The times needs to quote people who know their shit. And this person they quoted sounds like they don't know diddly poo in some regards.
From a recent New York Times article:
“If you work out at an easy intensity, you will burn a higher percentage of fat calories” than if you work out a higher intensity, Carey says, so you should draw down some of the padding you’ve accumulated on the hips or elsewhere — if you don’t replace all of the calories afterward. To help those hoping to reduce their body fat, he published formulas in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research last month that detailed the heart rates at which a person could maximize fat burning. “Heart rates of between 105 and 134” beats per minute, Carey said, represent the fat-burning zone. “It’s probably best to work out near the top of that zone,” he says, “so that you burn more calories over all” than at the extremely leisurely lower end."
Let's get something straight - yes, working out at lower intensities, you oxidize (burn) more fatty acids (fat) for fuel. But again - there is no such thing as a "fat burning zone". You are always burning fat. No matter what intensity you're training at. It's just that the contribution of fatty acids changes depending on the intensity. In a simplistic view, the higher the intensity of exercise, the less you rely on fat for fuel. But even that can get dicey - because the more trained you are, the more fat contributes (is oxidized) to fuel exercise!
The quote ends with "It's probably best to work out near the top of that zone", "So that you burn more calories over all". This is a half correct statement. Not because you're burning more fat - but because WORKING HARDER BURNS MORE CALORIES!!!
Energy use during exercise is a continuum. It's not a light switch. Fat on, fat off. Carbs on, Carbs off. It just isn't that simplistic. But the media likes to make it black and white. And since so many are looking for simple, black or white, all or none solutions - this helps perpetuate the cycle. And helps articles like this get written: Articles with some good information, but still missing on really key concepts.
In fairness, the author of the piece does mention that higher exercise intensity relies more on carbohydrate stores (they didn't say glycogen, but that's okay) to fuel high intensity exercise (>85% VO2 Max).
But blah - still got my attention for misleading info.
From a recent New York Times article:
“If you work out at an easy intensity, you will burn a higher percentage of fat calories” than if you work out a higher intensity, Carey says, so you should draw down some of the padding you’ve accumulated on the hips or elsewhere — if you don’t replace all of the calories afterward. To help those hoping to reduce their body fat, he published formulas in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research last month that detailed the heart rates at which a person could maximize fat burning. “Heart rates of between 105 and 134” beats per minute, Carey said, represent the fat-burning zone. “It’s probably best to work out near the top of that zone,” he says, “so that you burn more calories over all” than at the extremely leisurely lower end."
Let's get something straight - yes, working out at lower intensities, you oxidize (burn) more fatty acids (fat) for fuel. But again - there is no such thing as a "fat burning zone". You are always burning fat. No matter what intensity you're training at. It's just that the contribution of fatty acids changes depending on the intensity. In a simplistic view, the higher the intensity of exercise, the less you rely on fat for fuel. But even that can get dicey - because the more trained you are, the more fat contributes (is oxidized) to fuel exercise!
The quote ends with "It's probably best to work out near the top of that zone", "So that you burn more calories over all". This is a half correct statement. Not because you're burning more fat - but because WORKING HARDER BURNS MORE CALORIES!!!
Energy use during exercise is a continuum. It's not a light switch. Fat on, fat off. Carbs on, Carbs off. It just isn't that simplistic. But the media likes to make it black and white. And since so many are looking for simple, black or white, all or none solutions - this helps perpetuate the cycle. And helps articles like this get written: Articles with some good information, but still missing on really key concepts.
In fairness, the author of the piece does mention that higher exercise intensity relies more on carbohydrate stores (they didn't say glycogen, but that's okay) to fuel high intensity exercise (>85% VO2 Max).
But blah - still got my attention for misleading info.
0 comments:
Post a Comment