Easy workouts burn more fat!

[windwords7]

Second in a series

By Hal Walter

Just as your diet and eating habits can help program your body to burn more fat, so too can exercise. While this may seem obvious to most people, many fail to understand that the intensity of exercise plays a major role in the way your body uses fat as a fuel.

It's a paradox that's lost in most workout clubs and gyms, but the harder you exercise, the less percentage of body fat you burn. This is not to say that easy workouts necessarily burn larger amounts of fat during the workout, but rather that easier aerobic workouts help you burn higher percentages of fat not only during your workout, but also when you are not exercising.

The body burns a mix of sugar and fat to obtain energy. During the short period of time intense anaerobic exercise is being performed, you may burn larger quantities of fat, and corresponding larger quantities of sugar, as compared to a short duration of aerobic exercise. This is because you burn more total calories during this period. However, this short period of exercise programs your body to burn a larger percentage of sugar rather than fat for all other activities throughout the day and night, resulting in less overall fat-burning.

In his years of studying the effects of exercise in both elite athletes and everyday patients, Dr. Phil Maffetone found through the use of laboratory measurements of respiratory quotient (RQ) that lower intensity aerobic exercise burned a higher percentage of fat and lower percentage of sugar. As the intensity of exercise increases to become more anaerobic, the percentage of fat used as fuel decreases and the percentage of sugar increases.

This trend carries over to your metabolism, lasting up to 24 hours. So if you work out at a higher intensity, burning a higher percentage of sugar, your body will burn mostly sugar for all of your activities, including sleeping. However, if you exercise at a lower intensity, your body will burning a higher percentage of fat for the rest of the day.

Over time, exercising aerobically further improves the efficiency of your aerobic system, allowing you to obtain even larger percentages of energy from fat. Dr. Maffetone's RQ measurements indicate some people who develop very advanced aerobic systems can obtain as much as 70 percent of all energy from fat, even at low levels of exercise intensity.

The result of improved aerobic fitness is your net fat-burning is increased, with more energy obtained from fat than sugar. Through his study of athletes and patients, Dr. Maffetone developed the 180 Formula for developing aerobic fitness and increasing fat-burning. This method requires a heart-rate monitor and is explained in his book, In Fitness and In Health.

 

[jminis]

Interesting. Nice article ww7. Late J

 

[Biggs]

eeeexcellent smithers....

 

[Flavor]

So... what does this say about HIIT? I don't think HIIT's effectiveness can be disputed...

 

[YellowJacket]

Any training format can be disputed, especially HIT.

 

[Flavor]

Any training format can be disputed, especially HIT.

You mean HIIT, right? Just making sure.

 

[YellowJacket]

Im not talking about the cardio, but the training method, Hit, Hiit, whatever the hell they call it.

 

[Rhapsody]

good read........

 

[windwords7]

Glad you all like it!

 

[DoctorX2k2]

Well now that's confusing... HIIT studies proven to burn more fat than ET... and this says ET burns more than HIIT...

 

[zwarrior99]

Any training format can be disputed, especially HIT.

Hey no hating on HIT, it rocks

 

[ex_banana-eater]

Well now that's confusing... HIIT studies proven to burn more fat than ET... and this says ET burns more than HIIT...

This does not take into consideration the hours after training, where HIIT drastically outperforms low-med intensity cardios, in fat burning that is.

 

[TooL]

It does take into consideration the hours after training. Thats what the confusing part is. As YellowJacket said, any one thing can be proved or disproved through research.

 

[dirlewanger]

this energy system thing is blown way out of proportion by the college professors and what not because they are looking purely at the substrates that fuel the muscle cells over time. Yes prolonged low intensity workouts lead to beta oxidation which leads to fat burning. However in the end, what determines most of fat loss is calories in vs. calories out. I can guarantee you that a half hour of intense exercise burns more calories than an hour and a half at low intensity on a exercise bike.

 

[Iron Warrior]

I can guarantee you that a half hour of intense exercise burns more calories than an hour and a half at low intensity on a exercise bike.

That was my impression as well, however, HIT may not be necessary for bodybuilders IMO because we already tax our fast-twitch fibers during weight training, and we all know you can't be a bodybuilder if you don't weight train

 

[Boarder1]

During lower intensity cardio the body will tend to get its energy from the oxidative sytem, which uses carbohydrates, fats and to an extent protein as the fuel source. In this oxidated system, if the intensity increases the system becomes more dependent on carbohydrates as its energy source. If the intensity remains constant there will be a gradual shift back to fats as the preferred energy source.

During HIIT the body relies on the Oxidative system and Fast Glycolysis (Carb are the source of energy).

This being said you will burn more fat calories during low intensity Cardio than on HIIT. If you look at some of the treadmills and cardio gear you will notice that they have Fat Burning and cardio zones - where the fat burning zones are a lower heartrate (intensity).

 

[Iron Warrior]

So would you a combination of sprinting and weight training would be the best way to go Boarder1 ?

 

[Boarder1]

It really depends on what you are training for. For bodybuilding, HIIT has been a proven method for gaining some aerobic benefits without performing extended bouts of endurance aerobics. HIIT is also less likely to have a negative impact on anaerobic progress, unless you aerobically overtrain..Yes you can overtrain aerobically

 

[Flavor]

This being said you will burn more fat calories during low intensity Cardio than on HIIT. If you look at some of the treadmills and cardio gear you will notice that they have Fat Burning and cardio zones - where the fat burning zones are a lower heartrate (intensity).

The difference between calories burned during low intensity vs. high intensity cardio is meaningless. It has a negligible impact on weight loss. The differences show in the metabolic aftereffects. HIIT has been shown to burn far more fat in this time.

It really depends on what you are training for. For bodybuilding, HIIT has been a proven method for gaining some aerobic benefits without performing extended bouts of endurance aerobics. HIIT is also less likely to have a negative impact on anaerobic progress, unless you aerobically overtrain..Yes you can overtrain aerobically

I think you're understating HIIT's effects. Not only is it superior for weight loss, it increases your anaerobic threshold and even your aerobic capacity to a greater extent than low intensity long duration cardio. Its shortcoming is that it doesn't stimulate the same kind of muscular endurance.

 

[Boarder1]

The difference between calories burned during low intensity vs. high intensity cardio is meaningless. It has a negligible impact on weight loss. The differences show in the metabolic aftereffects. HIIT has been shown to burn far more fat in this time.

I was merely trying to show how the author came up with the greater fat burning capacity during low intensity cardio. More calories are burned during HIIT, just not more fat calories. As i have stated before endurance aerobics do not mix well with anaerobic activity such as body building, but HIIT shows to have a lesser negative impact on anaerobic progress.

I think you're understating HIIT's effects. Not only is it superior for weight loss, it increases your anaerobic threshold and even your aerobic capacity to a greater extent than low intensity long duration cardio. Its shortcoming is that it doesn't stimulate the same kind of muscular endurance.

You have 2 contradicting statement in this sentence..You are saying HIIT will increase aerobic capacity to a greater extent than low intensity long duration cardio (I am assuming jogging). Then you turn around and say HIIT doesnt stimulate muscular endurance. Aerobic training is all about muscular endurance (caloric efficiency, maximal oxygen uptake,mitochondrial density, capillary density,etc.). If HIIT was aerobically superior, marathon runners could just do HIIT for training.

Maybe you should have read the post previous to yours before you pulled out your flamethrower.

 

[Flavor]

You have 2 contradicting statement in this sentence..You are saying HIIT will increase aerobic capacity to a greater extent than low intensity long duration cardio (I am assuming jogging). Then you turn around and say HIIT doesnt stimulate muscular endurance. Aerobic training is all about muscular endurance (caloric efficiency, maximal oxygen uptake,mitochondrial density, capillary density,etc.). If HIIT was aerobically superior, marathon runners could just do HIIT for training.

Maybe you should have read the post previous to yours before you pulled out your flamethrower.

I didn't say HIIT doesn't stimulate muscular endurance... just not to the same degree. Marathon runners certainly do use HIIT in training, however, as their legs need to be accustomed to running long distances (i.e. employ high muscular endurance) they use distance running as well.

No flamethrower m'dear sir, just pointing out errors as I see them. Don't be offended.

Edit: I misspoke... not necessarily errors, but misleading information. I wouldn't want someone to think low intensity long duration cardio was the better choice because it burned more calories while being done.

 

[Boarder1]

Edit: I misspoke... not necessarily errors, but misleading information. I wouldn't want someone to think low intensity long duration cardio was the better choice because it burned more calories while being done.

I totally agree with misconception that low intensity cardio burns more fat...During the activity itself, low intensity will use more fat substrates than HIIT..But the cumulative fat burning effect (including hours after activity) is much greater with the HIIT activity.

 

[da95es]

This being said you will burn more fat calories during low intensity Cardio than on HIIT. If you look at some of the treadmills and cardio gear you will notice that they have Fat Burning and cardio zones - where the fat burning zones are a lower heartrate (intensity).

Those charts for "fat burning zones" in all reality, are leading people astray. There is NO SUCH THING as a "fat burning zone"! Sure, while exercising at lower intensity, a larger percentage of the energy being burned is due to fat that is being mobilized. However, the caloric expenditure is so low that the activity may very well have minimal effect. People are much better off working at a moderate to high intensity (albeit below lactate threshold) for a shorter period of time. The actual percentage of calories coming from fat will be lower, however the intensity will be such that the total number of fat calories burned over the course of a workout will actually come out higher. Plus, you will have burned a much higher total amount of calories (fat + carb + protein sources).

 

[cookmic5]

Ok, I realize this thread is 14 days without a post, but I was hoping someone (hopefully WW7) could offer a little clarification. As I understand WW7's article, its saying that you can train your body, through aerobic exercise, to burn fat more consistenly throughout the day. I also understand that intense anarobic exercise has been shown to put a greater demand on the body causing it to burn more energy sources in a shorter amount of time, which continues post workout. I think one important variable here is how long post workout each works. As I understand the article aerobic can be used to make your body burn fat all day. And my understanding, thus far, is that anarobic has an intially greater energy source (sugars and fat) burning effect but it stops at a point (perhaps several hours post workout). So here is the question: lets say the calories you burn during your cardio workout are equal, for example, you burn 400 calories anarobicly in 20-30 min (raw figures here) and you burn 400 calories aerobicly in 1 hour, so your calorie expendature in initially equal in regards to you calorie demands, does the aerobic burn more fat and have a longer lasting fat burning effect post workout? I think this is what the article was getting at, in which case, I don't see how combining the aerobic cardio to burn fat with the anarobic lifting to build muscle would result in anything but increased gains in lean mass. I could be missing something here so please feel free to fill me in.

As always, thanks for the knowledge.

Alway learning

cookmic5

 

[ManBeast]

My cardio tends to be along the HIIT route, even raquetball is not always aerobic (depnds on a lot of factors of the game). I only use raquetball or HIIT for cardio come to think of it....

Anyways, I've noticed very good fat loss when using these methods, be it natural or when throwing in some xenadrine, or clen, or t3

ManBeast