Groundbreaking Fat Burning Cardio Research Study - An Professional's Opinion
I've received a few emails about a "new groundbreaking fat loss study" and the way it's alleged to burn fat faster than regular cardio (while we understand regular cardio sucks).
Researchers compared...
a) Doing a 60 minute bike (at sixty% max effort) then recovering for 60 minutes
vs
b) doing a thirty minute bike, resting twenty minutes, and then doing another 30 minute bike and then resting for sixty minutes. (both rides at sixty% max effort).
The results showed...
i) The whole calories burned between the workouts did not differ.
ii) a lot of fat was burned during the recovery for the split workout (seventy seven% vs fifty six%).
What will this mean?
Jack squat.
Nothing.
Initial, why would i even take into account doing either of the above when a twenty-minute interval workout gets a lot of results?
Second, who is going to do this?
Third, examine the actual numbers of fat calories burned...at most, it may be fifty further calories. Again, useless in all practical terms.
But...
Look for health clubs to be filled with folks sitting around for twenty minutes between cardio bouts...perhaps clubs will begin providing "recovery rooms" where individuals can sit for twenty minutes and scan dry Individuals magazines, instead of the sweat lined Folks magazines they are used to reading while doing their relatively worthless cardio workouts in the past.
Why am I therefore exhausting on cardio?
As a result of its a waste of time...
and now these researchers and also the authors of those "news reports" need to waste even MORE of your life...
As I wrote recently...
A recent study published by the North Yank Association for the Study of Obesity, subjects aged forty to seventy five were instructed to try to to sixty minutes of aerobic exercise per day for 6 days per week for a whole year.
(Reference...
Obesity fifteen:1496-1512 (2007). Exercise Impact on Weight and Body Fat in Men and Women. Anne McTiernan*, et al.)
Given the quantity of exercise, you'd expect weight losses of twenty, thirty pounds, or additional, right?
Well, the surprise findings showed the average fat loss for female subjects was was only 4 pounds for the entire year, whereas men lost 6.half-dozen pounds of fat over the year. That's over 300 hours of aerobic exercise simply to lose a measly 6 pounds of blubber. Not time well spent, in my opinion.
***
Listen, you provide 300 hours a year, and you will lose a ton more than 6.vi pounds of fat...trust me on that. Heck, give me 300 hours a year and I might most likely turn you into a Ninja, industrial airline pilot, and accomplished mime, and still facilitate your burn a lot of fat than you'd with 300 hours of cardio.
Author Resource:
Denise Foster has been writing articles online for nearly 2 years now. Not only does this author specialize in Aerobics Cardio, you can also check out latest website about
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.look4articles.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.look4articles.com/images/rss.jpg "XML Feed For RSS")