best cardio for fat burning ? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : best cardio for fat burning ?


whinny
12-20-2004, 17:37
what is the best way to do cardio for fat burning? I currently do cardio 4-5 times/week, either the stationary bike or jogging (outside). Sometimes I do the elliptical machine as well. When I ride the bike, I do 4 "hills" worth about 20 - 25 minutes (including warmup & cooldown). I was taught to use the scale of perceived intensity, so I get my heart rate up to 80% of its max. When I jog, I do 3 miles on (mild) hills. I'm now up to about 8 minute miles on my better days. Based on all the charts & monitors I've seen, I think I burn ~300 calories per cardio workout. If you can trust those charts.

before you ask - I lift too, but not too much, maybe about once/twice a week for each muscle group. I don't want to get any bigger, just want to keep what I have.

Either workout is about 20-30 minutes of cardio. For fat burning, would I be better off to lower the intensity and increase the time?

AlB
12-21-2004, 13:43
Yes. Aim for an hour of aerobic exercise. This should be at an intensity where you could still carry on a conversation. If you can run that long without overtraining and injuring yourself, do so. If not, cycling is second best in my opinion. If you are able to swim laps properly, add that into the mix also.

benji
12-21-2004, 15:18
I'd do High Intensity Interval Training for maximum fat-loss. I did it on a stairclimber. I warmed up for about 2 or 3 minutes, then 15 seconds of as fast as i could go followed by 45 seconds of catching my breath, repeated for 20 cycles. You can do it outside, on a treadmill, on an elliptical, on a bike, whatever. Sometimes when I run outside I will sprint for 2 light poles, then jog/walk 2, and repeat for however far I feel like going. I did this every other day and got my diet in check and lost 50 pounds in about 6 months. Good luck in your goals.
And by the way, don't worry about getting bigger by lifting. I bust my ass every other day and I'm not a freakish monster. The only way to get too big is steroids and eating like a monster. If you lift weights it is good for you, I guarantee you won't get too bid.

whinny
12-21-2004, 19:22
oh great, now I have 2 conflicting responses. ;g anyone want to be tie-breaker?

runnergirl
12-21-2004, 21:42
There's some truth in both intensity and length. It's about burning calories, the longer you go, the more calories you burn. That said you also burn more by going faster, but generally cannot maintain a higher intensity for a long period of time.

I can go out and run 6 miles in 60 minutes and burn about 600 calories. I also can go out and run a 40 minute interval workout on the track and burn about 350 calories-whatever benefit I get from the higher intensity laps (calorie wise) is negated by the slow recovery laps.

So really, very little difference. It is important to not get stuck in a rut, switching up intesity is important, but it's really about putting in the time.

benji
12-22-2004, 08:39
runnergirl is right. you can do it either way. i'd just rather get it over with in 20 minutes instead of an hour. the key to the hiit is to keep your sprints short enough that you can give it a 100% effort. some people try to do 60second sprint / 60 second rest, but you can't go all out for 60 seconds. it isn't the best for everyone, but it was the best for me. just doing any excercise is better than nothing, so be sure to get out and do something, whatever that something may be.

Tom P
12-23-2004, 12:24
HIIT High Intensity Interval Training (http://www.musclemedia.com/training/hiit.asp)

Interval training works very well and you don't have to spend all day working out at a conversational pace.

Tom

California Jack
12-23-2004, 17:37
I had a lot of luck using Body For Life style cardio which is HIIT.

Also old school wind sprints work for me.

whinny
12-23-2004, 19:54
Originally posted by California Jack
I had a lot of luck using Body For Life style cardio which is HIIT.

That's what I've been doing, for the most part. With my own variations.

I liked that site on HIIT but it's not specific or quantifable. How high to get your heart rate? (percentage of max) If you're not starting at the beginning, it's difficult to follow.

Well I guess there are a lot of opinions & methods out there. I tend to be an all-or-nothing type, so I guess I'll stick with the HIIT. I wouldn't know how to pace myself if my life depended on it ...

JesseCuster
12-27-2004, 22:16
I lose weight at a reasonable pace (2 pounds per week) by doing HIIT, weight training and eating well.

The theory behind HIIT is that you increase your body's metabolism for a period after you finish working out. Some believe it's best to do it early morning on an empty stomach: I can't say that I've noticed any difference any way but it does work. I got down to 222 pounds from 270 (or more, I was afraid to step on the scales) when I did HIIT.

Plus it's not so dang boring. Sitting there and pedalling for an hour makes me want to chew my arms off.

AlB
12-27-2004, 23:10
While I don't agree with HIIT, good luck with it. I just wanted to say one thing though. If you are using this kind of training for running AND you are not an experienced runner, be careful of running at 100% effort. Try to get a month or two of fairly easy running on your legs before you start consistently running at a maximum effort.

California Jack
12-28-2004, 08:36
Whinny,

Well I guess there are a lot of opinions & methods out there. I tend to be an all-or-nothing type, so I guess I'll stick with the HIIT. I wouldn't know how to pace myself if my life depended on it ...

How could I forget? Your all-or-nothing statement reminded me. Try the Tabata Protocol. Search Tabata on Google. I'm too lazy to find links for you now. I'm too old to handle a steady diet of it. And my advice would be to try it with bodyweight squats, dumbell thrusters or rowing. Tabata sprinting is way too much for me.

And with Tabatas, you won't need to pace yourself.

You know, a good strategy could be to employ Tabata, HIIT and an occasional LSD run. Mixed modalities like that have been very successful for lots of people.

If you try Tabatas, let me know how you did. It's only four minutes, but minutes 3 and 4 are living hell.

Good luck,
Jack

turrican
12-28-2004, 09:34
2 months ago I made a commitment to start eating better. I eat mostly whole foods and very little bread. I am 5-9 and I have went from 190 to 165 in 2 monts and I beleive 90% of my results are diet. I quit sodas and cut way back on beer too. Also I work out but not too much just enough to feel good. It seems to be woking for me. I used eat fast food every day. cutting that out has made a huge difference too.

Blaster
01-03-2005, 17:43
Originally posted by turrican
2 months ago I made a commitment to start eating better. I eat mostly whole foods and very little bread. I am 5-9 and I have went from 190 to 165 in 2 monts and I beleive 90% of my results are diet. I quit sodas and cut way back on beer too. Also I work out but not too much just enough to feel good. It seems to be woking for me. I used eat fast food every day. cutting that out has made a huge difference too.

BINGO, I think we have a winner!

You can do cardio all day long but if your eating more than your burning you will get no where.
For results you can see you need to cut out all the junk. Sugar, any white starches, junk food and fast food. Stick fish,chicken, meat, vegetables, and whole grains. Do some research on Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load. This will tell you how the foods you consume impact your body and it's insulin response (this is critical). Insulin is the fat storrage hormone. Read a Atkins book and a South Beach Diet book. I'm not saying to follow their plans but you will learn a lot about how your body processes what you put into it.

mossy500camo
01-06-2005, 12:47
In my experience Bicycling burns more cals and fat. Ride farther and use the lower gears (easy) pedal away.;) Im also into cross training. I just started a walking and strengthing program for myself to work other muscles.;f

runnergirl
01-06-2005, 15:17
Just wanted to interject something about the glycemic index and insulin. High fructose corn syrup (which is in damn near everything!) messes with insulin receptors and if you're at all into using the GI, it is something to really watch out for. It's even in 100% whole wheat bread and crackers, most breakfast cereals, granola bars, and fruit yogurts.

Also don't forget the dairy. Yes dairy is loaded with natural sugars, but it's the best source of calcium, and may help with weight loss. If you're going to read a book, I would stay away from books with agendas and pick up a used intro level nutrition text book. They're updated yearly and are far more detailed and balanced than diet books.

G22-COP
01-07-2005, 17:02
Run Forrest , Run!!

dglockster
01-08-2005, 06:46
For weight loss and cardio, I have had the best luck in outdoor running/jogging for a minimum of 40-45 minutes per run (10-minute mile or less), 4 to 6 days per week. I have been doing this as part of a cardiac rehab program since 1988.

geminicricket
01-08-2005, 23:05
Measure your heart rate at rest.

Your target heart rate during aerobic exercise should be 60 beats per minute more than your resting heart rate.

I use Stairmaster now. It's easier on my knee than the elliptical was.

tackdriver
01-08-2005, 23:55
Diet modification is the key.

You can work out well and miss the boat with your weight loss. DON'T cut out carbohydrates. DON'T increase your protein intake. Do limit your overall calories. Do eat smaller meals more often. Make sure that the small meals are balanced in carbohydrates and some protein to avoid a blood sugar spike. Low/no carbohydrate diets are not normal and are simply not good for you (blood chemistry among other things).

The best single exercise is running. Mixing up the exercise types is preferable: resistance (weights) with cardio (running, swimming, biking, hiking etc.) allows for calorie consumption and lean body mass growth. The key is to limit the overall calorie intake while maintaining a normal metabolic rate. Starving oneself will only cause the metabolic rate to plummet and not burn off the fat stores. Exercise that uses large muscle groups encourages a normal or slightly elevated metabolic rate. Lifting 1-2 days per week usually will not signal the body to significantly build muscle. Muscle building is caused by lifting heavy low repetition sets in multiple bouts per session multiple days per week. Keep the reps at 10+ sets at 3- 1-2 days per week and you should be fine.

HIIT is fine, but don't cut out your cardio training. Health benefits are in the cardio. HIIT does not raise the heart rate/oxygen consumption long enough per session to improve health benefits more than the cardo training currently does. The increased metabolic rate following HIIT exercise is not much greater than moderate to intense cardiovascular exercise. Interval running (alternating sprint and steady state exercise) is such a cardio exercise. Interval training should be done to signal the body to break the regular repair/adaptation cycle that comes with longer steady state exercise. Add one of these workouts after 6-8 regular cardio ones. Save the interval training for weeks when you lift less. Harder lifting, interval training and long runs will increase the overall "volume" of exercise for a given week. Don't do all in the same week. For example: use the stationary bike on heavier lifting weeks. Long runs should be lower lifting weeks. HIIT workouts should include bike or elliptical training rather than hill/long runs.

It sounds like you have a good exercise base. Continue with forms of exercise you will enjoy and won't abandon.

BrokenArrow
01-11-2005, 11:56
The "best" cardio is the one you are gonna like and/or stick with and actually do. If you like biking and hate running, biking is better...
A walk ya take beats a run ya skip.

A calorie burned is a calorie burned. This varying intensity stuff to burn a higher % of fat misleads and confuses way too many people. At the levels of calories burned by most folks it just isn't gonna make that much difference in the long haul. 300 calories walking in an hour? 300 calories biking in 30 minutes? 300 calories running in 15 minutes? Flip a coin!

Find something ya like and just do it. Regularly. Don't over do it either. And that is easier than ya think depending on your fitness level. Lottsa bad feet, knees, and backs out there cuzz folks were told running (whatever) was "best" and more miles/days was mo' betta...

Same for diets. If ya can't live with it day in and day out, you won't. ;b

California Jack
01-11-2005, 16:59
Tackdriver,

HIIT is fine, but don't cut out your cardio training. Health benefits are in the cardio. HIIT does not raise the heart rate/oxygen consumption long enough per session to improve health benefits more than the cardo training currently does.

Respectfully, is this your opinion, or have you read some documentation that there is no health benefit from HIIT? Kinda curious, 'cause I read a study that said HIIT style training is a great way to lower resting pulse. Is there no health benefit in a lower resting pulse?

Also, I read a study that says anaerobic exercise increased levels of HGH. Article went on to spout all kinds of longevity benefits one gets from higher HGH levels.

I read a different study by (I believe) Dr. Michael Stone that said Olympic-style Weightlifting was beneficial to the heart. Weightlifting has even a lower length of oxygen consumer/heart rate increase than HIIT. If Weightlifting can have a benefit to the heart, why can't hit?

It's been a while since I read Dr. Tabata's study, I can't remember if it said his protocol affected blood chemistry. I do remember it said his protocol does increase fat loss. Would increased fat loss be considered a health benefit?

Please, I am not trying to sound flippant. I know there is a lot of conflicting info when it comes to exercise and fitness. Do you know of artivcles that say high intensity interval training does not benefit ones health?

M249SAW
01-11-2005, 17:21
Very good info.

Im gonna give the HIIT a shot. Gradually of course since Im just getting back into an exercise regimen.

tackdriver
01-11-2005, 18:57
HIIT does have health benefits. It does not provide the results of a prolonged (>20min) aerobic exercise using large muscle groups on a regular basis.

HIIT is fine to mix in with other regular cardiovascular exercise. Both would even be better than one. I would argue that the cardiovascular exercise alone would provide greater health benefits than solely HIIT.

Please list the journal, volume and number so that I may review the article you mentioned earlier.

California Jack
01-11-2005, 19:40
Tackdriver,

I'll try to find articles regarding this. Can't necessarily find journals.

OOOPSSS>>>> EDITED BECAUSE I MIS_READ TACKDRIVERS POST>;J


.For anecdotal evidence go to Clarence Bass' website.

Again, I'm not trying to be offensive, just trying to learn.

BTW, as I stated in an earlier post, I agree with you, I think mixing up aerobic and anaerobic exercises is probably best.

Jack

California Jack
01-12-2005, 16:11
Here are two articles. Before I continue, what do you consider health benefits? I'd hate to continue finding these only to later find out that what I consider a health benefit, you don't.




Stone, M.H., S.J. Fleck, N.T. Triplett, and W.J. Kraemer. Health-and Performance-Related Potential of Resistance Training. Sports Med. 11(4): 210-231.

Stone, M.H., et al. Cardiovascular Responses to Short-Term Olympic Style Weight-Training in Young Men. Can. J. Appl. Sport Sci. 8(3): 134-9.

hapuna
01-12-2005, 16:38
Originally posted by benji
I'd do High Intensity Interval Training for maximum fat-loss. I did it on a stairclimber. I warmed up for about 2 or 3 minutes, then 15 seconds of as fast as i could go followed by 45 seconds of catching my breath, repeated for 20 cycles.

I thought to burn fat best you were supposed to stay aerobic. Has the theory changed cause this looks anaerobic to me.:)

California Jack
01-12-2005, 17:38
hapuna,

Google "Tabata protocol".

Jack

tackdriver
01-13-2005, 22:16
My main point in the aerobic vs. anerobic (or forms of aerobic) was not to give up the aerobic. Indeed both are better than a single one.

gunguru1
01-28-2005, 17:29
For every mile you run you burn off about 100 calories, regardless of how long it takes you. This is what I've always been told.

-gg1

California Jack
01-29-2005, 11:21
For every mile you run you burn off about 100 calories, regardless of how long it takes you. This is what I've always been told.

Assuming this is true, this is only part of the equation. Some types of exercise have longer lasting effects on the metabolism, cuasing calories to be burned at a higher rate for longer periods of time after exercise.

Jack

tackdriver
01-30-2005, 20:33
Originally posted by gunguru1
For every mile you run you burn off about 100 calories, regardless of how long it takes you. This is what I've always been told.

-gg1

Or walk for that matter. The higher rate of metabolism is due to the greater break down of muscle tissue/bone tissue/GI during the run. The repair phase is impacted much greater.

runnergirl
01-31-2005, 16:01
Are you saying walking a mile burns 100 cals?

For a 140 lb female (me)

1 9 minute mile (moderate long distance pace)= 90 calories burned
1 7 minute mile (speed work pace) = 105 calories burned
1 15 minute mile (brisk walk)= 45 calories burned

The 100 cals a mile figure holds true within a certain range, it's an estimate, a person's size and gender (metabolism) effects the exact number. Walking, even briskly, only burns about half.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about tissue breakdown, are you saying muscle is burned as fuel, or are you refering to the tiny tears that occur (as in weight lifting) to build muscle in that area?

tackdriver
01-31-2005, 16:23
Overload: minor tissue breakdown associated with increased muscle use. Same type stuff as weight lifting. Overload is a product of new or different training. This is what makes you "sore". It is tears of muscle tissue at the cellular level. When the body adjusts to the activity level the overload does not occur but the increased metabolic level is still higher than with lower intensity exercise due to the higher impact.

As for the caloric expenditure, I will work on this. I remember there only being about a 10% difference between walking and running.

California Jack
02-01-2005, 20:54
Tack,

Are you sure some of the increased metabolic effect isn't due to hormonal or endocrinal response to exercise?

Jack

tackdriver
02-03-2005, 17:26
Like a sympathetic cortical sterioid type response? Under normal conditions of exercise I don't think that hormones will play a large role in caloric use. There are times of increased stress when cortisol and other stress hormones will increase fatty acid levels in the blood and increase the metabolism. The increase can elevate the basal metabolic rate but does not effect the "burn" rate of exercise much. New, intense workout programs can create a short term stress response like this. Most of the time exercise will reduce chronic stress hormone levels.

I'll get around to looking up the burn rates for walking and running sooner or later. I saved all those text books for some reason!

California Jack
02-03-2005, 20:52
tackdriver,

I guess what I'm trying to ask is that does the stress hormones that raise basal metabolism keep the metabolism raised for a few hours after exercise is complete, not raise thae metabolic rate during exercise?

BTW, have you had a chance to read wither of the articles I referenced above? I mostly interested in your thought on the article discussing olympic style lifting.

Thanks,
Jack