn the rest of what he needs to burn since he still has 395 left to burn. He has no calories to burn because he has already burned them and because he has been doing this everyday he probably has already burned his fat so this makes him a healthy size. So WHERE WOULD HIS BODY START TO BURN NEXT?

LarryPGH

I AM NOT AN EXPERT. I am simply trying to help people. Therefore, i only know so much.

OK... fair enough. Where are you getting the info that you're passing along here, then? Do you have any sources, or is this your personal opinion about how metabolism / weight loss / exercise works?

Now after he eats he goes out to work a 12-hour day in the field. (Yes as everyone knows, we do not work 12 hours usually

You're right -- we don't "work 12 hours", at least not in the way that the exercise diary works. When it says "gardening (general)" burns a certain amount of calories in an hour, it doesn't mean "if you're a farmer, this is how much you'll burn for your entire day". Instead, it simply means "if you go out in the yard and do gardening for an hour, this is what you'll burn, on average". Note that this is only if you spend all the time gardening -- if you're doing other things as well, it's not really fair to count that as "gardening".

Now, on to the rest of the example...

where would that leave him? He would burn up all of his calories and then his body fat. After he burns up his body fat, tell me where would his body go to burn the rest of what he needs to burn since he still has 395 left to burn.

Honestly? If someone only ate a 400 calorie breakfast and tried to work a full day in the fields, he'd probably collapse.

On the other hand, if you're talking about someone who's used to sub-optimal nutrition (i.e., malnourished), whose body is accustomed to poor nutrition, then that's a whole 'nother ballgame -- different dynamics are in play. However, I'm assuming that the MFP site isn't taking these sorts of situations into account, and is only dealing with normal types of situations that its intended audience comes into contact with.

So WHERE WOULD HIS BODY START TO BURN NEXT?

Really? The way you're phrasing the question, you're assuming that normal healthy processes are in play. In your scenario, they're not. Instead, what you've got is a body that's not operating under ordinary conditions -- it will break down muscle mass for energy, and it will compensate in other ways in order to keep itself from shutting down.

Again, that's not at all what your body will do when you get two hours of cardio. And that's not at all the weight-loss scenario that MFP was built to address.

(Edited to fix grammar...)

muth3rluvx2

Not to mention that the body metabolizes calories in other ways than just fat stores. Calories does not equate to fat. I'm not sure where that assumption is coming from.

I think this is great information! I am curious to have MORE - but as stand alone, I find it very beneficial! It's kind of an order of processes. "here's what happens in the first 20 minutes; here's what's happening in the following 40 minutes;...." - I mean, what happens after that is missing but for cryin' out loud... if anyone wants to, they *can* go out and find this stuff out for themselves or verify it or ask for the resources in which the information came from (which is what I did, knowing I wanted MORE info - but that in no way invalidates what has been presented!).

Thank you JEK - I find this to be a very thoughtful gesture and appreciate your effort and information!

believetoachieve

After this 20 minutes, in which you must be doing moderate to high (this does NOT include low intensity), you will start to burn fat up to ONE HOUR. Therefore, from that first 20 minutes on up to one hour you will burn fat. After this NO MATTER HOW LONG OR HOW HARD YOU EXERCISE, YOU WILL NOOOOTTTT BURN ANY MORE FAT AFTER ONE HOUR.

This isn't true. Additionally, my personal trainer has me working out for more than an hour a day, and still with the goal to lose fat. My scale & measuring tape says it's working

p222

Ok, not to get to sciencey, but I think we may be getting too hung up on FAT and CALORIES as being different in this discussion. Your body gets calories from its stores of protein, fat, and carbohydrates. Daily, you build up and break down all of these in some amount. Furthermore, fat in your body, can be converted and pushed into the same metabolic pathway to gain energy as carbohydrates (sugar) goes. Thus, I think that focusing on net calorie deficit to lose weight is a more effective means than limiting your workouts because you may not be burning FAT.

muth3rluvx2

After this 20 minutes, in which you must be doing moderate to high (this does NOT include low intensity), you will start to burn fat up to ONE HOUR. Therefore, from that first 20 minutes on up to one hour you will burn fat. After this NO MATTER HOW LONG OR HOW HARD YOU EXERCISE, YOU WILL NOOOOTTTT BURN ANY MORE FAT AFTER ONE HOUR.

This isn't true. Additionally, my personal trainer has me working out for more than an hour a day, and still with the goal to lose fat. My scale & measuring tape says it's working

I actually recently found an article that corroborates that a more intense workout does indeed have a much higher impact on fat burning outcomes. I think I still have *some* of that information around - I'll see if I can find it and I'll post it if I do. Unfortunately, I don't think I kept the source... I'm not sure though.

muth3rluvx2

Found it.. yay, that was easy. I did not keep the source though... I'm sure it can be easily found though if someone wants to by cross-reference key terms and names.

*************************************

If you exercise too hard during a workout, your body will burn less fat than if you move at a slower pace. At least that's the notion that has muscled its way into gyms and health clubs, leading to a proliferation of relatively slow, low-intensity "fat-burning" workouts.

But if you've been exercising strenuously in an effort to shed fat pounds, don't sweat it. You'll still get rid of just as much, if not more, excess fat than if you took it a bit easier, according to researchers at Georgia State University.

Consider that during any bout of physical activity, the body obtains its fuel from both fat and glycogen, a type of carbohydrate stored in the muscles and the liver. And granted, if you exercise at a low intensity for your entire workout, your body tends to draw more on its fat stores and rely less on glycogen than if you move at a faster pace.

Still, if losing excess fat pounds is the goal, it's not the type of fuel you burn, but the amount, that makes the biggest impact in the long run. The Georgia-based researchers demonstrated the point when they put one group of slightly overweight women on a fast-paced, high-intensity walking program and compared them to another group who walked at a slower gait. Both groups exercised four times a week, just long enough each time to burn 300 calories.

The result: after three months, the women in both groups lost an average of about five pounds of fat. The reason is that regardless of whether your body uses carbohydrate or fat during a workout, if you burn more calories than you take in over the course of, say, a week or two, your body starts relying on its fat stores for energy to perform day-to-day activities between workouts.

"The idea that you can't lose fat unless you burn fat while you exercise has absolutely no scientific support," says Jeffrey Rupp, PhD, one of the exercise physiologists who conducted the study. "Fitness instructors who advise slowing down to burn more fat do consumers a disservice."

If your goal is to burn calories and lose fat, Dr. Rupp adds, you should work out at the highest intensity that you can maintain safely and comfortably. That will burn calories more quickly than slow-paced workouts--a boon to fitness enthusiasts pressed for time. Vigorous exercise also confers the added benefit of boosting cardiovascular fitness.

Lyadeia

Ok, not to get to sciencey, but I think we may be getting too hung up on FAT and CALORIES as being different in this discussion. Your body gets calories from its stores of protein, fat, and carbohydrates. Daily, you build up and break down all of these in some amount. Furthermore, fat in your body, can be converted and pushed into the same metabolic pathway to gain energy as carbohydrates (sugar) goes. Thus, I think that focusing on net calorie deficit to lose weight is a more effective means than limiting your workouts because you may not be burning FAT.

This.

It sounds as though the O/P has found 1 article somewhere and without researching it has thought that it sounded great and believes every word as truth. It's unfortunate, but this happens all the time, especially when we start reading things like grocery store magazines instead of scientific journals looking for the scientific "what's," "why's," and "how's" of the human metabolism.

I think it's great that the O/P wants to help others trying to lose weight, but I feel the post would be better accepted and discussed if its tone wasn't "this is truth and what you believe is not." :flowerforyou:

Lyadeia

Found it.. yay, that was easy. I did not keep the source though... I'm sure it can be easily found though if someone wants to by cross-reference key terms and names.

*************************************

If you exercise too hard during a workout, your body will burn less fat than if you move at a slower pace. At least that's the notion that has muscled its way into gyms and health clubs, leading to a proliferation of relatively slow, low-intensity "fat-burning" workouts.

But if you've been exercising strenuously in an effort to shed fat pounds, don't sweat it. You'll still get rid of just as much, if not more, excess fat than if you took it a bit easier, according to researchers at Georgia State University.

Consider that during any bout of physical activity, the body obtains its fuel from both fat and glycogen, a type of carbohydrate stored in the muscles and the liver. And granted, if you exercise at a low intensity for your entire workout, your body tends to draw more on its fat stores and rely less on glycogen than if you move at a faster pace.

Still, if losing excess fat pounds is the goal, it's not the type of fuel you burn, but the amount, that makes the biggest impact in the long run. The Georgia-based researchers demonstrated the point when they put one group of slightly overweight women on a fast-paced, high-intensity walking program and compared them to another group who walked at a slower gait. Both groups exercised four times a week, just long enough each time to burn 300 calories.

The result: after three months, the women in both groups lost an average of about five pounds of fat. The reason is that regardless of whether your body uses carbohydrate or fat during a workout, if you burn more calories than you take in over the course of, say, a week or two, your body starts relying on its fat stores for energy to perform day-to-day activities between workouts.

"The idea that you can't lose fat unless you burn fat while you exercise has absolutely no scientific support," says Jeffrey Rupp, PhD, one of the exercise physiologists who conducted the study. "Fitness instructors who advise slowing down to burn more fat do consumers a disservice."

If your goal is to burn calories and lose fat, Dr. Rupp adds, you should work out at the highest intensity that you can maintain safely and comfortably. That will burn calories more quickly than slow-paced workouts--a boon to fitness enthusiasts pressed for time. Vigorous exercise also confers the added benefit of boosting cardiovascular fitness.

Great article!

JEK717

Okay first of all i would like to say THANKS muth3rluvx2 for having my back:) YOUR THE BEST:) All the information i posted is from my teacher at Chaffey College who has many degrees in diet & fitness AND nutrition. Who on here can say that "my teacher is more right then your trainer" or vice versa. Her knowledge is not more correct than someone else's so i am not saying that because she has all these degrees that she knows more than someone else. I am simply saying this to say that i did not get it from someone dumb person's kid brother as some of you are implying. I was simply telling people what i have learned from her, to let others know. Correct, i do not completely know what i am talking about, but i DO KNOW WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT. If you want to say that "YOU" or "YOUR TRAINER" know more than me fine but you cannot say that about someone like her. I certainly have my sources. As for the rest of your questions, YES AM humble enough AND honest enough to say that i currently do NOT know the answer other than what i have previously stated.

believetoachieve

After this 20 minutes, in which you must be doing moderate to high (this does NOT include low intensity), you will start to burn fat up to ONE HOUR. Therefore, from that first 20 minutes on up to one hour you will burn fat. After this NO MATTER HOW LONG OR HOW HARD YOU EXERCISE, YOU WILL NOOOOTTTT BURN ANY MORE FAT AFTER ONE HOUR.

This isn't true. Additionally, my personal trainer has me working out for more than an hour a day, and still with the goal to lose fat. My scale & measuring tape says it's working

I actually recently found an article that corroborates that a more intense workout does indeed have a much higher impact on fat burning outcomes. I think I still have *some* of that information around - I'll see if I can find it and I'll post it if I do. Unfortunately, I don't think I kept the source... I'm not sure though.

I don't want to make this post about me, so I'll just say that I disagree with what the poster has said (though it was a nice thought), and leave it at that. I'm working with a personal trainer, we know about workout intensity, don't worry! My body fat is decreasing, even though I'm working out more than an hour. Every body is different. But it's WRONG to say that after 60 minutes of exercise, no additional fat is burned - that's incorrect.

JEK717

Oh well i was simply saying that if one exercises for 3 solid hours they will only get the benefit of burning fat for the first hour. Then they can come back to it in a few hours and it would start over and they would again burn fat.

believetoachieve

All the information i posted is from my teacher at Chaffey College who has many degrees in diet & fitness AND nutrition. Who on here can say that "my teacher is more right then your trainer" or vice versa. Her knowledge is not more correct than someone else's so i am not saying that because she has all these degrees that she knows more than someone else. I am simply saying this to say that i did not get it from someone dumb person's kid brother as some of you are implying. I was simply telling people what i have learned from her, to let others know. Correct, i do not completely know what i am talking about, but i DO KNOW WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT. If you want to say that "YOU" or "YOUR TRAINER" know more than me fine but you cannot say that about someone like her. I certainly have my sources. As for the rest of your questions, YES AM humble enough AND honest enough to say that i currently do NOT know the answer other than what i have previously stated.

I believe that when the person in this thread asked for sources, it was to read it him/herself, not that you're not knowledgeable. When I said that my trainer has given me advice that contradicts yours, I say this because my doctor has backed it up as well, as well as numerous studies. It's simply untrue to say "the body stops burning fat after 60 minutes". The body isn't a timepiece, it simply doesn't work like that!

Ps, I realize you're trying to make a point, but typing in caps is considered rude & difficult to read

believetoachieve

Oh well i was simply saying that if one exercises for 3 solid hours they will only get the benefit of burning fat for the first hour. Then they can come back to it in a few hours and it would start over and they would again burn fat.

This is not true. The body burns a combination of body fat, available resources, and muscle. It doesn't shut off a specific source after a specific period of time.

Lyadeia

Oh well i was simply saying that if one exercises for 3 solid hours they will only get the benefit of burning fat for the first hour. Then they can come back to it in a few hours and it would start over and they would again burn fat.

This is not true. The body burns a combination of body fat, available resources, and muscle. It doesn't shut off a specific source after a specific period of time.

True!

And during ALL types of exercise, no matter how long, recent studies have shown that both carbs and fat from your calories are used at the same time to power your workouts and are burned off. It's not "fat only here or carbs only now" it's a fluid shift of more this, now more this, but no matter what, always both...

And if you are not eating enough, then it is muscle that gets catabolized...

And if you still refuse to eat, it's your organs that start shutting down...

But I digress.

p222

Ok, not to get to sciencey, but I think we may be getting too hung up on FAT and CALORIES as being different in this discussion. Your body gets calories from its stores of protein, fat, and carbohydrates. Daily, you build up and break down all of these in some amount. Furthermore, fat in your body, can be converted and pushed into the same metabolic pathway to gain energy as carbohydrates (sugar) goes. Thus, I think that focusing on net calorie deficit to lose weight is a more effective means than limiting your workouts because you may not be burning FAT.

This.

It sounds as though the O/P has found 1 article somewhere and without researching it has thought that it sounded great and believes every word as truth. It's unfortunate, but this happens all the time, especially when we start reading things like grocery store magazines instead of scientific journals looking for the scientific "what's," "why's," and "how's" of the human metabolism.

I think it's great that the O/P wants to help others trying to lose weight, but I feel the post would be better accepted and discussed if its tone wasn't "this is truth and what you believe is not." :flowerforyou:

Thanks for the suggestion, I could have been clearer. I actually learned this from my human metabolism course at university. Both glucose and triacylglycerol and fatty acids (the primary storage forms of fats in your adpiocytes [fat cells]) can be converted to acetyl Co-A. Once in this intermediate form, they can enter the TCA (Kreb's) cycle and produce energy in your mitochondria of your cells through the electron transport chain.
I just wanted to comment on the interconnectedness of these forms of energy as they both go through the same intermediate and pathway to produce energy. To clarify, I don't have any scientific background as to when we're more likely to put glucose, fatty acids, or peptides into this pathway when exercising based on time or intensity.
Have a nice night all!

Lyadeia

Ok, not to get to sciencey, but I think we may be getting too hung up on FAT and CALORIES as being different in this discussion. Your body gets calories from its stores of protein, fat, and carbohydrates. Daily, you build up and break down all of these in some amount. Furthermore, fat in your body, can be converted and pushed into the same metabolic pathway to gain energy as carbohydrates (sugar) goes. Thus, I think that focusing on net calorie deficit to lose weight is a more effective means than limiting your workouts because you may not be burning FAT.

This.

It sounds as though the O/P has found 1 article somewhere and without researching it has thought that it sounded great and believes every word as truth. It's unfortunate, but this happens all the time, especially when we start reading things like grocery store magazines instead of scientific journals looking for the scientific "what's," "why's," and "how's" of the human metabolism.

I think it's great that the O/P wants to help others trying to lose weight, but I feel the post would be better accepted and discussed if its tone wasn't "this is truth and what you believe is not." :flowerforyou:

Thanks for the suggestion, I could have been clearer. I actually learned this from my human metabolism course at university. Both glucose and triacylglycerol and fatty acids (the primary storage forms of fats in your adpiocytes [fat cells]) can be converted to acetyl Co-A. Once in this intermediate form, they can enter the TCA (Kreb's) cycle and produce energy in your mitochondria of your cells through the electron transport chain.
I just wanted to comment on the interconnectedness of these forms of energy as they both go through the same intermediate and pathway to produce energy. To clarify, I don't have any scientific background as to when we're more likely to put glucose, fatty acids, or peptides into this pathway when exercising based on time or intensity.
Have a nice night all!

Um...I wasn't talking about YOUR post. :bigsmile:

I was agreeing with what YOU said, and then speaking about the Original Poster of the thread in the next comment. :flowerforyou:

p222

Oh, sorry I misunderstood. That's what I get for logging in late while studying! haha! Have a great night. Thanks for the clarification.

mideon_696

This thread has the potential to bring a few people out of the woodwork...lol.

When you post a topic like this, and your opinion forms the basis of context, then you'll need to back it...
Got links? Post em up. and good links, from scientific studies, showing results, and numbers. I like numbers
I like good scientific articles from actual studies over a broad range. I dont like Men's Heath, or bull**** "know it all" personal trainer theoretical articles.


ELSE: you'll get responses like the ones above.

Levedi

Yeah, I'm going to jump on the bandwagon of "post scientific sources or it's not reliable." Frankly, the original post has logical holes in it that make me skeptical. Most obvious is that the poster has confused "this is the most efficient way to burn fat during a work out cycle" with the claim "there are no fat burning benefits to doing long work outs." Those are actually two totally different claims. One could be true and the other one false.

And I don't care that the poster is 18 and got it from his/her university course. For one thing, I'm a university professor myself and I've had students seriously misunderstand what I said in class/oversimplify it to the point of being false. Then they cite me as the all knowing source of their mistake. (I strongly suspect that is what's happening here. The poster is very well meaning, but has probably oversimplified what the professor said.)

Second, we professors are not always right. I've met professors who were behind the times in their own field, working from controversial data that they made sound like proven fact, and just plain wrong. We have no evidence that this professor is right. So, I say we see some actual scientific studies before we all trust this information.

muth3rluvx2

People need to learn to take context into consideration. Look, there's clearly some holes in the information, but the OP knows that and has acknowledged it. I don't see any point in people harping on that. I'm all for positive reinforcement whenever possible and instead, I see people beleaguering the shortfalls (which are understandable!) and what's that going to do do for her, as a young and upcoming nutritionist or doctor or whatever it is she's going for? Not a damn thing other than undermine confidence. That is not what we are here for. We're here to support each other and encourage one another to the fullest extent possible and it's really frustrating to see people being soooo..... inconsiderate.

I asked the OP for additional information - in a supportive and kind manner. That will help me fill the holes where she cannot due to where she is at in her education. You know, this is so disappointing. It's obvious she was excited to learn something new and valuable and wanted to share it with all of the MFP community and this is what she gets for her pains. I'm pretty ashamed of some of these posts, quite frankly.