How to reduce my body fat%

You are most welcome wrote:

Fat max wrote:

Shall i run with high or with low intensity to burn my body fat% ??

Both.

High intensity burns more fat AFTER the workout.

Low intensity burns more fat DURING the workout.

With the afterburner effect?

Why should someone burn more fat after an intense workout if (s)he eats carbs, directly after the workout which is highly recommended? The body has no reason to convert fat into carbs if carbs are available.

So that theory is off for me.

Fat max wrote:

You are most welcome wrote:

Both.

High intensity burns more fat AFTER the workout.

Low intensity burns more fat DURING the workout.

With the afterburner effect?

Why should someone burn more fat after an intense workout if (s)he eats carbs, directly after the workout which is highly recommended? The body has no reason to convert fat into carbs if carbs are available.

So that theory is off for me.

"An askhole is basically a person who asks for your opinion or advice, yet never uses your advice and does the opposite of what you said to do. Askholes sometimes ask questions for the sake of asking questions or making conversation.

They zone out when you supply an answer, and they always end up doing their own thing. They sometimes will even ask the advice of multiple different people so they will eventually come across an answer that best suits what they want to hear."

From what I have read, high intensity training, like weight lifting or steep hill sprints, promotes muscle development which will burn fat throughout the day, even well after the workout. More cardio, lower intensity workouts burn calories during the workout but not sustained after the workout.

What I have not read, but I believe to be the most effective strategy based on my own experience, is the best workout plan is to incorporate both. And what you really want to avoid is doing the same kind of workout over and over, if your goal is burning calories in general or fat specifically. The worst strategy is to do only one kind of workout and not increase in intensity, because your body adapts to that level of resistance and the level of adaptation necessary for it to perform that workout over time becomes less and less, and you therefore burn less calories as the body adapts to it.

Alternatively, developing both fat burning metabolisms will yield the greatest results - some lower intensity cardio and some resistance training like weights, body-weight exercises, core work, intervals, and hill-sprints,

You are most welcome wrote:

Fat max wrote:

Shall i run with high or with low intensity to burn my body fat% ??

Both.

High intensity burns more fat AFTER the workout.

Low intensity burns more fat DURING the workout.

And you can't be running at high intensity all the time.

Let's say 80% easy, 20% hard.

End of thread.

Fat max wrote:

You are most welcome wrote:

Both.

High intensity burns more fat AFTER the workout.

Low intensity burns more fat DURING the workout.

With the afterburner effect?

Why should someone burn more fat after an intense workout if (s)he eats carbs, directly after the workout which is highly recommended? The body has no reason to convert fat into carbs if carbs are available.

So that theory is off for me.

You should eats SOME carbs and SOME protein after an intense workout. Not necessarily a lot of it.

By the way, this is it has decribed you well.

Ever wonder why nurses and waitresses tend to be skinny? Walk a lot. Or hike.

Fat max wrote:

You are most welcome wrote:

Both.

High intensity burns more fat AFTER the workout.

Low intensity burns more fat DURING the workout.

With the afterburner effect?

Why should someone burn more fat after an intense workout if (s)he eats carbs, directly after the workout which is highly recommended? The body has no reason to convert fat into carbs if carbs are available.

So that theory is off for me.

Because after any workout, when you eat carbs, you store most of it as Glycogen to replace what you have used and you use more Fats for energy.

this is it wrote:

Fat max wrote:

With the afterburner effect?

Why should someone burn more fat after an intense workout if (s)he eats carbs, directly after the workout which is highly recommended? The body has no reason to convert fat into carbs if carbs are available.

So that theory is off for me.

"An askhole is basically a person who asks for your opinion or advice, yet never uses your advice and does the opposite of what you said to do. Askholes sometimes ask questions for the sake of asking questions or making conversation.

They zone out when you supply an answer, and they always end up doing their own thing. They sometimes will even ask the advice of multiple different people so they will eventually come across an answer that best suits what they want to hear."

Oh, so the OP is David45?

Thanks, I think you're right.

this is it wrote:

"An askhole is basically a person who asks for your opinion or advice, yet never uses your advice and does the opposite of what you said to do. Askholes sometimes ask questions for the sake of asking questions or making conversation.

They zone out when you supply an answer, and they always end up doing their own thing. They sometimes will even ask the advice of multiple different people so they will eventually come across an answer that best suits what they want to hear."

An AH provides zero info to a thread an attacks the OP, but he is only a troll.

An AH can't stand others opinion and thinking and pretends he is god to judge others.

And last but not least, an AH thinks the OP starts a thread without knowing anything at all about the topic. Because AH underestimates others in general, and he thinks he is better than others.

An AH is just an AH.

Well..... wrote:

Jeez, so much duff info. Ignore weight training, it's pointless for what you need (it's not pointless in itself, but it is for weight (fat) loss).

Look up body recomposition. Regular weight training does certainly facilitate fat loss in a caloric deficit. Even in caloric maintenance, weight training can allow one to gain muscle while losing fat. Additionally, because it's more metabolically active, gaining muscle can assist in fat loss through increased metabolism.

jazzytherunner wrote:

Well..... wrote:

Jeez, so much duff info. Ignore weight training, it's pointless for what you need (it's not pointless in itself, but it is for weight (fat) loss).

Look up body recomposition. Regular weight training does certainly facilitate fat loss in a caloric deficit. Even in caloric maintenance, weight training can allow one to gain muscle while losing fat. Additionally, because it's more metabolically active, gaining muscle can assist in fat loss through increased metabolism.

Sure it, but we're talking about runners here. They aren't going to put much muscle on. Get a grip fgs and stop parroting the muscle building websites.

Fat max wrote:

You are most welcome wrote:

Both.

High intensity burns more fat AFTER the workout.

Low intensity burns more fat DURING the workout.

With the afterburner effect?

Why should someone burn more fat after an intense workout if (s)he eats carbs, directly after the workout which is highly recommended? The body has no reason to convert fat into carbs if carbs are available.

So that theory is off for me.

Kind of agree.

Just by chance when looking for info about Tim Noakes Central Governor Theory, I stumbled upon a transcript from a podcast with him as guest. He at the end talked about weight loss and training. He said that the volume of carbohydrates in the diet + the sensitivity of the muscle and fat cells towards blood glucose and insulin was the key. One can adapt to a high carb content and if being less sensitive to insulin the glucose uptake into the muscle cells is less and the fat conversion process is elevated. So basically the body easily gains weight from carbohydrates. He said carbohydrates should be adjusted to the need and not too much. On the contrary others believe too low levels of muscles glucogen from high training loads is the reason for over-training. If you want to reduce fat it is acc to this thinking important to limit the carbohydrates just to the need coming from the training. I know not too much about this, but if true, too much carbohydrates for the wrong "body type" so to speak can hinder loss of fat. Also the first half hour after training the body is especially good at glucose uptake, but later this is lower and I guess ingesting too much carbohydrates elsewhere during the day is not beneficial. Again this must be balanced to the need to fill up the muscle glucogen storages. What can be done to lower the blood glucose levels is to eath meals with enough proteins, fibre and fats and not eat high carbohydrate meals that elevates the blood glucose.

runne wrote:

Fat max wrote:

Shall i run with high or with low intensity to burn my body fat% ??

Neither. Exercise is almost always unsuccessful and always an extremely inefficient way to lose weight. Think about it: you first eat and then run to burn off what you ate. Isn’t it more efficient to eat less in the first place? Then you can run as you please or even not run, up to you.

Just running a calorie deficit forever works far worse than exercise.

Maybe...... wrote:

jazzytherunner wrote:

Look up body recomposition. Regular weight training does certainly facilitate fat loss in a caloric deficit. Even in caloric maintenance, weight training can allow one to gain muscle while losing fat. Additionally, because it's more metabolically active, gaining muscle can assist in fat loss through increased metabolism.

Sure it, but we're talking about runners here. They aren't going to put much muscle on. Get a grip fgs and stop parroting the muscle building websites.

Have you tried weight training 60 plus minutes 5 to 6 days a week plus running more than 30 miles per week? You will burn more fat. It is not uncommon for 100m & 200m sprinters on T&F team to have lower percentage of fat that middle & long distance runners. It is also not uncommon for 100m & 200m athletes to spend more time in weight room than middle & long distance runners on T&F team.

600yd/600m man wrote:

Maybe...... wrote:

Sure it, but we're talking about runners here. They aren't going to put much muscle on. Get a grip fgs and stop parroting the muscle building websites.

Have you tried weight training 60 plus minutes 5 to 6 days a week plus running more than 30 miles per week? You will burn more fat. It is not uncommon for 100m & 200m sprinters on T&F team to have lower percentage of fat that middle & long distance runners. It is also not uncommon for 100m & 200m athletes to spend more time in weight room than middle & long distance runners on T&F team.

This partly because there natural body composition lends them to be a Sprinter vs a Distance runner and vice versa....

Geez people

ElCap wrote:

600yd/600m man wrote:

Have you tried weight training 60 plus minutes 5 to 6 days a week plus running more than 30 miles per week? You will burn more fat. It is not uncommon for 100m & 200m sprinters on T&F team to have lower percentage of fat that middle & long distance runners. It is also not uncommon for 100m & 200m athletes to spend more time in weight room than middle & long distance runners on T&F team.

This partly because there natural body composition lends them to be a Sprinter vs a Distance runner and vice versa....

Geez people

So you are stating you are naturally skinny fat. Posters are knocking serious weight training but will not try adding serious weight training. I am not talking twenty minutes of weight training x 2 days per week as done by many XC programs.

Get a steak knife and start slicing off the fatty areas around your waist.

As others have stated it's calories in - calories out until you get to say below 15% body fat when the type of foods you are eating and type of exercise you do can have a marginal effect. The slow vs. fast running is a bit of a red herring. If you run a 7 minute mile pace for 35 minutes you'll burn more calories than you would if you ran an 8 minute mile pace for 35 minutes. However if you ran 7 minute mile pace for 5 miles you'd actually burn less calories than running an 8 minute mile pace for 5 miles. The reason is you only burn about 8-10% more calories running at 7 minute mile pace than 8 minute mile pace so the extra time it takes to run 5 miles at 8 minute per mile pace leads to more calories burned than at 7 minute per mile pace.

So all things being equal if you are gonna run for an hour each day then by all means run fast but if you are going to run for 6 miles each day the pace doesn't really matter as much as the fact you are running 6 miles, slower pace means you're running longer so even if you're burning fewer calories per minute you're running for more minutes

18rabbitskiing wrote:

,,, slower pace means you're running longer so even if you're burning fewer calories per minute you're running for more minutes

I guess this is the solution, as longer someone runs as more calories you burn.

Or put it simple, as more hours per week running as more calories burnt.

Excellent post,

and also other adive here is appreciated.