# Is a brisk walk good enough?



## spreadercraig (Jul 15, 2007)

Just wondering...for good fat loss is brisk walking for 30 mins first thing on an empty stomach good enough?

(obviously with diet and training sorted)


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2007)

Its what i do to keep body fat down, i usually opt for incline treadmill walking.


----------



## Bulldozer (Nov 24, 2006)

Its what i do also to keep fat down.

I just walk the dog


----------



## spreadercraig (Jul 15, 2007)

Do you mean it's good for keeping fat off, or getting rid of unwanted fat?


----------



## AussieMarc (Jun 13, 2004)

train in your own fat burning zone not your cardiovac zone.


----------



## ah24 (Jun 25, 2006)

AussieMarc said:


> train in your own fat burning zone not your cardiovac zone.


As a PT you should know this is a big myth towards fat loss results.

The whole 'stay in your fat zone to burn fat' is a load of rubbish. It all comes about from the percentage of fat burned compared to carbohydrate. Appreciate this table, im a technophobe took me bloody forever to work out how to do it lol. RER = Respiratory Exchange Ratio btw.

So as you can see from the table the percentage of fat burned compared to carbs is is at 100% at 0.71 RER.....guess when 0.71 RER is achieved? *Complete* rest.

Although the percentage of fat burned maybe maximal, the amount of energy used is minimal (so less cals burned).

Its not how much fat somebody burns that dictates body fat reduction, its how many calories are burned.

Im fookin tired so hopefully that made sense. If it did, i think i deserve reps for including a table

*EDIT:* Also...just to add, another benefit to working more intensely and out of the 'fat burning' zone is that EPOC is raised after more efficiently than when working at a lower intensity. So again, the metabolism is raised and calories are being burned even while you lay on sofa watching TV after your cardio


----------



## jw007 (Apr 12, 2007)

spreadercraig said:


> Just wondering...for good fat loss is brisk walking for 30 mins first thing on an empty stomach good enough?
> 
> (obviously with diet and training sorted)


What i usually do is ensure calories consumed are less than calories expended... whatever method of exercise you wish to partake in lol.

Simple!!!


----------



## 13stonetarget (Aug 21, 2007)

ah24, could you explain the above post a little more please mate?


----------



## Pip1436114538 (Sep 6, 2007)

Yeah just do a calorie deficit.


----------



## andye (Jan 30, 2006)

out of all the things i tried when dieting i got best results from going from moderate intensity on the cross trainer for 30 mins to low intensity walking on an incline fore a further 30 mins.

that coupled with a calorie deficit and the weight will fall off


----------



## Truewarrior1 (Jan 27, 2005)

im sure a few people will have something to say about your posts ah24, i dont see too many couch potatoes walking round with 6 pacs and you'll notice all the PRO's do 60-65% heartrate and all the gurus recommend it.im doing that mixed with HIIT cardio to get my fitness up


----------



## ah24 (Jun 25, 2006)

Yes, as long as theres a calorie defecit you'll lose weight. Same as calorie surplus - you'll gain weight.

Im not saying dont do low intensity cardio, im saying theres too much focus on the 'fat burning zone' when, if wanting to lose bodyfat if say for instance you ate a bog standard 6meals a day 3-500 cal defecit and then performed low intensity cardio 4 times a week Vs higher intensity cardio; a) it would be more efficient in more cals burned which although the percentage of fats oxidised is lower, the actual amount of it burned will be higher, B) as said your still burning calories hours later (truewarrior that doesnt mean couch potato...sitting on the sofa after a workout after was a joke) c) it increases mitochondria production too.

A variation between both is what i do (when cutting), usually 2 low intensity and 3 high intensity - the above posts were just to dispell the whole fat burning myth. It came about from the percentage of fat cells being oxidised - not the amount.

Truewarrior, yes most BBers do it, because its been drummed into them. Much like 4 day splits. (which i do by the way)


----------



## RAIKEY (Jun 30, 2005)

wow AH24 !!

you seem to have this whole fat burning thing all wrapped up mate,...

show us your abs then!,......

hahah hey man nice to meet you at the weekend


----------



## ah24 (Jun 25, 2006)

RAIKEY said:


> wow AH24 !!
> 
> you seem to have this whole fat burning thing all wrapped up mate,...
> 
> ...


Yeah was good to meet you guys...you dont know how small i fkin felt though! Everywhere i go round here i get people my age calling me the incredible hulk etc lmao...i felt like a 3yr old girl at that comp

As for the abs...not cut up at all as still bulking for the hopeful show in June...buuut its keeping the gf happy for the mo;


----------



## jw007 (Apr 12, 2007)

ah24 said:


> As for the abs...not cut up at all as still bulking for the hopeful show in June...buuut its keeping the gf happy for the mo;


Thought "bulking" was something done by bodybuilders during the 80's... didnt realise it was still common practice these days LMAO


----------



## AussieMarc (Jun 13, 2004)

ah24 - you seem to know your stuff about RER which is good mate  i know about it but not enough to post up info about it.

i usually train myself personally a bit above the "fat burning zone" (myth or not) but many clients i have trained while ensuring they stay in that zone have lost weight so it seems to work for some.

but as in the above posts.. if all else fails, take it back to the basics - calorie in & calorie out. you don't need technical knowledge to know that if you burn more than what you consume your going to lose weight.

diet is a big key in all this, hence the reason it is the first thing i ask about when someone says they want to lose weight. if it is shot to ****e - go see a dietitian or ask the other lads on here for a good guideline.


----------



## ah24 (Jun 25, 2006)

jw007 said:


> Thought "bulking" was something done by bodybuilders during the 80's... didnt realise it was still common practice these days LMAO


Not if you utilize it taking advantage of leptin and T3 levels by swapping straight from a 6-8week bulk, then a 2-3 week cut. Gains are fairly slow but i stay pretty lean which as a fitness instructor/PT i need to.

aussie, sorry mate i werent saying dont use it, just that its a myth whereby most people immediately think i wanna lose fat - get into the fat burning zone and ill save muscle. And yeah, i was going through all the RER stuff a few weeks ago while revising so thought id post it up.


----------



## Aftershock (Jan 28, 2004)

I agreee on the calorie expenditure thing. However would you want to do high intensity cardio when fasted?

Whats your take on it ah24, id be afraid of going catabolic? I always favor a slow steady burn in the am, if you want to do a higher intensity do it later in the day when you have more fuel.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

Why someone would do anything fasted is beyond me? :crazy:

Could someone explain to me why? you would benefit from doing anything fasted?

Thanks 

Phil


----------



## crazycal1 (Sep 21, 2005)

yup walking the dog is good enuff for me...


----------



## Aftershock (Jan 28, 2004)

Learney said:


> Why someone would do anything fasted is beyond me? :crazy:
> 
> Could someone explain to me why? you would benefit from doing anything fasted?
> 
> ...


By fasted we mean in the am before breakfast when you haven't eaten for 8 hours.

The "theory" is you have a lower blood sugar so go into the fat burning zone quicker.


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Aftershock said:


> By fasted we mean in the am before breakfast when you haven't eaten for 8 hours.
> 
> The "theory" is you have a lower blood sugar so go into the fat burning zone quicker.


Not picking an argument here but I always thought that the "Fat Burning Zone" was relative to Heart Rate...?

I don't really like to label my meals (Breakfast, Brunch, Lunch, Linner, Tea, Dinner, Supper etc) but if I go for a run in the AM its after meal 1 (shake) but before meal 2 (solid food)


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

Aftershock said:


> By fasted we mean in the am before breakfast when you haven't eaten for 8 hours.
> 
> The "theory" is you have a lower blood sugar so go into the fat burning zone quicker.


Thats why I'm asking if someone can actually validate it for me Aftershock. I dont know about you but if something has no factual evidence or at least 'theory' that makes sense I personally wouldnt do it.

Oh the Fat Burning zone is based around 65% of your VO2 max NOT heart rate. Machines have it based on HR as you cant measure VO2 max accurately.

The heads of most of the BIG gym companies will validate this but when they do gym surveys this is the program most people use (stupidly) hence they wont take it off!

Phil


----------



## Aftershock (Jan 28, 2004)

It is mate, but your body still has to get the "fuel" for the calories that are expended during the activity from somewhere. It will choose the path of least resistance.

If you have carbs being digested and elevating blood sugar it will use them first before tapping into the fat stores. Take the sugar away and it will have to use something else no?

The "theory" is a point of debate for sure but in practice I can assure you that it works (as will many others), but the intensity has to be kept low (I never go over 120 bmp).

The intensity must be kept low because the body can only metabolize fat at a certain rate and if the intensity is to high it will look elsewhere to supply the extra fuel (ie it it will cannibalise muscle tissue)..

All I can say is try it and see.. Scientific evidence is great but sometimes you need to experiment to see what actually works in practice.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

Aftershock said:


> It is mate, but your body still has to get the "fuel" for the calories that are expended during the activity from somewhere. It will choose the path of least resistance.
> 
> If you have carbs being digested and elevating blood sugar it will use them first before tapping into the fat stores. Take the sugar away and it will have to use something else no?
> 
> ...


Have no doubts Aftershock that it has worked. My question is at what cost? Not asking just for science as I agree that sometimes its trial and error.

The risks of doing fasted cardio IMO far outweigh the prospective benefits. Certainly with no 'protection' over muscle loss. After all it's simply all about creating a calorie deficit. 200cals burned is still 200cals if you've eaten or not. Also the fact that eating elevates metabolism would be worth considering.

For sure it's worked for many people. Thing is can they say that they categorically burn fat exclusively? If you eat correctly you can certainly say you're preserving muscle. One of the biggest complaints with 'dieting' is the loss of muscle. Why risk it? After all if you misinterpret your 'low intensity cardio' and you're above your neuro-endocrine thresholds you're screwed.

Cortisol Levels are highest in a morning so doing anything fasted messes you up even further etc etc.

I just cant find enough positives to validate it

Also I assure you that almost all that have seen results from it certainly 'dont!' do it fasted.

Just an opinion though.

Phil


----------



## Aftershock (Jan 28, 2004)

I have to admit that I have "protection" when dieting usually in the form of AAS along with GH and BCAA pre-cardio.

This is a good read mate...

http://www.freedomfly.net/Articles/Training/training17.htm

I think that the point to remember here is that its more important that you actually do the cardio than the actual timing. Am cardio will burn proportionally more fat "IMO", but it is not without its risks on that I think we can agree 

For me its definitely worth the risk, Im confident it works for more effectively for me this way.

Just don't blinker yourself (I don't mean that to sound condescending btw) try it before dismissing it.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

Aftershock said:


> I have to admit that I have "protection" when dieting usually in the form of AAS along with GH and BCAA pre-cardio.


Thats my point 

BCAA means it's NOT fasted. Would you do it without the BCAA?

No offence taken. I used it with a high proportion of my clients for many years (including myself)......The results where very average (all non assisted). I wouldnt use it now as I find other methods MUCH more effective.

Differing training methods though will always exist between trainers and athletes.

Phil


----------



## Aftershock (Jan 28, 2004)

I take the BCAA as a "precaution". No I probably wouldn't do it consistently without the BCAA (I have done on the odd occasion Ive run out obviously) simply because I like to have some form of added "insurance".

You see I wasn't always an advocate of am cardio not by any means, I had the same fear of losing muscle as everyone else. However I simply cant argue with the results.

So no taking BCAA prior is not strictly fasted I agree. However 10g of BCAA (40 cals) is absolutely not the same as having a meal prior Id hope you would agree?


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

Fully agreed. Fasted is fasted though  Never said anything about a meal.

Phil


----------



## paulo (Feb 17, 2007)

at appox 100kcal per mile walking its a good exercise that we can do all year round no matter where we are ie on hols etc,and can do at any age-good habit to get in to,bonus for anyone heavy and wanting to lose weight is that they will burn more calories due to weight being transported


----------

