Burn more fat when walking

Interesting

http://www.prevention.com/cda/article/walk-of f-5-times-more-belly-fat/959b0d169e3af110VgnV CM10000013281eac____/fitness/walking/0/0/0/1

meh.  i run a little, inconsistently, but i walk every day, 1.5 hours minimum, and i've lost 37 pounds (that's more than i intended to lose; i'm in maintenance now).  i haven't had a body scan to determine how much visceral fat i'm carrying, but given that i've gone from a tight size 12 to a loose 6, i'm pretty confident that i've burned fat by walking.

pg I was just joking;-) I do some walking too and was a walker for a loooooooooong time! I'm a fan and an advocate.

yeah yeah - i know! 

wasn't necessarily responding directly to you.  lots of people out there think running/cardio is the only way.

I am the guru of my weight loss!

I've never been overweight ... am not now... but @32 my body has been metabolizing differently...the running/elliptical machine/etc has not been yielding any weight loss @all.

So when my sister who is running a marathon told me what her coach told her -- low intensity -- I tried it and I instantly saw a difference.

I'll skip the Georges Canguilhem multiplicity of norms (I'm a med anthropologist) spiel but I will say that people respond to exercise differently.

I just thought I'd share my experience .... this is what this board is for right?

In all likelihood, you're seeing results because you changed your routine.  Change shocks our bodies and often results in weight loss.

The problem with the whole fat-burning zone is that people just look at the percentages and not the total calories burned - which is what you really need to look at.  I'm too tired to look up the references, but here's the general idea:

• Person A walks for an hour, staying in the fat burning zone.  She burns 300 calories, 50% of which are from fat.
• Person B runs for an hour, staying in the cardio zone.  She burns 600 calories, 30% of which are from fat.

So, who burned the most fat?  Person B.  Because 600x30% = 180 calories from fat compared to the 300x50% = 150 calories from fat for person A.  Note that, while I made up these numbers, this is what the calculations for the real numbers show too.  Additionally, Person B will need to burn more fat in the hours following the exercise in order to replenish their energy reserves.

Note that I, personally, am usually Person A.  I can't stand running; it bores me to death.  And being Person A is much more productive than being Person C who sits at her computer and does no exercise at all.

Don't worry about references, susie - we provided quite a few. She chose to ignore them.

And don't forget that you (and I) are actually Person D - we lift weights and get our heartrate bouncing around and lose fat more efficiently than the person who does steady state cardio.

Screw running...

Susie ... quick question ... have you read anything on a person who is adrenal/cortisol fatigued who needs to do low intensity work out in order to see a difference (while a high intensity work out will just fatigue the adrenal glands even more and not produce weight loss at all)?

As far as me changing up my routine, I have been in Greece for two weeks, and prior to that I've been in the library working on my dissertation. I hear all of the formulas but as I mentioned -- there are clinical norms and lab norms. I'm simply testing my lab norms against what's been prescribed by so many posters. I don't think any textbook formula can actually explain a particular phenomenon.

I also would like to pose the possibility that while high intensity burns more calories -- it also results in a larger appetite which requires more food than a lower intensity work out. The person who works out hard has to refuel a lot more than one who doesn't. It seems as if the caloric trade off will about even out!

---
And no Amtheyst chic ... I am not ignoring anything I am practicing a method called deduction ... (they really shouldn't allow children on these boards). As far as losing fat -- I can post my pic...not so fat chica!

I have to say that I have killed myself in the gym by going hard at cardio, running, elliptical, body attck classes etc. I do also weight train, and pilates etc.

I find that I notice the most difference to my thigh fat- which is the bane of my existance- when I do really long walks with the kids in the pram, regularly. I walk at a fast steady pace but not to the point of not being able to get words out.

So I agree with chocomilk- not everyone responds the same. In fact, some people like me who have high cortisol levels and stress easily, can actually find high intensity exercises stress the body more which then in turn just raises cortisol levels higher making it virtually impossible to lose fat. Some people are more responsive to gentler exercises as walking does lower stress levels.

Original Post by chocomilk:

---
And no Amtheyst chic ... I am not ignoring anything I am practicing a method called deduction ... (they really shouldn't allow children on these boards). As far as losing fat -- I can post my pic...not so fat chica!

 

So, you've gone from telling people what they should do/how it really works, to 'well it's different for everyone' to just insulting other posters.  Very mature.

Since you're a grad student I assume you understand that n=1 doesn't tell you the effects of anything, especially when compared to peer reviewed studies that actually follow the scientific method.

Original Post by chocomilk:

Susie ... quick question ... have you read anything on a person who is adrenal/cortisol fatigued who needs to do low intensity work out in order to see a difference (while a high intensity work out will just fatigue the adrenal glands even more and not produce weight loss at all)?

No, I haven't, but if that's your situation, you really should have clarified.  Just because something works for one person with a particular condition, that doesn't mean it'll translate to others - and how is anyone else going to know it'll work for them if you don't specify the unusual cirumstances?  Because, for the average person, high intensity is going to be more effective than low intensity.

It'd be like me going around proclaiming the wonders of a low-fat diet without mentioning my fat-tolerance issues that make it a necessity in my case.  Or like some low-carb folk who fail to recognize that while it works great for some metabolic types, it's horrible for others.

I think it is important to mix it up. I have had the most success with "fat" loss when I do a mix and change it up. I lift heavy 3 days a week. I change my lifting routine every 4-6 weeks and make tiny changes during the 4-6 weeks.

I do HIIT 2-3 days a week and race walking, jogging, walking the other 3. Not letting your body adapt is important.

@Susie Cue

This is not my situation ... my purpose of using the possibility of someone -- mainly women needing to do an exercise that takes into account hormones or stress is to point out that these A/B formulas are just calculations that don't take into account anything but input, i.e.,Person A walks for an hour, staying in the fat burning zone.  She burns 300 calories, 50% of which are from fat, while Person B runs for an hour, staying in the cardio zone.  She burns 600 calories, 30% of which are from fat. People are then forced to logically conclude that Person B burns more fat than person A.

Those formulas DONT HAVE any other information about Person A/B except time/calories. That's quite impersonable don't you think?

Your illustration about proclaiming the wonders of a fat-free diet is spot on -- that's exactly what some people are doing about high-intensity training! It is the end all and be all -- without considering other factors that might make it worse for other people -- aside from some calorie burning calculation.

Anyway -- I'm off to the gym now. Thanks for your input.

I got lost when burning fat is not the same as burning calories????

Original Post by octo-luv:

I got lost when burning fat is not the same as burning calories????

I have no idea - most of her links supported my argument, and then she changed her argument, and then called me a child (and possibly fat? I got lost around there).

The quote in Post #7, from a YMCA pdf, left off the end of the paragraph:

This is actually true, but can be quite misleading unless you see the entire picture.

Post #9 actually restated my argument, but then she said that it was just different in her case, because she is the "lab norm" not the "clinical norm" and that everyone will respond differently. And then she said it was because higher intensity increases appetite, which doesn't mean much if you are counting calories and controlling your diet - all of this is meaningless unless you are controlling your diet.

It's all in good fun, eh?

Original Post by amethystgirl:

Original Post by octo-luv:

I got lost when burning fat is not the same as burning calories????

I have no idea - most of her links supported my argument, and then she changed her argument, and then called me a child (and possibly fat? I got lost around there).

The quote in Post #7, from a YMCA pdf, left off the end of the paragraph:

This is actually true, but can be quite misleading unless you see the entire picture.

Post #9 actually restated my argument, but then she said that it was just different in her case, because she is the "lab norm" not the "clinical norm" and that everyone will respond differently. And then she said it was because higher intensity increases appetite, which doesn't mean much if you are counting calories and controlling your diet - all of this is meaningless unless you are controlling your diet.

It's all in good fun, eh?

um yeah, i read that article from the number 9 post and it basically said to burn more fat you do higher intensity exercises like intervals???

octo - that's how I read it, too. *shrug*

i don't know anything about this stuff, and i don't particularly care to.  as far as i'm concered, all i need to know about weight loss is eat-less-and-move-more.  but this thread was fun, if only because i got to watch choco's language go from hyper-intellectual and controlled to barely coherent as she realized that she wasn't going to be able to BS her way through (and i'd be willing to be that the BS strategy works for her in most contexts).

I’ll sum up the questions that I asked posters, and then used previous research on the benefits of low-intensity workouts versus high – although a combination is probably most beneficial. I’ll ignore those who want to personally attack me for whatever reasons that they might have. Life is too short!

First:  The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) still recommend longer daily and cumulative weekly exercise duration when the goal is fat loss. The ACSM position stand titled, "The recommended quantity and quality of exercise" states, "A threshold level for total body mass and fat mass loss generally would require at least 30-45 min of exercise per session for a person of average fitness.
If the primary purpose of the training program is for weight loss, then regimens of greater frequency and duration of training and moderate intensity are recommended. Shorter duration, higher intensity programs may be recommended for healthy individuals at low risk for cardiovascular disease and orthopedic injury."

I’m still on the multiplicity of norms – that is – you have to negotiate the clinical norms (that which you report) with the lab norms (that which studies have reported). Most times people will find a range of responses that work best for them.

From posters and Internet research I found:

1.    Low intensity workouts tend to burn fat, but they do not build muscle as quickly. If you were to perform a low intensity workout for three months, you would likely shed more physical pounds than you would if you were doing powerhouse, high intensity workouts for the same three months.  Most people want this result.

2.    It's well known that low intensity exercise utilizes primarily fat as fuel and high intensity exercise utilizes more carbohydrate as fuel. You will burn more calories with higher intensity, but more calories burned don’t always equal to greater weight loss, even though theoretically it should!

3.    Carbs can be burnt off much quicker than stored fat, so an exercise that targets fat is worth the try. Also, large amounts of fat can be stored by the body but only a small amount of 'sugar.'  Stored fat is what many women are looking to combat – particularly around their bellies.

4.    In a person who is under a lot of stress and who has chronically overworked adrenal glands, cortisol levels will be high and adrenaline will have long since been used up. Under these circumstances, if you add heavy physical exercise as an additional stressor to the body, the result will be even more cortisol release from the adrenals. The high levels of cortisone result in more and more fat storage in the lower belly.

Many people in this situation who are determined to lose weight will see their inability to lose weight as an indication that they need to exercise harder and more often. These people may be able to continue to lose weight in general, because if you are burning more calories than you take in, you will lose weight, but they never are able to eliminate that lower belly fat. So they work out even harder, but the belly fat remains - and they become more and more fatigued and actually begin to lose strength in the muscles of the arms and legs.

5.    For people who are out of shape low intensity may be the way to go because you can sustain a low intensity workout longer and far more productively. You will build up your cardiovascular strength and you will continue to burn excess calories daily.

At the end of the day, you have to choose what’s best for you.

I’m outta’ here! Have a great WE.

This thread's been real interesting to read.

I'm no expert but I know that high intensity has worked for me and all the guys that use my boxing club.  Like myself, many of them said that doing the long drawn out 3-5 miles of road work didn't make them lose that much fat, but as soon as they incorporated sprints, the fat really drops off.

chocomilk, even with all your imputs and formulas and person A and person B and person A/B....the person that does the higher intensity STILL BURNS MORE FAT! I actually read through all your misleading, confusing, migrane inducing posts and....do the math. It's all there!