New Fat Burning Discovery!

Looks like breaking your workouts up into two equal time blocks, then resting 20 minutes in between burns substantially more fat in the hours after your exercise.

Don't think you're supposed to eat during the 20 minute break, though:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/hl_nm/burn_fat_dc;_ylt=A sWNwjKtkOqxzYs99UuevC2s0NUE

Dave

Hey Dave, Do you think I could burn 10 times as much fat if I take a 200 minute rest? By the way, just reading the routine you posted recently made me tired!

Hi Doug,

Yeah that sprint stuff was pretty rough the first month!

I knew my twenty minutes of piddling around between the stairs warmup and my weight workout HAD to serve some purpose.

Don't know about the 200 minute rest, but should be okay following 300 minutes of exercise! lol

Dave

Excellent find Dave!  That not only makes a work-out easier, but benefits you more also!

DAMN 20 Minutes  I've been waiting 20 days DAYS between woorkouts hoping for the better results.

I think it works, but like Doug above, you'll have to workout for 30 days straight, THEN take a 20 day rest.

"While the proportion of total calories burned did not differ between the two workouts, fat represented nearly 77 percent of the calories burned in the recovery period after the two-part exercise session, compared with about 56 percent of calories burned in the recovery period after the single long exercise session." OK, I guess I've never really gotten this.  If the total calories burned is the same, does it really make that much of a difference?  Say today I ate 2300 calories, needed 2000 for my normal daily needs, and burned 700 on an exercise bike for an hour.  If I did this in one 60 minute stretch, I burned 400 calories from my fat and 300 from my food.  I burned all my calories that I ate plus 400 extra in fat, so I lose .114 pounds of fat. If I divided the workout into two 30-minute sessions, I burned 540 calories from my fat and 160 from my food.  However, I only used 2160 from my food, so I ate an extra 140 calories that are going to be packed on as new fat, leaving me with only a 400 calorie fat loss (.114 pounds). Where is the difference?  Is it that it takes more energy to break down fat and then build new fat from extra calories than it does to just burn it all directly from food?  Is it that the latter person is less hungry so he never eats those extra calories in the first place?  Is it that the latter person builds a faster metabolism long term?  I assume there is some explanation (otherwise scientists wouldn't waste so much time studying this phenomenon) but it has never been made apparent to me.

I'm assuming that when they say "more fat is burned during the recovery period" they mean after all is said and done. While you're recuperating...sleeping etc.  The calories burned DURING the workout are the same though. That's what I thought it meant.

From what I've seen in sprinting and HIIT articles, an important factor is how many calories you continue to burn post-workout. I think what I can deduce from other reading is, you continue to burn calories during the 20 minute period, THEN your metabolism gets ramped up further in the second workout, allowing you a much longer period of calorie burn after that second bout. On top of this, the author seems to be saying that the extra calories burned are mostly fat calories.

Not sure what happens if you wait 20 minutes after the second one and then service your better half....(?) Be a lot more fun than going to work, though!

Dave

Some exercise is definately more fun than other exercise. --Dave