rmackool

I have blindly subscribed to NewLeaf's philosophy on testing of fat loss and interval training. I've had my zones tested with mask and thought I knew it all (well, "enough" at least) about low intensity workouts as being more beneficial for weight loss.

However, Yahoo News had quoted the "National Council on Exercise" as stating that this lower-heart rate concept, while a small truth in its justification, doesn't really hold water. They stated that the bottom line about fat burning comes from mere intake of calories versus the amount burned that day and that if you exercise at higher heart rates (zone 3+) you will exceed the ratio of bpm/calorie burn (i.e. a 10% increase in bpm may burn 100 calories an hour but 20% will burn 150 calories). Note, i'm not using exact numbers, just a means for explaining the point of exponential-like growth of calorie burn. What this suggests is that if fat burn really comes down to calories in/out for the day and not the interval of training, then a higher interval of training is much more efficient.

Has anyone ever researched this concept. This reminds me of college... you learn one thing only later to realize that the only thing you really learned is the professor's opinion and not actual exact science.

What do you think.