Originally Posted by
tadawdy
Instead of using Wikipedia, you could use google to find sources that can be edited by any single person who has $8 to throw for a domain name, without having to worry about some other know-it-all correcting his so-called "facts."
Fixed that for you.
Originally Posted by
gregf83
At low intensity exercise your body obtains significant energy from fat stores. Peak fat utilization is around 65% of your VO2Max. As intensity increases fat utilization goes down and carbohydrate becomes the dominant energy source.
And yet it's known that 30 minutes of "cardio" burns way more than 30 minutes of "Fat-burning zone" exercise. It's also known that biking the same distance burns way less fat than walking--oh, because you spend 10 minutes biking and 40 minutes walking. Biking for 40 minutes burns way more fat than walking for 40 minutes.
Yes, you use half as much fat for energy at those cardio-intensive metabolic levels ... and three times as much total energy. That's 50% more fat burned.
Also, 65% of VO2Max is under pretty heavy metabolic load. The "Fat Burn Zone" isn't "sitting on the couch eating Cheetos and watching Southpark." So how does any of this relate to what I said about fat being stored different when you have tons of carbs and spend all your time sitting on your ass?
Anyway, I'll file you away with the hundreds of weight-lifting fatties I've met that constantly tell me all that "aerobics" stuff isn't going to burn any fat. I can't believe how many people have tried to convince me that push-ups and bench presses are the only way to actually lose weight ... chubby lard tubs, with tons of muscle underneath, but they're huge jiggly blobs. Women that weigh 220lb, guys that weigh 350... meanwhile the runners are all skinny as hell, and the ones that get chubby eventually go back to running and suddenly become skinny as hell, for all that "VO2Max" stuff where they're "Not burning any fat."