CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Fitness
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Fitness Theory and Practice. CrossFit's rationale & foundations. Who is fit? What is fitness?

Thread Tools
Old 02-08-2009, 02:18 PM   #11
Kevin Thomas
Member Kevin Thomas is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta  GA
Posts: 762
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

Or . . . you could give CrossFit and the Zone diet a try.

Just saying,
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 02:23 PM   #12
Shane Skowron
Member Shane Skowron is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Queens  NY
Posts: 3,800
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

Originally Posted by Aaron Holland View Post
With jogging for weight loss, which is better: 60 mins. daily (with 1 day off per week), or 90 mins. every other day?
Neither. 20 minutes of sprinting.

Check out this link:

Originally Posted by Aaron Holland View Post
On the one hand I thought the daily aerobic is better, but on the other hand the longer time is better for burning fat.
Better for ... ? Please don't say the "c-word."
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 02:30 PM   #13
Steven Anderson
Member Steven Anderson is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Jacksonville  Fl
Posts: 489
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

Yes, definitely a little sarcasm on my end. REALLY though, have you tried sprinting? A lot of folks (obviously not us from the CF community) still live by the "cardio is king for weight-loss" mantra. Simply not true. I advocate lifting very heavy 3-4 times a week (deads, squats, clean and jerks, snatches) with all-out 100% max effort sprints 1-2 times a week. If you follow something like this in nature you are most certain to experience excellent gains (in strength and speed) and losses (as in inches and most likely weight).
My blog and daily workout routine.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 02:42 PM   #14
Tom Rawls
Member Tom Rawls is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bristol  VT
Posts: 224
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

the belief that high intensity is better for weight loss is a matter of faith here, but the science is questionable:

Effect of HIIT on lipid oxidation during postexercise recovery
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Feb;41(2):364-74.

Effect of high-intensity interval exercise on lipid oxidation during postexercise recovery.

Malatesta D, Werlen C, Bulfaro S, Chenevière X, Borrani F.

Institute of Sport Sciences and Physical Education (ISSEP), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine whether lipid oxidation predominates during 3 h of postexercise recovery in high-intensity interval exercise as compared with moderate-intensity continuous exercise on a cycle ergometer in fit young men (n = 12; 24.6 +/- 0.6 yr). METHODS: The energy substrate partitioning was evaluated during and after high-intensity submaximal interval exercise (INT, 1-min intervals at 80% of maximal aerobic power output [Wmax] with an intervening 1 min of active recovery at 40% Wmax) and 60-min moderate-intensity continuous exercise at 45% of maximal oxygen uptake (C45%) as well as a time-matched resting control trial (CON). Exercise bouts were matched for mechanical work output. RESULTS: During exercise, a significantly greater contribution of CHO and a lower contribution of lipid to energy expenditure were found in INT (512.7 +/- 26.6 and 41.0 +/- 14.0 kcal, respectively) than in C45% (406.3 +/- 21.2 and 170.3 +/- 24.0 kcal, respectively; P < 0.001) despite similar overall energy expenditure in both exercise trials (P = 0.13). During recovery, there were no significant differences between INT and C45% in substrate turnover and oxidation (P > 0.05). On the other hand, the mean contribution of lipids to energy yield was significantly higher after exercise trials (C45% = 61.3 +/- 4.2 kcal; INT = 66.7 +/- 4.7 kcal) than after CON (51.5 +/- 3.4 kcal; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that lipid oxidation during postexercise recovery was increased by a similar amount on two isoenergetic exercise bouts of different forms and intensities compared with the time-matched no-exercise control trial.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 03:52 PM   #15
Robert Callahan
Member Robert Callahan is offline
Robert Callahan's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Zzyzx  CA
Posts: 1,626
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

The first and largest problem with that study is that they use "fit young men" as their participants. People with excess body fat that are detained and out of shape will respond differently than fit young men. Either way science is observational and the resounding observation by people involved with crossfit is that people lose more fat when participating in high intensity exercise than with LSD. How the science of that works out may not be entirely in consensus, but all that science will do is provide us with a mechanism, not an outcome.
"I swear by my life and by my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine"
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 03:53 PM   #16
Brian Bedell
Member Brian Bedell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lantana  FL
Posts: 2,870
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

I don't think OP is making an effort to read the site and/or find out what CF actually is. OP, try "start here" on the left margin of front page.

Good luck.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 03:57 PM   #17
David Meverden
Member David Meverden is offline
David Meverden's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Charleston  SC
Posts: 2,802
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

The problem with the study Tom put up, though, is that it is not examining end point effects. It examined an intermediate effect--lipid oxidation--that should, in theory, result in a favorable end result--subcutaneous fat loss. This is how the "fat burning zone" myth came about: it was found that during exercise more lipids were metabolized when the individual was at a certain intensity level and so, it was assumed that this would mean more long term weight loss. However, when the end point is examined, rather than a proxy, it turns out not to be true. Bottom line is that high intensity exercise leads to more fat loss than endurance training despite fewer calories actually being burned DURING the exercise.

Some evidence for my statements:

Study #1: Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism. (WFS)

"Despite its lower energy cost, the [high-intensity intermittent-training] program induced a more pronounced reduction in subcutaneous adiposity [i.e. the fat layer under the skin] compared with the [endurance-training] program."

Study #2: The effects of high-intensity intermittent exercise training on fat loss and fasting insulin levels of young women (WFS)

"subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: HIIE (n = 15), steady state exercise (SSE; n=15), or control (CONT; n=15) . . .
RESULTS: both exercise groups demonstrated a significant improvement, P < 0.05, in cardiovascular fitness. However, only the HIIE group had a significant reduction in total body mass (TBM), fat mass (FM), trunk fat, and fasting plasma insulin levels."
SEMINARS: Starting Strength, Ultimate Advantage, CFE, CF O-lifting, MovNat
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 04:40 PM   #18
Steven Low
Member Steven Low is offline
Steven Low's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: silver spring  maryland
Posts: 12,221
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

1. If you like running long distances slowly (yes, some people do) then go for it.

2. If you're already doing high intensity work such as CF... adding HIIT on top is NOT very smart. It's a quick way to burnout. In these cases, it's better to add longer slower runs.

3. If you're doing something like CF and longer runs like #2, you're better off just doing CF and/or heavy lifting and fixing your diet.

So in the end, FIX YOUR DIET. Lift heavy or do high intensity metabolic work (tabata, metcon, HIIT, etc.). This does not interfere with #1 though.
Posts are NOT medical, training, nutrition info
Bodyweight Article, Overcoming Gravity Book
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 04:43 PM   #19
Robert D Taylor Jr
Member Robert D Taylor Jr is offline
Robert D Taylor Jr's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chesapeake  VA
Posts: 1,736
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

Dnftt Dnftt
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 04:50 PM   #20
Michael Bruce Mailman
Member Michael Bruce Mailman is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Auckland  New Zealand
Posts: 165
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

Call me overly paranoid, but the OP has to be a troll, surely?

I'm frankly struggling to say anything nice about the level of intelligence it would take to post that question on these message boards. It's a perfectly valid question, on marathoners, etc, but not here.

I also note he's only got one post. Surely he's not for real?
  Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best Fat Loss/Weight Loss Program Ryan Green Fitness 71 05-12-2009 09:03 PM
Weight Loss Help, Please! John Casey Nutrition 14 07-30-2008 05:48 PM
Expected fat loss / weight loss Richard Evans Fitness 2 04-04-2008 11:41 AM
Weight Loss Chris Rodriguez Starting 2 01-17-2008 08:15 AM
Pullups (1 during 1st min, 2 during 2nd min, ...) WOD Question Brad Davis Workout of the Day 10 10-20-2006 08:07 PM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.