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?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-08-2009, 05:55 PM   #21
Steven Anderson
Member Steven Anderson is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Jacksonville  Fl
Posts: 489
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Bruce Mailman View Post
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 monthly.com, etc, but not here.

I also note he's only got one post. Surely he's not for real?
Hence the reason for my original comment on this thread.
__________________
My blog and daily workout routine. http://doc-andy.blogspot.com/
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 06:47 PM   #22
David Meverden
Member David Meverden is offline
 
David Meverden's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Charleston  SC
Posts: 2,802
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

Yeah, good chance of just trying to get people spun up, which I think we did a good job of avoiding. I'm just glad it gave me an excuse to post those study links. Good backup for what we do when talking to less . . . umm . . . likeminded people (yeah, that's a nice way to put it).
__________________
CERTIFICATIONS: CSCS, CrossFit LVL 1
SEMINARS: Starting Strength, Ultimate Advantage, CFE, CF O-lifting, MovNat
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 07:03 PM   #23
Jason R O'Dell
Banned Jason R O'Dell is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Moore  OK
Posts: 3,396
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

I usually lift weights and then jog 3-5 miles. Well I say jog, but it's more like I jog/run for a while then walk until my legs don't feel like jello and then start run/jogging again.
Is this wrong? I'm mainly trying to help my cardio for rugby, but also get my legs used to pumping and running and moving for a long time because that's all I do during the game.

I wouldn't call it a long slow distance run, but it ain't exactly interval training either.

But I've got a guy on my team that just runs 7 miles a day. That's it, he doesn't lift or anything. The dude is ripped up and has probably the best cardio on the team. So it can't be all bad to run 7 miles a day and only that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 07:06 PM   #24
Robert Callahan
Member Robert Callahan is offline
 
Robert Callahan's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Zzyzx  CA
Posts: 1,626
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Meverden View Post
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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028502 (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 http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/vital/ac.../unsworks:2474 (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."
Very nice post!!
__________________
"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, 09:02 PM   #25
Giles Clarke
Member Giles Clarke is offline
 
Giles Clarke's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Longwood  FL
Posts: 203
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

I run to and from my gym every day (about .62 miles) and do a long run (10-12 miles) every Sunday night.
I run to the gym because it is a great way to warm up and get outside. It also beats driving any day of the week.
I do my Sunday night run because I enjoy it. It is the only time of the week that I have to myself around this place.
Crossfit it much better for fatloss than the long run, but that does not mean you should elliminate the run if you enjoy it.
I will also spend hours on my bicycle on the weekends when I am back in the States because I love that more than anything.
I have no illusions that doing this is better for fat loss than HIIT, but I do it because I enjoy it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 09:07 PM   #26
Jason R O'Dell
Banned Jason R O'Dell is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Moore  OK
Posts: 3,396
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

Well I mean, I'm sure it doesn't hurt fat loss.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 09:18 PM   #27
Jason R O'Dell
Banned Jason R O'Dell is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Moore  OK
Posts: 3,396
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

Another thing about the long runs and the sprints. I know sprints help with fat loss and endurance too.

But I have several guys on my rugby team that have monster endurance and look to be in great shape and they advocate 3-7 mile runs to stay in game shape.

I'm wondering if maybe they're mixing these long runs with sprint training too. Like a 7 mile run one night, and then like ten to fifteen 40 yard sprints the next night. Or heck, on the same night?

I need to build up my endurance for my game, and I've heard it both ways on what's best for building that endurance. I've got guys on my team saying run long distances and I have people on here saying do sprints or interval training. So I'm confused. Both seem to work for the people that are advocating them.


Then again a guy like me that's been horribly out of shape for so long probably isn't hurt by either. Heck I'm in such bad shape (shocking being able to play rugby and be in such bad shape actually, that's probably why i suck wind 10 minutes into the game and don't ever start) that I can't even jog an entire mile. I jog the first half mile then have to walk. Then if I go on a 3 mile run I spend the time walking and then jogging and then walking until I can jog again. I absolutely can't jog the whole thing. This appears to be a bad sign doesn't it?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 09:44 PM   #28
Omar Omar
Member Omar Omar is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Mississauga  Ontario
Posts: 320
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

30 min of interveal training 3 times a week equals a monthfull of 60 minutes run. well not exactly, but interval training is better for wieght loss+endurance building.

try crossfitendurance + crossfit + a good diet (zone, or the caveman diet)
and you will be amazingly fit in only 3 months hands down.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 09:46 PM   #29
Stanley Walter
Member Stanley Walter is offline
 
Stanley Walter's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pincher Creek  Alberta
Posts: 414
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

I think the obvious answer is that it will help with weight loss. If managed properly.

HIIT will help with weight loss too if managed properly.

Fitness wise? Its known that you can increase your V02max substantially by doing long-distance endurance runs, but, eventually it comes down to the ability to max out effort wise for 45 seconds. IIRC, and going by hockey stuff here, that is the amount of time the human body can sustain absolute all-out effort before it starts breaking down.

I know for hockey training, we do long distance endurance runs too.....maybe once per week. Most of our effort though was focused on 'training for your 45' as they would call it.

I noticed that the highest I could get my V02max by doing long distance stuff was slightly over 47. But, when I started doing HIIT style exercises, I was able to increase it to 58. And the higher I got it, the closer I came to maxing out effort wise for those 45 seconds.

Of course, I was doing sport specific exercises, but I would tend to think that V02max is the fundamental way to measure cardio fitness.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2009, 06:51 AM   #30
Steven Low
Member Steven Low is offline
 
Steven Low's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: silver spring  maryland
Posts: 12,221
Re: 60 vs. 90 min. aerobic for weight loss

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley Walter View Post
I think the obvious answer is that it will help with weight loss. If managed properly.

HIIT will help with weight loss too if managed properly.

Fitness wise? Its known that you can increase your V02max substantially by doing long-distance endurance runs, but, eventually it comes down to the ability to max out effort wise for 45 seconds. IIRC, and going by hockey stuff here, that is the amount of time the human body can sustain absolute all-out effort before it starts breaking down.

I know for hockey training, we do long distance endurance runs too.....maybe once per week. Most of our effort though was focused on 'training for your 45' as they would call it.

I noticed that the highest I could get my V02max by doing long distance stuff was slightly over 47. But, when I started doing HIIT style exercises, I was able to increase it to 58. And the higher I got it, the closer I came to maxing out effort wise for those 45 seconds.

Of course, I was doing sport specific exercises, but I would tend to think that V02max is the fundamental way to measure cardio fitness.
I read somewhere that in elite endurance athletes that lactate threshold correlates with the highest amount of performance (aka lowest race times or "ability to win"). At elite levels almost everyone has comparible Vo2max... so lactate threshold determines which athlete can get that best burst near the end of the race to push past the other competitors.
__________________
Posts are NOT medical, training, nutrition info
Bodyweight Article, Overcoming Gravity Book
  Reply With Quote
Reply


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 09:53 AM.


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