Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

MODERATE PACE WALKING... how good for fat burning?

  • Thread starter Thread starter leancuisine
  • Start date Start date
L

leancuisine

Guest
a 45 minute walk at a moderate pace will get your heartrate at around 80bpm. over 45 minutes you burn about 300 calories.
keep your caloric intake the same and walk for 12 days and that's 3600 calories or 1 pound of fat.

can any vet/expert confirm this?
 
300 cals in 45 mins? At that heart rate, I'm thinking less than that, but depends on weight. On an empty stomach, not too shabby. Add incline intervals, and you're talkin'!
 
From what i have read, best fat burning is at 60%-70% of your maximal heart rate [not the most accurate, but good enough]. As an estimation, maximal hr is 220 - age [+/- 10 beats]

So, if you are 20 years old,

Max HR = 220 - 20 = 200

60% - 70% of 200 = 120 - 140 beat pm.

So, 140 for a period of time would be best for fat burning. Of course this is estimation and is used because there is a coorelation between Max HR and VO2 max... buts that the sciency stuff i dont really know yet.

-Fatty
 
SPATTS.... so you agree with it?

FATTY..... thanks for that even though i'm past the basics.
 
dont like that answer SPATTS.

you're supposed to know everything!:smash:
 
Personally, I think cardio's over rated. Sled dragging, sprinting, hiking...it has to be eventful for me to want to do it. 45 min on a treadmill is something I do to turture myself into a bikini once a year, if that.
 
how effective would this be!

ok i love running! i dunno y i just do! so when iget board or dont have crew practice i go down stairs and run on my tredmill.

i walk for 20 sec. then i put it up to its max speed 11mph so i sprint like that for 2 miles witch is 10 min. so then i speed walk to 13 min. then im at 2.25 of a mile. Then i sprint the rest of the way to 3.5 miles by that time im usually @ 19 min. then i walk to 25 then im @ 3.85 or 4 miles it says i burn 550 cals is this right or wrong?

im 15 130lbs
 
I don't lift during hunting season,(Sorry but it is my passion and one of the reasons I workout is to be in better shape for the season).

I dropped 12lbs during the season.I was doing about 5 miles a day over some hard terrain.

I didn't notice any real loss of strength when I got back in the gym,actually I may have been stronger as I see I've been way over training for the last year.

I'd say get a good pair of boots and get in the woods or trails.

Mad
 
Calories burned are not dependent on how fast you move but how far you go. The closest guideline I have seen is you burn 100 calories per mile. There is very little variation, though heavier people do burn more, because they have to move more weight. However, it is usually not much of a difference. +/- 20 calories per mile.

Treadmill caculations aren't always the most accurate either.
 
godamn it!

lets get some answers here people!

the goal is to build muscle as fast as possilbe while at the same time burn fat.

now, we all know that intense cardio and for that matter even moderate cardio (60-70%) can be catabolic.

so, what is the answer?
no cardio at all???
very light cardio like moderate pace walking?

SPATTS........

come on hottee...
lets hear the bottom line!
:spin:
 
spatts said:
Hopefully, the fast you go, the further you will go.

True! That is why I try to go fast. ;) That and I am like you, I don't have the patience to be on a treadmill or bike/elliptical or whatever for 45 mins.

Cardio has not been shown in studies to be a factor in loss of fat. The only benifit running has been shown is to use carbohydrate stores more efficently. Not burn fat. However, it is good for your heart and O2 consumption efficency.
 
I know that I am going to get called out on that statement, so I will look up the study I read. I am having difficulty finding it, but I should find it again.
(I should restate that running for less than 45 mins does not burn fat stores, I believe after that it does, but also burns muscle glycogen and proteins)
 
In the meantime- Read this. It basically talks about the things the journal entry I read said. (I don't remember where I read it.../sigh)

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/41/1671_51993.htm

Which Exercises Burn the Most Fat?



I'm wondering if burning fat and burning calories are the same thing. I'm also confused when I hear that some exercises, like walking and slow jogging, are better for "fat burning" and weight loss. Please explain.


When you exercise, your muscles, as well as other parts of the body including the brain, burn fuel to do their work. This fuel, which is measured in calories, is supplied by two primary sources in your body:
Stored carbohydrate called glycogen, which is made from many sugar units called glucose, and is found in the muscles and liver.
Stored body fat found in fat cells and also tucked away in small droplets in the muscles.
Take note that protein is not a major source of energy during exercise.
How many total calories you burn during your activity, as well as how much of this fuel comes from glycogen and how much comes from fat, depends primarily upon two factors: the intensity of the exercise (how hard you are working out) and your fitness level.
Both carbohydrate and fat are used as calorie sources during most activities, with a few exceptions. During light or low-effort exercise such as walking, fat is the primary fuel source, supplying about 60 to 70 percent of the calories burned. Carbohydrate or glucose burning makes up the difference. As you increase your effort — for example, speeding up your walking pace to a jog — your muscles burn more calories per minute, and a shift begins towards carbohydrate supplying more of the energy, while fat supplies less.
The type of fuel you burn moves on a gradual continuum from fat to carbohydrate as you increase exercise intensity. That means you proportionally burn more carbohydrate and less fat as you progress from a jog, to a run, to an even faster run. The contribution of fat to the fuel mix drops off as you increase your effort, and carbohydrate burning increases. At very high intensity, such as a quick running pace that you wouldn't be able to maintain for much more than a few minutes, carbohydrate is the only fuel source.
What all this energy burning boils down to is this: Fat is a good source of fuel at low-intensity exercises when your breathing rate and oxygen use can keep up with the demands of the exercise. This type of exercise is often referred to as "aerobic" meaning "with oxygen." Carbohydrate, on the other hand, is better suited as a fuel source during high-intensity efforts, such as fast running when breathing rate or oxygen needs fall short of the energy demands of the exercise. This type of high-intensity exercise is called "anaerobic," or without oxygen.
Here's where your fitness level plays a big part in how much fat and carbohydrate you burn. Part of the adaptation to training, such as starting a running program, is that your muscles become better fat burners. This mean that at a given running pace, you burn more fat and less carbohydrate than you burned when you were less fit but running the same pace. When you increase your fat-burning ability, you also increase your ability to exercise comfortably for a longer period of time — therefore burning more calories. This happens because your muscles and liver can only store a limited amount of glycogen — enough to fuel about 90 minutes to just over two hours of continuous exercise. Thus, if you can burn more fat while running, you save some glycogen so that, ultimately, you can run longer.
How does all this fit into losing body fat? You might think from this explanation that low-intensity exercises are better for fat loss, and in the end, weight loss. Actually, this is not true. Let me explain this common point of misunderstanding.
There is a rule when it comes to losing body fat: You must burn more calories than you eat. Doing so creates an energy deficit that prompts your body to take fat out of storage, and you lose weight. Any exercise burns calories, and any exercise can contribute to fat loss as long as you have an energy deficit over time.
While low-intensity exercises burn proportionately more body fat and high-intensity exercises burn mostly carbohydrate, what your body burns as fuel after you work out also contributes to the fat-loss picture. Studies show that following high-intensity exercise, the body burns more fat to compensate for lost glycogen stores as they are being refilled and the body recovers from the tough exercise session. This revved-up fat burning may continue for more than 24 hours, depending upon the exercise effort. Also, high-intensity exercise burns more calories per minute than "slow" activities. So you burn more calories in the time you dedicate to exercising, which can help when you're trying to lose weight.
The bottom line is when it comes to exercise and fat loss, any exercise will do, as long as you do it! Low-intensity exercises are easier to do, especially as you start a fitness program. And as you become more fit, you can boost the intensity for greater calorie burning per minute. So find an activity, or several to avoid boredom, and enjoy your fitness and improved health.
 
Bottom line for fat loss? Easy...DIET. Exactly what nobody wants to do. That's why few succeed.
 
spatts said:
Bottom line for fat loss? Easy...DIET. Exactly what nobody wants to do. That's why few succeed.

I wouldn't say it is the "bottom" line...

C-ditty
 
EPIMETHEUS.......

that article is EXACTLY what i was looking for.

karma to you.

does anybody else have similar references?

much appreciated.

love this board despite its rather low traffic.
 
It's low traffic on the weekends. Picks up more in the spring too, as people are training for that "beach bod."

:)
 
Top Bottom