[TJ Combo]

Am I right when I say cycling cause you can control your pulse pretty good?

[mcbadboy170]

Interval training/sprint training is the best way to burn fat with out going into a catabolic state. How many big ripped marathon/tri-atheletes do you see? Now look at an olympic sprinter.

[johnnynoname]

Originally Posted by mcbadboy170

Interval training/sprint training is the best way to burn fat with out going into a catabolic state. How many big ripped marathon/tri-atheletes do you see? Now look at an olympic sprinter.

agree. especially 400meter sprints.

here's a great article on intervals

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459414

[wenispinkle]

its definately running although timing,intensity, intervals and all that bullshit come into play....but you can control your heart rate just as easy running as cycling, and when you cycle and swim your body weight is supported by either the bike or water, whereas in running you must support your body weight

[BoxingFanNoMore]

Originally Posted by mcbadboy170

Interval training/sprint training is the best way to burn fat with out going into a catabolic state. How many big ripped marathon/tri-atheletes do you see? Now look at an olympic sprinter.

I know quite a few "big ripped" tri-athelets, in fact I know some NFL players who compete in triathlons in the offseason to stay in shape(and get shitloads of free stuff from sponsors & prizes).

And you cant just "look" at olympic athletes to determine whats the best way. In fact Tim Montgomery was smaller than me before he used steroids, Carl Lewis and the new 100m world record holder Asafa Powell are about exactly the same height and weight as Michael Phelps, about 6'3-'6'4 and about 195 pounds.

My point is professional athletics has very little to do with regular exercise, and you cant just look at body types and infer whats best because of what athletes on an olympic level do. Thats like taking dieting advice from a jockey just because he weighs less than you.

As for the original question, thats a very complicated question. There are way to many variables to say that one is better than the other for burning fat. Your weight, Heart Rate, and even just your efficiency at the exercise for example. Also, there have been studies showing simple exercises at short high-intestity levels, such as jumping rope lead to more calories burned than either running, cycling, or swimming. There have also been studies showing cross country skiing trumps them all also. Hence, all those nordic/Elliptical machines and such.

Bottom line is there are advantages and disadvantages to any exercise. Which you have to weigh and find what works for you. Or you can crosstrain and incorporate many different techniques and exercises into your overall training.

[BoxingFanNoMore]

Double Post

[BoxingFanNoMore]

Triple Post

[BoxingFanNoMore]

Originally Posted by wenispinkle

its definately running although timing,intensity, intervals and all that bullshit come into play....but you can control your heart rate just as easy running as cycling, and when you cycle and swim your body weight is supported by either the bike or water, whereas in running you must support your body weight

Supporting your body weight has nothing to with, in fact that is one of the disadvantages of running becuase its harder on your joints. Standing still requires you to support your body weight, but yet you do not create any mechanical energy or do any work.

[patriarq]

^ if you stand still and squat you do work.

same principal, your legs are thrusting your weight upwards and forwards as you pace

[Mav3rick]

Originally Posted by BoxingFanNoMore

Supporting your body weight has nothing to with, in fact that is one of the disadvantages of running becuase its harder on your joints. Standing still requires you to support your body weight, but yet you do not create any mechanical energy or do any work.

Supporting your bodyweight does in fact have everything to do with it. You are recruiting more muscle fibers by supporting your body and moving it through the desired distance as opposed to cycling where you recruit primarily the muscles of the lower extremities. Run a mile one day and track your heart rate. Cycle a mile one day and track your heart rate. Compare the two and you will see there is a big difference in heart rate levels, providing you tried to keep a relatively comparable pace.

I prefer cycling when I'm not concerned with sport specific training. It has a lower intensity and yes it is easier on the joints of the lower extremities. The key is finding what works for you. Research and theories are guides, they aren't substitutes for personal experience.