running (obviously), running burns more calories than any other exercise (including walking obviously) so running is (obviously) the best choice of cardio for burning fat IMO, walking on an incline will (obviously) burn more calories then walking with no incline, its all pretty obvious really, and this thread should obviously have been posted in the 'training' section, not the 'anabolic zone' which is obviously for discussing anabolics, not cardio topics
Disclaimer: All health, fitness, diet, nutrition, anabolic steroid & supplement information posted here is intended for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended as a substitute for proper medical advice from a medical doctor. We do not condone the use of anabolic steroids (AAS), all information about AAS is for educational and entertainment purposes only. If you choose to use AAS it's your responsibility to know the laws of the country that you live in. Consult your physician or health care professional before performing any of the exercises, or following any diet, nutrition or supplement advice described on this website.
it has been said in the past that walking at a good pace for a longer duration is better for burning fat without burning muscle, so it not a silly question there is loads of different opinions out there my friend you just have to do ur research
depends on what your goals are. if you are running to maximize fat loss while sparing LBM I would either do some spriting or run a mile maybe 2x a week. each week trying to decrease your time which will increase your V02Max and EPOC
William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.
It takes as many calories to walk a mile as it does to run, it just takes longer to walk. So in a sense it is equal. Proponants of walking will tell you that at a fast enough pace you burn more fat you aren't going into your cardiovascular zone. Runners will tell you running is better because it gets more work in a shorter amount of time.
which is why long-distance runners are a lot more muscular than 100m sprinters?
Actually now I have to call you out. Sprinters are far more built than long distance runners. Long distance runners are from Kenya, joking. Sprinters are some jacked up looking people while long distances runners look more like, well twigs.
TO go back to the question of running or walking. I am definetly going to go with a 30 minute, Ill even say jog, is going to burn far much more fat than a 30 minute walk. I would even go as far to say that a 30 minute jog would burn more fat than a 60 minute walk. Not to mention how much fat a 60 minute run would burn. I sure as hell couldnt run for 60 minutes straight though. I probably couldnt run for 40 minutes straight. Let the old ladies at the mall use the walking and get your lazy ass running. *I hope that your not an old ladie?