Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel  So then for example would you say that it is better for the fat burning process to run quite slow instead of fast? I mean if you have the distance of 2 miles you might run very fast and get it done in less than 20 minutes. But if you run more slowly it will take more time and so you will run more than 20 minutes. Then you would need maybe something like half an hour. Does this mean that you will burn more fat? It is the same distance! It is just a different celerity! |
Fast for say 20 minutes would be MUCH better than slow for 30 minutes.
What you're looking to do is burn calories, a.k.a. fat. I would look at it as not running a set distance and choosing how fast to run it, but instead running as fast as I can for as long as I can......if that makes sense.
If you exercise slowly (when you physically can go much faster than that), you're not going to improve your stamina and cardiovascular system nearly as much compared to if you pushed yourself. By pushing yourself you'll allow yourself to run further and further distances, which in turn translate to you being able to run fast for a longer period of time, and hense burn the maximum calories.
OK, I think I confused myself.
.gif ";)")