Walk or Run?

[curling]

Man I am 37 that would be only 109 beats per minute I would have to do a slow walk to be at that low of a heart rate. (I smoke to btw I know I know I need to quit I will by the end of the summer that is my goal)

 

[Getdownonit]

Really that low is good enough. You can go slightly above, just not above by a great deal.

Smoking has to go to mate. I quit a while ago. Not only the cancer, but the oxygen in the blood is effected heavily which means that your muscles are being feed shit.

Add to that the fact that smoking decreases testosterone levels and your pretty much screwed.

 

[curling]

Yea I know but it least helps when you are on a cutting cycle.

 

[BarryMcCalkiner]

Re: They are both the same

If you walked for 2 miles you would burn the same amount of calories if you ran for 2 miles. There is no difference BUT it takes a lot longer to walk 2 miles than it does to run it! That's the only difference.

Using this same logic, you would get the same workout benching 100 pounds 30 times as you would benching 300 pounds 10 times.

To maximize any fat burning you need to turbo charge your metabolism. Running, and better yet, doing sprint intervals at max effort, will kick your system into high gear so that it stays there and continues to burn calories for hours after you stop running. When walking or slowly jogging, your heart rate doesn't get the same kick and returns to normal very soon after you finish. Did you ever notice those fat people walking on the treadmills at most gyms, talking to their friends and reading? If you can talk and/or read, you're not working hard enough!!

Strive for intensity!!!


B-Mac

 

[Getdownonit]

if you can talk and/or read then you are not working hard enough

I totally disagree. By working to a level that high you will burn muscle as a fuel and will hinder all your muscle gains emensly. The idea here is to burn a few excess calories, not your entire muscle structure. Why are long distance runners and such like so skinny? Because they burn on a high level for long periods.

Working to a level of 55-60% of your maximum heart beat has been prove (will now try and find a study on this for proof) to be the most efficent level to work to to optimise fat cells as a fuel source rather than muscle.

 

[BarryMcCalkiner]

I totally disagree. By working to a level that high you will burn muscle as a fuel and will hinder all your muscle gains emensly. The idea here is to burn a few excess calories, not your entire muscle structure. Why are long distance runners and such like so skinny? Because they burn on a high level for long periods.

Working to a level of 55-60% of your maximum heart beat has been prove (will now try and find a study on this for proof) to be the most efficent level to work to to optimise fat cells as a fuel source rather than muscle.

Here is one for you: http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/HIITvsET.html

I think you answered your own question about long distance runners when you mentioned "long periods of time." Plus, I haven't yet met a long distance runner looking to build mass. I ran a marathon in December that was full of every body type you can imagine.

The point is, do intense cardio for short duration to burn fat without eating away at muscle gains. If I work at 55-60% of my max heart rate I would have to work for a couple of hours to get the same results I get from 15-30 min of high intensity work.


B-Mac

 

[Getdownonit]

it doesn't mention how much muscle loss was experienced though