I want to iron out any mistakes in my thinking on this subject…
From a pure energy use viewpoint, isn’t a long, brisk walk better for weight loss and muscle retention than shorter session of more intense jogging or running? I think this for two reasons:
If I understand correctly, a longer session with less intensity burns the same amount of calories as some other equivalent high intensity exercise, but the ratio of fat/carbs burned is lower with walking as it is with running. I sure don’t want to burn carbs and deplete my muscles of their material. Fat burned is my goal, obviously.
Isn’t it better to “nickel and dime” your body to death, stealing small amounts of fat out from under it’s nose, by walking, rather than running and throwing up huge flags to your body sort of saying, “Ok, body, I’m gonna try to strip your fat now!”. If you are discreet, your body will have lost 10 lbs. of fat before it realizes it… on the other hand if you annihilate your bodys’ reserves, won’t it just counteract by storing more fat for the next “annihilation”?
I’m quite sure my logic and biology are correct, I’m just not sure what other factors I might be overlooking. It’s just that I see tons of women and men alike running so much (and eating well) but not losing any weight… if you walk (and have proper diet), I honestly don’t think it is physically possible to not lose fat and keep muscle. It’s sort of a sure thing, a law of biology. But so many keep running their butts off in search for fat loss…
Your muscles store carbohydrates to use for energy during exercise, whether it be rapid jogging or slow walking. Your body will not consume the actual muscle tissue for energy unless there are no fat reserves left, when you are starving to death.
The problem with your reasoning is that fat is not the first energy source used in aerobic exercise. I don’t have time to explain it now, but there’s some physiology that gets in the way. If you want to keep muscle, you’ll need to do some weight training–ideally, you’d lift before your aerobic sessions. Your diet is another major consideration.
I didn’t know walking was considered an aerobic exercise… think about that. I guess that could be up for debate.
I was asking this question with the assumption that you would be lifting weights at the same time… (surely, if you lose weight and are not lifting you will probably lose muscle.)
My proposition/question is just what you glossed over, but maybe walking uses primarily fat, because walking (4-4.5 mph) isn’t really even an exercise, it’s sort of a subtle, non-invasive increase in total metabolism, heart rate, respirations, circulation. This subtle raise will, I think, only cause an increase in fat use with a minimal amount of glycogen stores being depleted. No? This was always my assumption, in my 4 years of (casually) researching BB’ing.
Fat is the long term energy provider, carbs/glycogen is the short-term high intensity energy provider, or am I mistaken?
What about the ratio of fat to carbs burned I spoke of? Is there ANY difference at all from activity to activity? Surely you would want to participate in an activity where carb use is minimized and fat is maximized… because you are trying to lose fat off your belly, not carbs!
Walking lasts long enough for oxidation of fat to take place. Ergo, it’s aerobic.
The problem is that fat has to be oxidized before you can use it, and that requires time. For the first part of any exercise, you don’t have enough fat freed to use. You do use glycogen and protein, in that order. And even once you’re in fat-burning mode, you’re not relying solely on fat.
The chain of energy usage during exercise is ATP -> glycogen -> protein -> fat.
Aha, so the longer you walk, the higher and higher the fat/ATP,carb,protein ratio becomes = you look better at the end of your cutting cycle because you are not continually burning a ton of ATP, carbs, muscle!
First off, walking just doesn’t burn much of anything. This is all minutiae and probably not something you need to worry about in practice.
Secondly, as long as you walk, you’re burning fuel sources other than fat. So while you burn more fat, you also burn more glycogen, and more protein (which can be dietary protein as well as muscle).
its a moot point. on one hand low intensity exercise will spare more muscle. on another hand high intenisity exercise (after initially catabolizing some muscle) will trigger anabolic response. high intensity exercise also has an effect of increasing BMR for about 24 hours even after you’ve stopped exercising.
if you chose to walk you can do it on empty stomach. if you chose to do high intensity exercise such as sprints, you should drink a whey/dextrose shake.
Nope… total bullshit. ATP is the molecule which allows thin filament fibers to temporarily latch onto, and then pull back on muscle thick filament fibers. ATP is a replenishable battery molecule. It carries energy in the same manner heamoglobin can carry both carbon-dioxide and oxygen. ATP diminishes it’s energy state and turns into di-phospate versions of the original molecule, or even a mono-phosphate version (known as ADP or AMP respectively) before being replensished with energy via the breakdown of glucose once again. Protein conversely, is merely another source of energy into the digestive system, like fats and carbo-hydrates. But at the muscle level, only glycogen and glucose are used - and they are converted into lactic acid and carbon di-oxide as energy is released into ADP and AMP molecules to turn them back into ATP molecules.
It’s a little known thing that muscles themselves can go forever like monster V8 engines - so long as their waste products and cooling mechanisms are kept in check. THAT is what heavy training is all about if you’re an athlete - building up the ability to scavenge lactic acid and other waste products with bigger output pipes. The actual thin hook filaments themselves can go on forever.
All food types have to be digested and sent to the liver for processing before entering the blood stream for further depositing. With the exception of super simple carbohydrates such as sucrose, fructose, or glucose - all of which can be absorbed directly into the bloodstream straight from the stomach walls.
Next… the issue is NOT what gets burnt during exercise. Indeed, 95% of a person’s body fat weight loss takes places outside of exercise - particularly during sleep. The issue is the sum total of calories consumed during a 24 hour period, compared to the calories expended during that same 24 hour period.
So much crap and bullshit is floating around the scene these days. The bottom line is calories, calories, calories. All this rubbish about having to lift weights to maintain muscle size during weight loss is crap too. The body metabolises fat reserves whenever the liver’s glycogen stores start getting low. Muscle mass is NEVER minimised unless a human is undereating their calorific intake by at least 1800 calories per day. And all this rubbish about tweaking one’s diet in favour of high fats or low carbohydrates is bunkum too.
Any person who is VERY ACTIVE will be lean, unless they’re eating and drinking like a pig. The challenge is to recognise that the human body is a remarkably efficient machine, all things considered, and that we need far less food than most of us realise to survive.
You can take a man on the land for example - he does his 10 hour days. Fixing fences, laying irrigation pipes. A guy like that doesn’t even need to think about exercising to stay lean. He just plain is, already. Often, he can’t eat enough.
All this crap about aerobic versus anaerobic versus low carb versus Atkins - it’s pure bullshit. Just find a lifestyle, or an exercise regime which allows you to complement your daily metabolic rate in such a way that you burn more calories per 24 hours than you’re eating, and you WILL lose weight. 100%. It’s a scientific law of physics. Body fat is merely an energy storage mechanism. A good rule of thumb is to overburn by 500 calories per day. That equals 3,500 calories overburnt per week, and one pound of fat equals 3,500 calories. You do the math.
To find out what your daily metabolic rate is, look up “The Benedict Formula”. This calculates quite accurately how many calories you need per day if you never got out of bed. That’s your absolute minimum you need to neither gain, nor lose, weight. Then you work out how active you are, and what your work habits or exercise regime consumes, and then you fucking start counting calories OK?
No one said it’s easy. If it was easy, obesity wouldn’t be the problem it is in the Western World. That’s the problem with life in the Western World. We’ve made it all too easy for ourselves.
All the stuff about about aerobic versus anaerobic versus low carb versus Atkins isn’t PURE BULLSHIT as such - it actually has scientific basis in fact.
But man, unless you’re trying to make the Olympic Team in your chosen sport, it’s just gobbledygook which makes you lose sight of the forest for all the trees.
People need to seriously start thinking in 24 hour time frames, and the sum total of calories consumed per 24 hours. That one particular unit of measurement is far, far, far more important by many orders of magnitude than hi-tech esoteric debates about how much fat is being liberated per hour into glycogen during exercise.
BooBoo: Thanks for your input, honestly, but no one here was asking how to lose weight… I know how to do it. Two years ago I walked for an hour a day @ 4.4 mph, 6 days a week while continuing to lift. In 1.5 months, I lost 7 pounds of pure fat, while losing hardly any muscle size, and only lost 8% strength on most of my lifts. I looked unbelievable. I know that what I am asking here works, I just want to know if I would look better at the end of my cutting phase if I ran or walked to increase expenditure by a given rate, that’s all.
I have a feeling that you are going to say “cals in/out”, and that running, while somewhat catabolic, results in heightened anabolic hormones which counteract the catabolism, making it equal to walking…ok, how fast do you have to run, and for how long, to get this nice anabolic response? Is the answer something like, “It’s different for everyone.”? If so, then I guess we can’t really talk then.
These differences in the way we lose weight may seem small and insignificant to you, with your cals in, cals out mindset (which is so true). But, I believe small differences over the course of 2 or 3 months can make a big (visual) difference. No, I’m not competing, but I like to do things right. If walking is going to keep my muscles full, as opposed to busting arse on the treadmill, then I want to do it, and so would you.
I’m a 1984 Los Angeles Olympics competitor, in the 4 x 100k Team Time Trial and the 180k Road Race in Cycling. I still compete and coach at the National Junior level.
If getting “cut” is your goal (as in lowering your body fat percentage) well, at the end of the day your body truly doesn’t care how you do it, merely that somehow, that you do it.
So what it comes down to is this… different sports and activities consume different amounts of calories per hour. And a lot of people are actually quite sad and disappointed to learn how “low” on the scale of “cals per hour” gym workouts actually are.
The top 3 most intense sports known to man are as follows…
(1) 5k - 10k Olympic track running at approx 1600 cals per hour.
(2) Olympic cross country skiing at max intensity - approx 1600 cals per hour.
(3) Tour de France cycling at race pace - approx 1500 cals per hour.
But take note of something here… rare indeed is the runner who can run for even 1 hour at the levels quoted above. And obviously, cross country skiing isn’t something all of us get to do all year round. Accordingly, all things being equal, road cycling is arguably the most user friendly means of calorie burnups - insofar as even a moderately fit person can enjoy a 2 hour ride over say 35 miles on a good bike, say, 4 times a week. That equals roughly 4 x 2500 calories of workouts.
But it’s hard for most people to build up to the levels of running necessary to equal the sorts of calorie burnups you can achieve in cycling. Contrast this to brisk walking which, I’m told, averages about 400 calories per hour and you can start to see how much longer you would need to walk in terms of hours to consume similar numbers of calories.
To give you an idea, on Jan Ulrich’s bike in the 14th stage of le Tour last year, he rode with a pair of SRM cranks which digitally measure work output over the 192k stage. That particular stage include 4 Alpine climbs and the data showed he expended a whopping 9,200 calories in just one day. Obviously at those levels, you have to eat huge amounts of high density foods to avoid eating up your muscle fibers.
So my point is this… assuming your diet is meeting your nutritional needs, then the research shows that high intensity is better than low intensity exercise - insofar as it stimulates all of the response systems which go with having “great fitness”. That is, superior muscle fibre and size, a lower heart rate, superior waste scavenging etc. But it’s a bit disingenuous hauss to say you weren’t talking about losing weight when you revisit the last sentence in your OP and there you are yourself, talking about weight loss in the context of running. All I’m saying here is that you can eat as much as you want in life, IF (and only if) you’re guaranteed of burning it off.
I currently average about 350 - 400k a week on the racing bike. Obviously I’m lean as. Runners who don’t lose weight obviously aren’t running enough, in the context of how much they’re eating. But it’s not a broad brushstroke thing you can paint across the board that “walkers” are leaner (on average) than “runners”.
Boo, cycling and bodybuilding are two very different things. a 200 pound cyclist is too heavy to win anything. a 200 pound bodybuildier is too light.
in fact, Ronnie Coleman is almost exactly TWICE as heavy as Armstrong, at about the same height. surely he would not get this way if he exercised like a cyclist.
Kinda irrelevant however. The common ground is body fat percentage - and lowering it as much as possible. And yet, bodybuilding is NOT what I personally interpreted when I read the OP. Indeed, the intent of the OP seems to have wandered somewhat as the thread has progressed.
Still, the fact remains, a champion body builder is all about muscle development sure, AND a body fat percentage of less than 6% if possible. The same goes for any champion athlete at the highest level - whether it be a Tour de France rider, or an Olympic marathon runner. Power to Weight ratio is everything.
May I reiterate once again though - the OP was not “I’m a body builder and I wanna get really fucking cut OK?” - it was “Which is better for losing body fat, walking or running?” And I’m here to say that high intensity exercise is going to win everytime - in terms of being better for you. However, I’d like to reiterate that while I’m very knowledgeable regarding ultra-low body fat percentages in the context of Olympic standard cycling, certainly I’m no expert on body building.
Still… it’s worth noting that Mario Cippollini weighs 192 pounds. He’s the greatest road sprinter of our generation. That’s not far off 200 pounds.
Also, my understanding is that the average weight differences between the Mr Natural Olympia and the steroids riven Mr Olympia contests is an 80 pound difference in the men’s category - such is the bulk inducing bullshit of the 'roids world. All things worth pondering.
Hey Boo, the best things are said with the least amount of words.
What type of fuel composes the energy spent on a session of extreme cycling, for a session that burns 350 extra cals above metabolism?
What type of fuel composes the energy spent on walking for a session that burns 350 extra calories, above normal metabolism, just like the above cycling example?
Is the composition or ratio different? If so, would an electric bodyfat analysis read any differently? If not, then we have my answer.
Simple questions. This is what I have been asking all along, ya know, the ratio thing…
The thing is nobody knows what the exact percentages are for the different exercises. Boo Boo Foo’s point is that you will continue to burn much more fat due to a cranked up metabolism after stopping the high intensity exercise than you would after walking. Plus, what do you think you burn exercising that isn’t fat? Mostly carbs that will turn to fat anyway if you dont’ burn 'em off.
Googling for refernces I found tons of bodybuilding sites that recommend high intensity training as the most efficient. Even articles at places like steroidology.com. And here’s an [ur;=http://www.cbass.com/FATBURN.HTM]article by the grandaddy of ripped himself, Clarence Bass, that recommends high intensity training.
If walking works for you, stick with it. Just know that the available literature and research does not support walking at a low intensity as the most effecient fat burner.
Thanks, tremorviolet. I just wonder if they are going with high intensity because they all want super-low bodyfat. Ordinary guys like me just want to go from like 15% to 10% bodyfat. When they say high intensity, they may be doing so with super-low bodyfat in mind.
I know just as well as anyone that I ain’t gonna reach sub-8% without doing some extreme training. I wonder if there should be different methods for shedding fat at different bodyfat percentages… this might be the more operative question here.