What a load of crap.

[/quote]"If you work out at an easy intensity, you will burn a higher percentage of fat calories" than if you work out a higher intensity, Carey says[/quote] True, BUT if you burn let's say 100 calories per hour doing steady-state easy cardio, then let's say 70% is from fat (70 calories). But if you perform High Intensity Exercise (weight training, circuit style stuff, complexes, sprinting etc etc) for an hour, then if only say 40% come from fat, then if you burn 300 calories that's 120 calories. You'll also get the benefit of building some muscle and gaining strength, thus increasing metabolism (due to increased muscle mass) and improve the appearance of your body (aka as muscle "tone"). Trust me, doing complex DB & BB training interspersed with other effective training methods do increase strength and muscle (not as much as "ure" weight training methods aimed at muscle gain mind you).

You have to be very careful when dealing with relative percentages.

There are statistics, more statistics and lies.

btw the only time steady-state cardio works for true good fat loss is in very heavy muscular (and perhaps obese) people. So that is why body builders do find it works. But they have so much muscle that just walking for an hour burns a lot of calories. For most people it's a poor and very inefficient strategy. Even BBers have to do it every day during they "dieting phase"... sometimes twice a day.

I do believe there is an "afterburn". Even if the increase in metabolism is small, it is still an effect and some more (albeit small) calories will be burned compared to normal. Then if you exercise a day later (or up to 48hrs later) you piggy back the already revved up metabolism. That is where the fat loss starts to occur with the use of high intensity "interval style" training. Remember: lifting weights, sprints on foot & bike, skipping, complexes, prowler pushes, tyre flips etc etc are all high intensity that have to be done in an interval training style.

This is where I get annoyed with some people's views on steady-state cardio and esp their downplaying of high intensity interval training. You have to make it clear who you are talking about performing it. As I say, BBers will benefit from cardio (I still think there's a better way but god forbid they try it, in case they lose muscle! In fact they'll probably lose muscle from the cortisol increase with the worry about maybe losing muscle from a different way of training lmao).

If steady-state cardio was so effective for the non-obese general population then all those people you see day-after-day on the treadmills, and stationary bikes and x-trainers would be lean as hell... but they sure are not lean. Those that are "lean" then probably eat well (or not much in the case of some women); and then we know they are not low body fat lean but just skinny-fat.

Furthermore, and to almost contradict myself, the use of steady-state cardio IN ADDITION TO smart training in the gym in a high intensity fashion, is certainly a benefit to aid recovery, help maybe keep the elevated metabolism higher than baseline levels and if it involves outside walking will make you feel far better and hopefuly get a bit of Vit D (which decrease body fat by making you more insulin sensitive).

health4ni wrote:What a load of crap.

"If you work out at an easy intensity, you will burn a higher percentage of fat calories" than if you work out a higher intensity, Carey says True, BUT if you burn let's say 100 calories per hour doing steady-state easy cardio, then let's say 70% is from fat (70 calories). But if you perform High Intensity Exercise (weight training, circuit style stuff, complexes, sprinting etc etc) for an hour, then if only say 40% come from fat, then if you burn 300 calories that's 120 calories. You'll also get the benefit of building some muscle and gaining strength, thus increasing metabolism (due to increased muscle mass) and improve the appearance of your body (aka as muscle "tone"). Trust me, doing complex DB & BB training interspersed with other effective training methods do increase strength and muscle (not as much as "ure" weight training methods aimed at muscle gain mind you).

You have to be very careful when dealing with relative percentages.

Bingo! Argued this exact point on UK-M just a few days ago - higher percentage of fat kcals at low intensity sure, but the lower percentage of fat kcals at a much higher intensity is always a greater number of fat kcals overall because you burn many more total kcals.

lol so you took issue with it Scott?

I know and agree - it was a really odd study and you can see people reading it and taking it as true