4 ms·

If you look at the scientific papers on how our bodies burn stored energy, then it becomes rather straight forward why high intensity exercise leads to weight l

If you look at the scientific papers on how our bodies burn stored energy, then it becomes rather straight forward why high intensity exercise leads to weight loss. Exact numbers escape me, but exercise somewhere between 65-80 percent of your heart rate leads to optimal consumption of carbs and fats. Too low stress and you aren’t using up much stored energy; too high and the body needs sugars to keep going. Better yet, it’s prolonged intensity that matters, as it takes the body a few minutes to activate all the pathways required to start burning fats and carbs. So for example long distance running will burn more fats than sprinting.

aix1 4y ago
Here is one relevant study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19855335/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19855335/
chrismartin 4y ago
I wonder what the blog author considers "high intensity"? 65-80% of MHR is common advice (see my other comment) but generally _not_ considered high intensity. 80% is still supposed to be under the lactate threshold.
jaqalopes 4y ago
The important thing seems to be heart rate. If you're a slow runner distance alone might not get you there. A series of sufficiently hard sprints and breaks that stretches over 30 minutes is better than 30 minutes of continuous jogging.
notacoward 4y ago
This matches my own experience. I got into a bit of a rut for a year or so, taking multiple breaks even during a 5km (3.11 mile) run. Both my pace and my weight suffered. Then I pulled myself out of it, usually doing three to four miles (and as much as six as long as it's not too hilly) without a break. Not surprisingly, pace and weight both got better again. Looking at my numbers, I concluded that the first five minutes at the start or after a break basically don't count. There's a direct correlation between benefits and time spent outside of those windows. The mechanisms don't matter. I'll follow the empirical results, and at least for me that means fewer breaks.

aix1 4y ago

Here is one relevant study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19855335/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19855335/

chrismartin 4y ago

I wonder what the blog author considers "high intensity"? 65-80% of MHR is common advice (see my other comment) but generally _not_ considered high intensity. 80% is still supposed to be under the lactate threshold.

jaqalopes 4y ago

The important thing seems to be heart rate. If you're a slow runner distance alone might not get you there. A series of sufficiently hard sprints and breaks that stretches over 30 minutes is better than 30 minutes of continuous jogging.

notacoward 4y ago

This matches my own experience. I got into a bit of a rut for a year or so, taking multiple breaks even during a 5km (3.11 mile) run. Both my pace and my weight suffered. Then I pulled myself out of it, usually doing three to four miles (and as much as six as long as it's not too hilly) without a break. Not surprisingly, pace and weight both got better again. Looking at my numbers, I concluded that the first five minutes at the start or after a break basically don't count. There's a direct correlation between benefits and time spent outside of those windows. The mechanisms don't matter. I'll follow the empirical results, and at least for me that means fewer breaks.