Interval sprints or long distance running for fat burn?

[Ademio]

Which of the two is more effective and why? I read somewhere in the FAQ's that interval running is better when it comes to fat burning and weight loss. One of the trainers in the gym I go to says its bullshit and my brother also recommends long distance jogging. He has also told me that I should lift weights before doing the sprints which had something to do with my heart rate being at a level where burning fats goes quicker.

thx

[RedNeckJiuJitsu]

Most people in the gym don't know what the hell they're talking about. They just repeat the same bullshit they've heard that gets passed around like it's the Gospel because people don't bother to check out what they've heard.

[OmegaDdubs8932]

I've read/heard that an 8 minute jog/sprint interval of 30 seconds is more effective than an 8 MPH jog for 30 minutes.

[Chesten_Hesten]

For a while there the thought trend seemed to be among a lot of endurance athletes that long duration at lower heart rate activities, (running riding etc) burned more fat than ball to the wall sprint stuff.

At some point even the magazine article writers began to ntice that the people who were busting ass where the same if not a little better with fat burning.

The last explanation I saw was this:

For the duration to the exercise itself the longer lower heart rate activity burns more fat than the Balls to the wall approach.

However, when you take into account the body's recovery time afterwards, the balls to the wall approach ends up burning more fat because it too more energy to rebuild the tear down.

This is like the difference between light weights high reps and heavier weights low reps more or less I guess.

Make any sense?

[RyanR]

IMO start out with distance running then move to sprints after you can run 3 miles or so comfortably

[Ademio]

Originally Posted by Chesten_Hesten

For a while there the thought trend seemed to be among a lot of endurance athletes that long duration at lower heart rate activities, (running riding etc) burned more fat than ball to the wall sprint stuff.

At some point even the magazine article writers began to ntice that the people who were busting ass where the same if not a little better with fat burning.

The last explanation I saw was this:

For the duration to the exercise itself the longer lower heart rate activity burns more fat than the Balls to the wall approach.

However, when you take into account the body's recovery time afterwards, the balls to the wall approach ends up burning more fat because it too more energy to rebuild the tear down.

This is like the difference between light weights high reps and heavier weights low reps more or less I guess.

Make any sense?

could u explain the first thing u said thats in bold

isnt it a fact that lifting light weights high raps is better for fat burning than heavy reps?

[Ademio]

Originally Posted by RyanR

IMO start out with distance running then move to sprints after you can run 3 miles or so comfortably

all right, but why is that?

[IronMaidenfan#1]

There's no reason not to do both. If you feel like you haven't got an aerobic base then start with LSD but if you do have an aerobic base already then try doing both. There are benefits to both things. Of course, sprints will promote more GH production but in the same respect aerobic stuff will help improve your gas tank as well as acting as a steady fat burner.

[Chesten_Hesten]

The last explanation I saw was this:

For the duration to the exercise itself the longer lower heart rate activity burns more fat than the Balls to the wall approach.

What I understood was being said, (I was trying to find the article but couldn't)


Is that while low intensity training burns more fat than High Intensity traing while you're doing it.

2hr Bike ride at low-medium pace vs 30 minutes of hauling ass sprints.
right, during the time the activity is happening, the lower intensity activity does a better job at burning fat.

But

If you take into account the amount of energy the body burns up in the post-recovery time following those repsective activities, the harder more intense workout catches up and surpasses the low intensity routine in overall fat burning.

Whether this is always the case, I don't know. individual mileage may vary right, but it sounds reasonable.

Basically you want to do this:

The Overload Principle
Apply stress to body → break down body systems → accumulate fatigue → recover from fatigue → supercompensate → apply higher levels of stress to body → repeat cycle until reaching peak of fitness.

There's a bunch of training articles here:
Motocross Training, Fitness, and Nutrition from Racer X Virtual Trainer

Their Full list of training stuff here:
Archive_Quick_list

They have a bunch of shit like this here:


&

Articles like this:
Cardio Training for the Motocross Athlete - Racer X Virtual Trainer

[kenzo242]

We burn fat by eating less and moving more. Let's say you eat a 3000cal/day diet and you burn 4000cal/day. That extra activity will be fuled by our fat stores. Thus making us leaner over time. It's the Law of Thermodynamics.

Alot of people think of the "fat burning" zone for cardio is around 55% of their of the heart rate maximum. When we are working out at that low intensity, our bodies are using fat (beta oxidation) as energy. The problem is, the intensity is too low and you don't end up burning many calories. That's why so many people associate cardio only for fat burning.

The best thing you can do for your fat burning and conditioning is to eat less and move more and do both long distance training and sprint training.