
Originally Posted by
Sharla
But don't you only burn fat at much lower intensities than the average run?
I mean I swear I've read in many running mags that you need to sort of 'train' your body to burn fat for fuel for long distance events because it will still preferentially burn glycogen and carbohydrates initially - it doesn't require as much energy to break them down as it does for fat.
I'd class the average run as moderate intensity, maybe around 50-70% maximum effort would be required. Is that fair? Or would you say it's more intense?
If this is the case muscle gylcogen will will supply around half of your energy needs, the rest will come from fat. So you will still be burning fat, along with glycogen at a 50-50 ish rate.
In regards to 'training' your body to burn even more fat, as a result of aerobic training, your muscles make adaptations that improve your performance....and your body's ability to use fat for fuel improves.
Aerobic training increases the number of fat oxidising enzymes, which means your body becomes more efficient in breaking down fats into fatty acids. The number of blood capillaries serving the muscle also increases so you can transport the fatty acids to the muscle cells. The number of mitochondria also increase...(the sites where fatty acids are oxidised) so all in all you have an even greater capacity for burning fat.
Since i started studying for my diploma i've sorta fallen out with magazines. Never realised how the information was holding me back in the gym...untill i started my diploma - and started applying the proper principles.
Pissed me off that i'd wasted an awful lot of time and money buying into bad ideas that weren't backed up by any kind of science. I get the feeling that a lot of fitness magazines work off the back of 'what works for me' sorta articles...that way when it doesn't work for you they can justify it by saying 'everybody's different'.
Bookmarks