I am so addicted to this website and it is really encouraging me to eat right and exercise. I am so happy for 3fatchicks.com. Anyway, my husband and I were arguing which is better. Should I be running faster in a short amount of time to burn more calories, or should I be running at a steady pace for a longer amount of time to burn more calories? Which is the more effective and healthy way to burn the calories? Thanks so much. Everyone keep up the good work!
For what I know, doing Intervals is better. Keeping your budy guessing and changing your heart rate several times in a work out will burn more calories than to be steady at a same heart rate for the whole time. Also to stay in your high rate zone for as long as you can will help to burn more calories. I got a Polar heart monitor that helps me to stay in my high heart rate zone as long as I can. So I do 3 mins power walking in my high rate zone and 1 1/2 min joggin in the top of my high rate zone and back to the power walk.
Staying in the right zone is really important. There is a level which is too high, where you cease to burn fat, because at the end of the day, it's not calorie consumption as such, it's fat burning that your aiming for. Do some research online, or find a good gym instructor. Mine is brilliant, and is giving me a lot of help with this, because what I know about exercise could easily be written on the back of a postage stamp!!!
If you run a long time at a slower pace, you will burn more fat.
If you run as fast as you can for as long as you can you will burn more calories if you run for the same length of time as you would running at a slower pace. Running at a quicker pace tires you out easier so they're probably going to work out the same for calorie burn.
However as Dani rightly said, Intervals are better, both for fast calorie burn and for improving fitness. I used to walk for 1 1/2 min, then sprint for 30 secs. Ah those were the days, running!
Just try and see what works for you, and what you're most interested in is surely the best as it will keep you motivated.
Running faster and slower cause different training adaptations in your body. Running faster (tempo, intervals) will increase your anaerobic threshold, allowing you to work more intensely for greater periods of time. Running slowly (and walking) will cause your body to increase the number of mitochondria in your cells and increase the capilliarization of your muscles, allowing you to work for much longer periods of time. Because the effects on your body are different most "serious" running plans contain aspects of both--shorter faster runs (speedwork) and long slow distance (LSD!) runs. Both types are important and even top-tier running coaches have the same argument as you and your husband about which is better, and how much of one type or the other. A very profound question indeed!
Having said that, putting your feet in front of each other for one mile, whether you walk, shuffle, jog, run or sprint burns very close to the same number of calories in the body. The myth of the fat-burning zone--that it is best for losing weight--is just a myth; there is another thread on that here in the exercise forum you should look up. The faster you run, the less time it takes! So for weight loss/maintenance, the best speed to run or walk, is the speed that keeps you interested in running and walking for the greatest total distance. That simple!
Enjoy your running, and come join us on the Cool Runners thread!
I didn't know I asked such a profound question..hehe . Anyway I think you are right, wndranne, as long as I keep my body moving and doing it for a good amount of time I will burn something. I have never been a fast walker or a fast walker. But I have been able to run three miles at a time at a steady pace and i sweated and I felt the burn as well. I just need to do what is comfortable for me. I am just getting back into running and I have never weighed this much doing it, I feeling like I am lugging around bricks. I think I might start walking for five minutes, increasing my walking pace for the next five and then jog for ten and then back to walking for ten minutes and every two weeks making my walking time less and less. I just want to run for distance. I never have timed myself or measured my heart rate. I think if I ran as fast as I can for a shorter distance, I would hate running. Anyway, thanks for you all of your comments and hopefully I will be burning some of this fat and of course eating my veggies. Good Luck to everyone.
Which is better?
Which is better?
Thanks for the replys
