Thread: Walking burns A LOT more fat than Cardio

there are so many variables that go into fat loss. your post is just oversimplifying and ignores the relevance of both diet and weight training. I do cardio, because I love to work out my heart, and because it burns fat, thats a fact.

High intensity exercise burns energy stores that are quickly broken down, like glycogen. Fat stores take time to break into and are done through non-aerobic activities.

Low impact activities like walking are also a lot easier on a 250 pound body.

Well it certainly can't be denied that walking is one of the healthiest things you can do to keep your body in shape. It works your entire cardiovascular system and burns fat. As Mudge said, it takes time to break down advanced fat stores, so walking for about 45 minutes a day will probably go a long way come six to eight weeks from when you start. Try it. It's not like it'll interfere with your other workouts - it's very low impact and great for you.

Originally Posted by Mudge

High intensity exercise burns energy stores that are quickly broken down, like glycogen. Fat stores take time to break into and are done through non-aerobic activities.

Low impact activities like walking are also a lot easier on a 250 pound body.

Agree and nothing like running to help you lose all that hard work you did to get those quads where you wanted them

I disagree. Even though walking burns fat at a higher percentage than glycogen, it's still burning a lot less calories than running or even doing HIIT. Even if glycogen is mostly burned during exercise above 70% intensity, it's still burning much more calories than walking, and even with the fat not being burned much the higher calories burned still makes the fat higher. Furthermore, the body conserves the energy source that it used during exericse and burns it's counter-part after exercise. Meaning, if fat was burning primarily during exercise then glycogen will be burned afterwards, and vice versa. That's why HIIT is so good because since it burns lots of glycogen during the exericse and since it raises your metabolic rate, insulin sensitivity, and FFA oxidation, the body burns mostly fat for up to 24 hours after exericse (if you do it hard enough).

Walking is definately fine to add to a cardio routine that's low impact but it shouldn't be the main cardio exercise. However, I can't speak for those people that have 230+ pounds of muscle - when low intensity cardio is preffered. But even at that point, walking really is only helping a little due to the fact that with all that muscle theyre burning fat like crazy all day because of all the muscle around. For those that aren't like them they shouldn't train like them.

You could also argue, then, that weightlifting is the best way to burn fat because it raises your metabolism for more than 48 hours in some cases. I'd still say walking is one of the best ways to burn fat. Especially since the high-impact stuff will tear apart your knees in the long run. Many people stay healthy for a lifetime simply by walking. It's safe and effective.

HIIT vs low impact studies have been done.

And yes, its already been argued that weight training is a good way to raise your metabolic requirements.

Originally Posted by TheUnlikelyHERO

I disagree. Even though walking burns fat at a higher percentage than glycogen, it's still burning a lot less calories than running or even doing HIIT. Even if glycogen is mostly burned during exercise above 70% intensity, it's still burning much more calories than walking, and even with the fat not being burned much the higher calories burned still makes the fat higher. Furthermore, the body conserves the energy source that it used during exericse and burns it's counter-part after exercise. Meaning, if fat was burning primarily during exercise then glycogen will be burned afterwards, and vice versa. That's why HIIT is so good because since it burns lots of glycogen during the exericse and since it raises your metabolic rate, insulin sensitivity, and FFA oxidation, the body burns mostly fat for up to 24 hours after exericse (if you do it hard enough).

Walking is definately fine to add to a cardio routine that's low impact but it shouldn't be the main cardio exercise. However, I can't speak for those people that have 230+ pounds of muscle - when low intensity cardio is preffered. But even at that point, walking really is only helping a little due to the fact that with all that muscle theyre burning fat like crazy all day because of all the muscle around. For those that aren't like them they shouldn't train like them.

Agree. It's like you burn 200 cals with walking, 100 cals of fat. But with sprints you burn 500 cals, 200 cals of fat. Lower percentage, but higher absolute value. (BTW those values are just made up)

Calories in vs. calories out: If you burn more calories doing cardio, then your body is going to have to tap into your fat stores to perform other very low intensity aerobic activities, like walking, throughout the rest of the day. Not to mention that keeping an elevated heart rate boosts your RMR for hours after your finish exercising.

This isn't to say that there is no merit behind what this fellow is saying. Certainly, the less intense the exercise and the longer the duration, the more likely fat stores are to be burned. The more intense and the shorter the duration, the more likely ATP/CP and/or glycogen stores will be utilized. However, I still wouldn't stop doing cardio. It is also good for your heart...

Like, well, I would think, like, running gets your, like, heart rate going faster, like and to put into simplistic terms, like, surely that burns more fat, like?

i think that's proper bullshit.

Yes your heart does more work but you still will burn the fat cells for needed energy.
Jogging/running is better than walking becuase it is more intense = you will need to use up more energy stored in fat cells.

Just becuase the guy is 250lbs and 6% bodyfat (probably exaggerated figure anyway) does not confirm this theory to hold any substance

Originally Posted by Mudge

Low impact activities like walking are also a lot easier on a 250 pound body.

Ya sure got that right...

Originally Posted by MuscleM4n

i think that's proper bullshit.

Yes your heart does more work but you still will burn the fat cells for needed energy.
Jogging/running is better than walking becuase it is more intense = you will need to use up more energy stored in fat cells.

How about reading on how slowly fat is broken down for energy useage so you can discover what the "proper bullshit" here really is.

Originally Posted by MuscleM4n

Just becuase the guy is 250lbs and 6% bodyfat (probably exaggerated figure anyway) does not confirm this theory to hold any substance

Who said anything about theories, your theory versus proven science? Read what Cowpimp said, there are your clues.

Ok so i am wrong. No problem and sorry


By the way the guy says he is 250lbs at 6% bodyfat, if he dropped 1/2% bodyfat and at 235lbs or so he would be good enough to compete at the Mr.O as long as he doesn't look like Gregg Valentino, so i doubt he is telling the whole truth.

he said either 6% or 8%, im guessing its 8. He said he was still cutting though. I started walking to all my classes. That is 4 sessions of a mile walk in each session. I will also do cardio in addition to that. I lift weights 3-4 times a week so that should help too. Working on the diet.

Sounds like your doing good pumpthatiron.

Just be consistant, that is the key

Oh hell I dropped the last 9% BF I need in three days and gained 30 lbs of LBM in that time. Think I'll continue with my 45 min brisk walk between now and the O and beat the shit out of all of those guys who put in 15 yrs to my 18 months.

I am Tough, aren't I

ur weak lol jp

I walk consistently over 12-13 a miles a day. For one I have to walk everywhere, or take public transportation since I do not have use of 4 or 2 wheels consistently. With my weak back, walking has proven more effective than running for me in terms of fat-burning/comfort. Running (esp on concrete) kills my spine (Its like a mini earthquake everytime you hit the pavement). When I run, I do it on a treadmill, and I do HIIT. My back gets sore if I go for any perioud longer than half an hour currently, but that is changing! I used to not be able to run at all with consistent pain.

However, everybody is different. But all my walking/bike riding has worked for me.


J

Originally Posted by MuscleM4n

By the way the guy says he is 250lbs at 6% bodyfat, if he dropped 1/2% bodyfat and at 235lbs or so he would be good enough to compete at the Mr.O as long as he doesn't look like Gregg Valentino, so i doubt he is telling the whole truth.

if this guy is really a NPC competitor and has gotten his pro card then he uses a SHIT LOAD of gear and is most likely on gear 12 months out of the year. so yes, walking for "him" would be of great benefit. increased levels of androgens have a very positive effect on lipolysis.

Hmm, I thought walking was a form of cardio...

Originally Posted by Mudge

High intensity exercise burns energy stores that are quickly broken down, like glycogen. Fat stores take time to break into and are done through non-aerobic activities.

Low impact activities like walking are also a lot easier on a 250 pound body.

I agree totally with mudge on this. When you get yourself above the heartrate of about 60-65% of your max then your going to also start burning LBM and that's bad. The ideal thing to do obviously is keep all LBM and reduce B/F. IMO this can be achieved by keeping your cardio to 45 to 60 mins. A brisk walk, bicycle, elipitical or whatever will do it. Not important on what you use but how you use it. Need to keep your heart rate around 60-65% of the MHR.

Tough

if you walk the same distance you run, you burn nearly the same amount of calories... most runners burn out pretty fast while walkers will keep going for much longer burning more calories. Not to mention i just hate running, and love walking

Originally Posted by pumpthatiron

he said either 6% or 8%, im guessing its 8. He said he was still cutting though. I started walking to all my classes. That is 4 sessions of a mile walk in each session. I will also do cardio in addition to that. I lift weights 3-4 times a week so that should help too. Working on the diet.

most people drastically underestimate their bf%. i doubt he's at 6% at this stage. that's very difficult to maintain. not to mention most testing methods are off by +/- 3% give or take.

Originally Posted by The13ig13adWolf

most people drastically underestimate their bf%. i doubt he's at 6% at this stage. that's very difficult to maintain. not to mention most testing methods are off by +/- 3% give or take.

and all this is not important. If this guy has 10% B/F at 250 lbs he's going to look good to about 99% of the people posting here.
All Agree?

If you disagree then 99% of you haven't seen Mr. LAM in person like I have and he's only 240-245 @ 10% B/F

Originally Posted by Tough Old Man

and all this is not important. If this guy has 10% B/F at 250 lbs he's going to look good to about 99% of the people posting here.
All Agree?

Amen Toughy!! -

Here's my opinion on walking to cut fat. Basically, during low intensity activities, fat is one of the preferred sources of energy (Notice I said one of; glycolysis is still going to be of significance, but probably not fermentation). Okay, so during your walk, you are using a significant amount of fat to power this activity. Great.

You now have to look at the flip side. Assuming you are performing higher intensity cardiovascular activity, your body will draw energy primarily from fermentation and glycolysis, meanwhile utilizing aerobic energy pathways to a lesser degree. Okay, so more glucose is broken down for energy as opposed to fat during the activity.

Now let's look at the effects that occur after the workout ends. A sustained elevated metabolism seems to depend on two factors: intensity and duration. Intensity appears to be the primary determinant of how much and how long your metabolism stays elevated after a bout of exercise. Therefore, a long walk probably has an almost negligible effect on your basal metabolic rate after the workout has ended, at least relatively speaking. However, higher intensity exercise should have a very significant impact.

What does this all mean? The point I am trying to drive home is that although you may be utilizing a significant amount of fat for energy during the walking itself, you are also utilizing a good amount of fat for energy during your everyday activities. High intensity exercise allows you to perform these lipophilic, everyday activities (Which probably includes a significant amount of walk) with a steadily raised metabolic rate.

Beyond all this, I think high intensity cardiovascular activity has a place in anyone's routine. It is associated with promoting a greater usage of fatty acids in cellular respiration. By the same token, it promotes greater storage of glucose in skeletal muscle; in the form of glycogen of course.

Perhaps the two could be combined in some optimal manner? Perhaps walking is still superior despite these facts? I can't say for sure. However, it is my theory, based on this evidence, that high intensity cardio is superior in terms of promoting a body composition of lower body fat.

I just hate to run, therefore I walk.

Simple for me.