andydavidleeroth wrote: Chappie wrote: As I have shown earlier cardio causes your body to use more calories for a given period, which causes a larger defecit in a smaller time i.e. quicker.
your definition of quicker refers to the very short term actual duration of the exercise (minutes).
i assumed that we were talking about the long term time that it takes for fat to be lost, (weeks, months)
i.e, it may be quicker to burn 500 calories, by going for a run, but 500 calories is 500 calories no matter how it is burned, and it is very easy to achieve this figure by lifting weights, (even if it takes a longer time(and that is debatable)).
in other words, by "quicker" surely we mean rate of fat loss(lbs per week/month), rather than duration of exercise.
Assuming that 500 calories are lost either way, the rate of fat loss will be no different, but the weighlifter will maintain more muscle.
Chappie wrote: Running a mile uses approx the same amount of calories as walking a mile. This means that someone running a mile may use 300 calories, but burn it in the form of glucose. Someone who walks a mile will use approx the same amount of calories, however this energy will be taken from their fat reserves…step-for-step.
people posting here were simply looking for the best way to burn fat, which is what I answered.
essentially, you are arguing that fat burning zones are the best way to do it, since a greater percentage of the energy use comes from fat.
By this logic, it is even better to burn fat by going to sleep, when close to 100% of energy comes from the oxidation of fat.
what is important is the overall calorie deficit per day/week, not the specific amount of fat lost from the last half hours jog.
im saying, i think weights is best, for many reasons, but if you are going to run, run, dont jog. as far as i can tell, you are a fat burning zone advocate.
"if they were to train step-for-step their body would metabolise fat rather than glucose"
http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-4-88-278-4219-1,00.html How is the amount of calories burnt debatable?? I have shown that more calories will be burnt by running/jogging. When weight training fat loss is a secondary factor, which is why people perform cardio to drop body fat. And surely people would want to burn 500ish calories with 30 mins of running, rather than 2 hours of weight training (which, may I add, becomes counterproductive after around 60-90 mins).
Granted if you pack on muscle your body will obviously burn more calories (I have not disputed this), but packing on 10lbs of the stuff (which burns 130 calories per hour) takes a lot of effort and time.
As for the link you have posted - I did not read it completely, but it does seem to backup what I was saying. That if you train at a lower intensity, for the same amount of work, your body will metabolise fat
Busting the Fat-Burning Zone Myth
Moderate Intensity High Intensity
(60-70% max heart rate)(70-80% max heart rate)
Total calories burned: 192 288
Percentage of fat calories burned: 75% 50%
Total fat calories burned: 144 144
It is better to do both cardio and weights which drops fat in the short term, and burns more over an extended period. If you read what I posted earlier, people here were asing how to drop fat in the quickest time possible, which is what I was replying to.
Granted Im not excersising as much as I probably should 
