Fat Stripping - 8KM in 32-33 mins or 30 mins of Interval Sprinting

Mister-M5

Just wondering which would be more beneficial in terms of burning calories, stripping fat etc, NOT getting physically fitter.

Some details on the sprinting:

I use football pitch -Jog the length (slowly), then about 85% across the width, recover along the length, wash rinse repeat. Maybe 5 complete laps. (Half a pitch for this part)

Then, start on a sideline, slow jog to the middle of the goalposts, flat out sprint to the far sideline, turn around, slow recovery jog to the same point in the middle and flat out sprint to the sideline. Wash, rinse, repeat to complete 10 sprints.

After that, start on the end line, jog to the half way line, increase to about 75-80% to the far end line. Turn, slow jog to the same point in the middle to recover, then increase the pace again to the original end line. Complete 4 circuits.

Then to finish, start in one corner, give it everything i can along the endline to the far corner, recover from end line to 14 yard line, everything i have across the 14 yard line, recover from 14 to 21 yard line, across again and repeat along all the lines (45,65,65,45,21,14) to finish in the opposite corner. By the end I am a long way from what could be described as a sprint.

Then a very slow lap or two to cool down. I am pretty shattered after it. And by pretty I mean completely.

Just wondering if anyone could advise which would be more beneficial? I'd imagine the sprinting is but don't really know enough about it to be sure?

Cheers

heavyballs

i'm no expert but i do similar to you so i'm interested what the reply will be from the experts here
one thing i would say is where you do your 85% across the pitch i do 85% for the whole field which takes about 28 seconds,i think pushing those runs out a bit would be more beneficial to you

SteelyDanJalapeno

In my non expert opinion,

Definitely the sprinting, in whatever way shape or form, 20 - 30 mins of sprints that absolutely leave you with nothing left in the tank is much better than distance running for both building muscle and losing weight,

Mister-M5

Cheers for the info guys.

Appreciate all the advice.

Will defo try to push it out a bit harder!

I am pie

Starting to do some HIT cardio in the gym with trainer. I think you should minimise the rest and recoveries periods from what i understand.

We would start with a 15 second sprint, short break, then 30 second, with a short break, building up the length of the sprints but maintaining the rest period length. When you get to your max sprint length then you start to reduce them down until you get back to the shortest sprint (whatever you started on).

Mellor

TiltedBrain wrote: »

In my non expert opinion,

Definitely the sprinting, in whatever way shape or form, 20 - 30 mins of sprints that absolutely leave you with nothing left in the tank is much better than distance running for both building muscle and losing weight,

What are you basing this on? How much calories do you think he burns during the sprints? How much in the steady run.

8km in 32 mins is pretty fast. It is going to burn a lot of calories. As does the sprinting of course. But I think the two are very close and there are so many variables that either could be burning more.

cmyk

Mister-M5 wrote: »

Just wondering which would be more beneficial in terms of burning calories, stripping fat etc

Too many variables, here's just some of them...

What does your dietary setup look like? Are you creating an energy deficit through exercising alone, or diet plus exercise? How much of a deficit are you running? What other exercise do you do, if any?

How long of a recovery period between your different 'stages or blocks' of intervals that you've mentioned?

farmchoice

why not do both. mix it up a bit, one day sprinting next time long run. both will burn calories and you are less likley to get sick of it if you are not doing the same thing all the time.

SteelyDanJalapeno

Mellor wrote: »

TiltedBrain wrote: »

In my non expert opinion,

Definitely the sprinting, in whatever way shape or form, 20 - 30 mins of sprints that absolutely leave you with nothing left in the tank is much better than distance running for both building muscle and losing weight,

What are you basing this on? How much calories do you think he burns during the sprints? How much in the steady run.

8km in 32 mins is pretty fast. It is going to burn a lot of calories. As does the sprinting of course. But I think the two are very close and there are so many variables that either could be burning more.

I did open the post stating I'm no expert, but sprinting is clearly gonna result in a higher respiratory response, it uses fast twitching muscle fibers opposed to the slow twitching used during jogging, your using the maximum output of your lower body muscles during sprinting and a fair amount of upper body muscle too, all these will need to repair as I know you already know!

I think the time spent on sprinting and it's results would outweigh the time spent jogging over a longer distance and it's results. Unless someone enjoys long distance running and uses it competitively, i don't know why they would choose it over sprinting to be honest. I'm in a bit of a paleo/primal mindset the last few years so I might be biased, but all you need to do is look at the physique of a sprinter and compare to a longer distance lesser intensity runner and you'll see the difference is huge.

But yeah, maybe this thread is not as straight forward as that, 8km in 32mins is very quic anyway,

cmyk

TiltedBrain wrote: »

I think the time spent on sprinting and it's results would outweigh the time spent jogging over a longer distance and it's results.

That's pretty much the debate. Without knowing other variables it's impossible to tell, and even at that we have no way of knowing. I'm pretty sure what Mellor (and I) are saying is that you're not sprinting for 30mins solid, so there's rest time within that 30mins.

TiltedBrain wrote: »

Unless someone enjoys long distance running and uses it competitively, i don't know why they would choose it over sprinting to be honest.

Recovery, creating a deficit, different physiological effects when compared to interval training in terms of fat loss.

TiltedBrain wrote: »

I'm in a bit of a paleo/primal mindset the last few years so I might be biased, but all you need to do is look at the physique of a sprinter and compare to a longer distance lesser intensity runner and you'll see the difference is huge.

Not sure what paleo/primal has got to do with things but isn't tracking/persistent hunting/barefoot running part of the whole paleo 'movement' too? Also looking at sprinters versus long distance runners isn't really a valid argument either. I could counter argue with looking at bodybuilders, they can do hours of steady state cardio.

TiltedBrain wrote: »

But yeah, maybe this thread is not as straight forward as that

I don't think so. None of this is having a dig at you by the way in case it seems that way.

Mellor

TiltedBrain wrote: »

I did open the post stating I'm no expert, but sprinting is clearly gonna result in a higher respiratory response, it uses fast twitching muscle fibers opposed to the slow twitching used during jogging, your using the maximum output of your lower body muscles during sprinting and a fair amount of upper body muscle too, all these will need to repair as I know you already know!

I think the time spent on sprinting and it's results would outweigh the time spent jogging over a longer distance and it's results. Unless someone enjoys long distance running and uses it competitively, i don't know why they would choose it over sprinting to be honest. I'm in a bit of a paleo/primal mindset the last few years so I might be biased, but all you need to do is look at the physique of a sprinter and compare to a longer distance lesser intensity runner and you'll see the difference is huge.

But yeah, maybe this thread is not as straight forward as that, 8km in 32mins is very quic anyway,

The sprinting is more intense, but over a shorter period. It could go either way IMO.
I wouldn't consider that 8km pace jogging either, so I don't think we need to be concerned with fast vs slow twitch.
I fully agree about sprinters physic vrs 5-10km runners, but the OP isnt trying to build muscle. One of the reasons longer distance runners aren't build like sprinters is because they'd burn far too many calories.

I think sprinting has lots of advantages over mid-distance. It's "functional", power building etc. But in terms of calorie expenditure, I'm not convinced its better. I always go by the rule if thumb that distance equals calories. Steady state should cover more distance.

SteelyDanJalapeno

cmyk wrote: »

That's pretty much the debate. Without knowing other variables it's impossible to tell, and even at that we have no way of knowing. I'm pretty sure what Mellor (and I) are saying is that you're not sprinting for 30mins solid, so there's rest time within that 30mins.

Indeed, they're not gonna be maximum sprints if they can be maintained for 30 minutes without rest periods. Thats not really what I was implying, basically a sprinting programme that leaves me with nothing left in the tank over the space of 30 odd minutes, I believe would have greater benefits than lower intensity constant running.

cmyk wrote: »

Recovery, creating a deficit, different physiological effects when compared to interval training in terms of fat loss.

What type of recovery are you implying here? In terms of fat loss, I think due to the fact that sprinting will hammer more of you muscles for longer over the following hours after the session your body will use more calories repairing the damaged tissue Vs the slower paced runner's repair.

cmyk wrote: »

Not sure what paleo/primal has got to do with things but isn't tracking/persistent hunting/barefoot running part of the whole paleo 'movement' too? Also looking at sprinters versus long distance runners isn't really a valid argument either. I could counter argue with looking at bodybuilders, they can do hours of steady state cardio.

I mentioned i might be biased due to being more paleo/primal as sprinting would be seen as the more natural thing we did back then, what other species on the planet would use jogging as part of their life? I cant think of alot, where as nearly all will use sprinting in terms of evading predators and catching food, which is exactly what we used it for.

cmyk wrote: »

I don't think so. None of this is having a dig at you by the way in case it seems that way.

Not at all, as said i'm no expert, and as much information I can pick up from any debates is well received.

SteelyDanJalapeno

Mellor wrote: »

The sprinting is more intense, but over a shorter period.It could go either way IMO.

I suppose this debate would be more useful if not looking at the OP's case in particular, as the 8km over 32 mins is a quick time, but he's still definitely not hitting the muscles as hard as he would be sprinting and also not as many muscles targeted, you might be right in that longer distance may over the period burn more calories, but surely in the greater span of things improving muscle mass from sprinting will require more calories to maintain making it also a better long term option?

Mellor wrote: »

I wouldn't consider that 8km pace jogging either, so I don't think we need to be concerned with fast vs slow twitch.

Again, I kind of agree with you that the OP may be a bad example, but it still has merit, if the OP is not going flat out over the 8KM there will be a difference in damage to the fibers.

Mellor wrote: »

I fully agree about sprinters physic vrs 5-10km runners, but the OP isnt trying to build muscle.

I dont think anyone thinks that you will put on ridiculous amounts of muscle sprinting, you wont. But I dont see why anyone would not want the physique of an average sprinter who would not do any other real weight exercise, over a long distance runner. One looks defined and healthy, the other underweight and malnourished.

Mellor wrote: »

One of the reasons longer distance runners aren't build like sprinters is because they'd burn far too many calories.

Exactly, isnt the OP trying to burn calories and not become a long distance runner?

Mellor wrote: »

I think sprinting has lots of advantages over mid-distance. It's "functional", power building etc. But in terms of calorie expenditure, I'm not convinced its better. I always go by the rule if thumb that distance equals calories. Steady state should cover more distance.

We diverge here, unless somebody enjoys long distance running or does it competitively, I dont believe it holds many advantages over sprinting.

shootermacg

I personally prefer to jog, jumping to full output and back a young man's game, my heart prefers gradual loading.

Dermighty

How safe is interval training. I know it works, just wondering if it's something you should do once a week or can you do it two or three times a week?

I recently started jogging (9kmph on the treadmill for 5 k) before each gym session and it feels great. I know HIIT would help me burn fat a little faster if I do it right, but I don't want to tire out my heart at the start of the week as I like to train 5 or 6 days a week (at various levels of intensity).

Mellor

TiltedBrain wrote: »

but surely in the greater span of things improving muscle mass from sprinting will require more calories to maintain making it also a better long term option?

We are talking about somebody on a deficit, hes not going to build much muscle, Regardless, the energy spend during exercise here is far greater than increased RMR due to extra muscle.

Again, I kind of agree with you that the OP may be a bad example, but it still has merit, if the OP is not going flat out over the 8KM there will be a difference in damage to the fibers.

I think the afterburn effect, increased metabolic rate due to repair, high heart rate is overstated in general.

Exactly, isnt the OP trying to burn calories and not become a long distance runner?

I think you are missing my point. The reasons why runners have small builds is because the body drops mass to cope with the fact running burns a lot of calories.

We ate talking about 1 session a week to burn calories in order to drop fat. He isn't going to end up looking like a sprinter or runner overnight. Diet and all other exercise play a huge role.

We diverge here, unless somebody enjoys long distance running or does it competitively, I dont believe it holds many advantages over sprinting.

except for possibly burning more energy.
You've said you don't think it does but haven't given a solid reason why you think that. At least nothing measurable.

RMD

Give this a read. I'd always go for HIIT over slow paced continuous cardio.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/ultimate-8-week-hiit-for-fat-burning-program.html

Chet Zar

Mellor has it spot on here.

Ripped and stacked sprinters you see on the telly who train 6 hours a day 6 days a week or something have a lot to answer for. For the average guy on the street, running over a moderate distance (no need to become scrawny doing marathons etc), is going to bring far greater results when it comes to fat loss.

That's not to say you can't also sprint, ideally you will do both. But a combo of both is going to work better than sprinting alone, simply because you won't have the capacity to do enough sprinting to see the same level of fat loss within the same period of time spent doing regular running.

The afterburn thing was something that was hugely latched onto, I read a report recently (don't remember where) which said that it was hugely over-stated and wasn't responsible for nearly as much calorie burn as you'd think.

The fact is, if you want to burn calories and drop the pounds, get out running or do some other sustained cardio, throw in some HIIT, watch your diet and your calories, lift weights or do some form of resistance training, and stretch / keep mobile so you can maintain it all along the way.

AntiVirus

RMD wrote: »

Give this a read. I'd always go for HIIT over slow paced continuous cardio.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/ultimate-8-week-hiit-for-fat-burning-program.html

The OP is talking about running at 15kmph for 32 minutes thats not slow! :pac:

I'd often go for a fast 6km run at around that speed and my heart rate avgs at 175bpm for the 25 minutes