Thought this Washington Post article [https://s2.washingtonpost.com/e8520e/5c1bc1cbfe1ff6164aca5ab8/aGFubmFobWFlYmVnbGV5QGdtYWlsLmNvbQ%3D%3D/29/121/2ad09c9cc8f8fb66d9b9379129718b98] would be popular over here - it talks about how the "fat-burn" zone is mostly a myth, and really weight loss just comes down to CICO!
Here's a portion of the piece:
"First, although it might sound better for weight loss to burn a higher percentage of fat, the real-world effect of that intensity on your body composition is next to nil. 'The idea that all of a sudden when you hit this zone the fat is just being sucked out of your system is simplistic,' says Christopher Breen, an exercise physiologist and online coach in Long Island. 'That completely ignores that losing or maintaining weight is basically a matter of calories in versus calories out.'
If the key determinant of weight loss were the percentage of fat you’re burning, then your best bet would be to remain still, because that’s when you’re burning the highest percentage of fat relative to carbohydrates. But, as Breen says, total calories burned is what matters, and that fact leads to the second big problem with the fat-burning zone.
'If you’re exercising at this lower intensity, you’re burning fewer calories per minute,' says Christine Brooks, a University of Florida adjunct instructor and the coaching science coordinator for USA Track & Field. 'The average person walking for an hour is going to burn only a couple hundred calories.' In that time, you could burn more than twice as many calories running, cycling or using an elliptical machine at a moderate intensity.
Let’s be real: When you schedule a workout, you probably think in terms of time, not number of calories burned. So, in the likely scenario that you have 30 or 45 minutes for exercise before or after work, you’re just not going to burn that many calories if you spend that time in the would-be fat-burning zone. 'I’m all for people being more active, but most aren’t going to regularly put in the time at a lower intensity to create a calorie deficit,' Brooks says.
Also, if you want to get all geeky, the math argues against the fat-burning zone. Walk two miles in an hour, and you’ll burn about 200 calories, with roughly 140 of them fueled by fat. Cycle moderately for that time, and you’ll burn about 500 calories, with about 250 of them fueled by fat — so you’ll burn more calories and more fat. 'When I worked with people in a gym, I would tell them, "Ultimately, it’s a matter of calories; the fat burn will take care of itself,"' Breen says."
[link] [comments]
from loseit - Lose the Fat https://ift.tt/2T3MHi6
No comments:
Post a Comment