DFW running club part 4!! ALL ARE WELCOME!!

KeepYourChinUp_2

of course becky got in first !

becky_rtw

KeepYourChinUp wrote: »

of course becky got in first !

Fastest fingers first on the forums you know :p

tirlittan

Well, this is slightly where I get confused about, cos I'm not quite sure which 'camp' to believe. I.e. there's some people saying slow and steady and you burn just fat, and then the other where you do strenght building which burns more calories and fat as well. Just read about some study, where the first camp yes, lost more fat, but also muscle than the camp two. So never no which way to actually go.

tirlittan

Last year, I had a free months trial at Curves ( a ladies gym for those who don't know) and went 3 times a week and managed to lose 3.7% fat, which was really good.

becky_rtw

There's been a lot of scientific research into fat burning for runners as it happens because for marathon runners it essential since you run beyond the point at which your body can run out of gylcogen so your body must learn to metabolise fat as an energy source or you will run out of energy - hit the 'wall'

At all paces you will burn a mixture of fat/glycogen - but the ratio is altered by pace and swings more towards fat at slower paces - this is why when you train for a marathon you run your long runs much slower than race pace as you are letting the body undergo an adaptation to burn this fuel more easily.

If you're interested - The Lore of Running might be a good buy - very scientific

KeepYourChinUp_2

Personally I would listen to older experienced sportsmen & women rather than some scientist that has to justify his budget.

tirlittan

I guess in running long and slow wins the race. If the weathers not too bad tonight, I'll go and try to do the 4mile run again. Feeling pretty tired after Sunday's match and yesterday's training, but will try my best. Raining here at the moment though.

Thanks for your responses.

beer_tins

tirlittan wrote: »

Well, this is slightly where I get confused about, cos I'm not quite sure which 'camp' to believe. I.e. there's some people saying slow and steady and you burn just fat, and then the other where you do strenght building which burns more calories and fat as well. Just read about some study, where the first camp yes, lost more fat, but also muscle than the camp two. So never no which way to actually go.

Hi. On the intervals, you will find your speed increasing anyway, just on your "normal" runs. there really isn't any need to introduce any speed work until your performance starts to level off.

On the "fat burn", it is true that the slower you run, the higher a % of fat you burn (compared to glycogen - from carbs). This is because the body will save glycogen for the hardest work, as it is the easiest energy to convert.

But this misses the point. The human body constantly balances it's energy reserves. As long as you burn more calories than you use, you will lose body fat. It really is as simple as that.

Are you female, tirlittan? I'm going to assume you are for my example (please don't be offended if you're not!). Let's assume you consume 2000 calories a day. You run at a fast pace (using more glycogen than fat as fuel) and burn off 600 calories. Your body then uses the remaining 1400 to fuel you through the day, converting fat to energy along the way to cover the shortfall. In other words, you burn the fat just sitting, walking etc.

The greater the difference between calories burnt and calories consumed is, the greater the fat loss. This is always the case. No exceptions!

RichOneday_2

tirlittan wrote: »

Well, this is slightly where I get confused about, cos I'm not quite sure which 'camp' to believe. I.e. there's some people saying slow and steady and you burn just fat, and then the other where you do strenght building which burns more calories and fat as well. Just read about some study, where the first camp yes, lost more fat, but also muscle than the camp two. So never no which way to actually go.

Its very straightforward - if fat loss is the priority, WALK!

When undertaking any exercise you utilise a 'fuel mix' consisting of part glycogen/part fat. In essence the glycogen usage leads to fairly swift hunger whereas the fat usage doesnt (since it isnt particularly important to replace it).

The lower the intensity of exercise, the higher the fat content of the fuel mix...hence walking being the optimal exercise for fat loss.

Top runners operate at constant weight despite heavy workloads. They eat a little more than a sedentary equivalent but not as much as the additional exercise would suggest because the body becomes very efficient at fuel burning, ie needs less fuel to do the same exercise the fitter it gets.

This is why people who see running as a great weight loss programme to be undertaken until they reach target weight are barking up the wrong tree. Initially, weight will increase due to increased muscle mass. It will subsequently fall but if that person then stops running when a 'target weight' is reached then weight will balloon extremely quickly due to lower bodily energy requirements resulting from increased fitness.

In rough numbers, I would require 2500 calories per day for a 'normal' non-running level of activity. Running burns approx 100 calories per mile. Therefore, if the weekly workload is 70 miles that should add 1000 calories per day to the requirement resulting in a 3500 calorie per day intake.

But it doesnt. The actual requirement is approx. 3000 calories per day due to 500 calories in 'efficiency savings'.

becky_rtw

I knew the guru would be able to say it better - but I was trying to keep it simples (and play nice whats with the gruffness today eh!?!)