Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

Running vs. Sprinting for general weight loss?

Rubirosa

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
508
Reaction score
36
Opinions ?
I got slightly overweight in my early 30's, so I started jogging 2 miles on grass every day. I would always finish my jog by sprinting the last 200 yards of the 2nd mile, but for the most part, it was a brisk, easy workout I enjoyed. My waist got smaller and I felt great .
Fast forward almost 20 years and I am the heaviest I've ever been (5'10" probably 195lbs.)
I'm getting back into Martial Arts and lifting, but I would like to run sometimes too. I don't like wind sprints because of the pounding on my knees and back, but would jogging like I did in my younger, faster metabolism days be a waste of time in terms of shrinking my waist?
I know, I know....Small waists are made in the kitchen and not the gym, but jogging helped me many years ago
 

shaflim

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Every person has different choice and different things worked on them but if i chose than i would go with running. because its all time best and most effective for weight loss.. It shows very quick results
 

Colossus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,542
Reaction score
558
Sprinting is all the rage now in strength training circles, but I think it depends on your goals and preferences.

AFAIK sprinting has been shown to utilize more fat for fuel for the time spent in exercise; but it is harder on your joints and frankly I think it sucks more than jogging.

I used to HATE any form of running with a burning passion, but jogging has really grown on me. I just keep it moderate, jogging a 5k once a week, and maybe a 2 miler on another day. If I jog more than 2x a week I cant keep any muscle on, and my feet and knees start to act up.

Jogging is great because you can kind of zone out to some music and just let your body do the work.
 

jimmy18

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
244
Reaction score
22
I would stick to running rather than sprinting as there is less chance of injury
 

Colossus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,542
Reaction score
558
bradd80 said:
Generally, sprinting is better. That's why 100 m sprinters have such impressive physiques as opposed to long distance marathon runners.

Here, let's compare two examples of each:

sprinter

http://joeneillfitness.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/20131129-204508.jpg

and

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6gF_odmR3iU/Shj77KEF34I/AAAAAAAAADA/lRX7VAwDt9k/s400/JonDrummond01.jpg

against

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/24/article-2178118-1431A0F2000005DC-986_306x711.jpg

You get the idea? I could have posted a second picture of a marathon runner but they pretty much all look like that first one. Sport scientists think 100m sprinters have such ripped physiques because evolution-wise, humans have developed by sprinting short fast runs to catch and collect their food. They would go a relatively long period without eating, then find and sprint after their prey, catch it, and then feast on this huge food supply till it was gone. Then they'd repeat.

The sprinters look well muscled and very fit, while the long distance runners look lanky and thin. It's no coincidence why so many health nuts are pushing HIIT-style exercise: it tends to allow large muscles to develop while burning lots of fat at the same time.

High intensity sprinting, however, burns out the central nervous system very quickly - much more quickly than a long, slow jog. That's why people can jog 5 or 7 or more miles a day and get used to it. But doing an intensive HIIT-style routine every day? Forget about it.

I'd do both. When I train, I'll usually do one or the other but sometimes I'll merge the two together. So for a 5 mile run, for example, on the last two miles I'll sprint here and there for 40, 50, or even 100 meters at a time.

There's benefits to both, sprinting can cause injuries but so can long distance running. Running is great for fat burning, but it may also burn some of that hard earned muscle you're trying to build. You are weightlifting aren't you?

Here's a list of pros and cons of each:
There's some truth and some myth to all of this. I actually pulled out my Exercise Metabolism textbook and read up on adipose tissue lipid mobilization, endurance metabolism, maximal power output, and central fatigue.

In a nutshell, endurance exercise at low-moderate intensities (25-50% of VO2 max) relies heavily on adipose tissue mobilization and the resulting triglycerides for oxidation and use as fuel in muscle. In other words, it burns fat. BUT----it is heavily influenced by a number of factors, namely insulin levels prior to running. A meal within 3-6 hours of running significantly blunts fat oxidation.

Maximal power output for short durations (i.e. sprinting, powerlifting), relies VERY heavily on phosphocreatine and anaeobic glycolysis (mainly utilizing carbohydrate for fuel), with aerobic metabolism coming into play more heavily as the intervals accumulate.

The internet-famous comparisons of sprinter's physiques and long distance runner's physiques are overly simplistic and misleading. First of all, they use extreme examples. Showing a jacked, high-level 25 year old black male sprinter and a 35-45 year-old white male runner is a stark comparison, but it doesn't take into account several factors:

1. Genetics. Black males have demonstrably higher Type IIa muscle fiber composition than whites. Hence the preponderance of pro black athletes.

2. Specificity of training. Endurance running is all about efficiency, and a larger engine will always utilize more fuel, making it less efficient for lengthy low intensity tasks. Endurance runners have no need for excess muscle mass; indeed, all they need is enough to propel them down the track or road at 7-8 mph. Sprinter, by contrast, have to generate a tremendous amount or force to accelerate to top speed and maintain this maximal output for 30-45 seconds. All of this force requires a massive engine, i.e., ample type IIa fibers.

3. Consistency of training. Endurance running is time-consuming. It leaves very little left for other physical training, and indeed very little energy. Over a period of years, millions of calories are burned bringing body mass down to a minimum, and muscle hypertrophy is not needed nor is it created. The energy cost of running miles upon miles simply negates muscle growth, it does not necessarily "burn" muscle, although some proteins are used for fuel at such extremes.
Similarly, sprinting both builds requires considerable hypertrophy, and excess adipose tissue would be a weight burden. The leanness of sprinters is partially due to their training and diet, and partially due to of course genetics and the amount of lean tissue on their frame constantly utilizing fuel.


So to say sprinting is "better" than running for burning fat I think is a myth, and an oversimplified statement. For the average guy who wants to look lean and muscular, some combination of both is probably best, because sprints will build more muscle due to the power demand, and (moderate) jogging will build better cardiovascular development and also burn fat if timed properly. Although, as any bodybuilder will tell you, a lean physique is more effectively accomplished with diet manipulation rather than more exercise.

Too much sprinting does cause central fatigue, which is complex and will definitely affect other endeavors. For most of us, though, some combination of low-moderate intensity endurance, HIIT, and weight training combined with a diet high in protein, moderate in fat, and low-moderate in carbs will yield great results and is probably the most realistic approach to maintain.
 

Colossus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,542
Reaction score
558
bradd80 said:
There is never myth in any of my posts, they're always backed by cold hard scientific facts.

Focusing on the pics I posted and pointing out that the black sprinters are jacked just because they're black while the marathon runners are lanky and thin just because they're white is ignoring the fact that pretty much all sprinters - whether white or black - are well muscled while pretty much all marathon runners - whether white or black - are lanky and thin.

To state that fat burning efficiency depends on a variety of factors isn't very helpful. All one has to do is look at marathon runners, who are almost universally very thin and almost sick looking, and compare them to the vast majority of sprinters who are jacked and you can see the difference in muscle development. And you reading about fat burning in your text book confirms what we already knew: that running burns fat. But it doesn't compare running to sprinting in order to conclude which one burns fat more efficiently and effectively.

Your claim that fat burning efficiency depends on blood glucose levels prior to training etc ignores the single most important fact here: that short intense bursts of sprinting burns fat far more effectively and releases more muscle-building HGH (human growth hormone) than conventional running.

See http://www.metabolismjournal.com/article/0026-0495(94)90259-3/abstract

and I quote directly from the study:

"The impact of two different modes of training on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism was investigated in young adults who were subjected to either a 20-week endurance-training (ET) program or a 15-week high-intensity intermittent-training (HIIT) program."

The study's conclusion:

"Despite its lower energy cost, the HIIT program induced a more pronounced reduction in subcutaneous adiposity compared with the endurance training program."

also:

"the decrease in the sum of six subcutaneous skinfolds induced by the HIIT program was ninefold greater than by the endurance training (ET) program."

Not to mention:

"the activity of muscle glycolytic enzymes was increased by the HIIT program, whereas a decrease was observed following the ET program. The enhancing effect of training on muscle 3-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase (HADH) enzyme activity, a marker of the activity of β-oxidation, was greater after the HIIT program. In conclusion, these results reinforce the notion that for a given level of energy expenditure, vigorous exercise favors negative energy and lipid balance to a greater extent than exercise of low to moderate intensity. Moreover, the metabolic adaptations taking place in the skeletal muscle in response to the HIIT program appear to favor the process of lipid oxidation."

The results are similar in older people:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...ng-is-better-in-the-long-run/article17329544/

See also this study, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobe/2011/868305/, which confirms everything I have stated.

There is no doubt that, all else being equal, HIIT-style sprinting is far better for burning fat (up to 9 times better!) and for releasing HGH which builds muscle than low to moderate running. Now whether one is actually willing to do and stick to sprints over endurance running is up to the person performing the exercise..

Those are some decent references, but your post is bordering on the tautological. You basically restated everything we both just said (minus addressing my points on why photo comparisons are misleading, which still stand) in your own lawyer-esque way.

In my first post I said:

Colossus said:
...sprinting has been shown to utilize more fat for fuel for the time spent in exercise;
..which concurs with your references.

To state that fat burning efficiency depends on a variety of factors IS very helpful, because those factors make a big difference in efficacy. Nutrient timing, exercise duration, and baseline fitness are a few.

Me saying sprinting>running for fat burning is a "myth" is probably inaccurate; but I do think it is an oversimplification.

There a few reasons why:

1. The issue of meal timing and insulin levels with regards to HIIT-induced lipolysis has not been addressed by science. We know that a meal within 3-6 hours of an endurance exercise bout will blunt fat metabolism (1), so it is not unreasonable to assume that it may have a similar blunting effect in HIIT or MIIT.

2. Endurance training (ET) and HIIT produce similar physiologic benefits and adaptations (2,3). The main difference between the two is time spent in training; in other words, rate.

3. The studies you referenced have fairly low quantitative power, examining only a few individuals. The results are promising, sure, but I can give you a study (4) with similar statistical power that showed NO significant difference in body composition was seen after 10 weeks of HIIT and ET, only a difference in rate.

4. Also worth considering is the modality of these studies; almost all of them use a cycle ergometer, NOT sprinting. Your reference states that in the conclusion.

5. Additionally, to restate my point above about the jacked sprinter photos, those are extreme examples of PRO athletes who train for their sport all day, every day. So not only is it obvious they will look different (akin to comparing the physique of a swimmer and an olympic weightlifter), but it just has no relevance to average bros.


So I think we can agree at this point that, for equal time spent in exercise, HIIT (and even MIIT) appears to be superior for lipolysis. But there are some limitations in the current body of knowledge, and I wouldn't go so far as to state it's a "cold hard scientific fact". Similar adaptations can be achieved with ET (2,3), with lower risk of injury and CNS fatigue.

The take-home message is, if you want what appears to be superior fat-burning potential for the time spent in exercise, and can tolerate the demands of sprinting (or cycling, or whatever) HIIT seems to be the way to go. If you want all of those benefits but have more time to jog or just enjoy it more than sprinting, moderate endurance training is fine.

For most of us non-pro athletes who are just trying to look lean and muscular, be strong, and have healthy hearts, some combination of both is probably best.


REFS

1. Exercise Metabolism, Hargreaves and Spriet, 2nd Ed; 2006. pp 8-11, 89-93, 172.

2. Joyner and Coyle 2008; Pavlik et al. 2010

3. http://www.ideafit.com/fitness-libr...durance-training-battle-of-the-aerobic-titans

4. http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/kin_health_diss/7/
 

Rubirosa

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
508
Reaction score
36
Wow! This thread turned into a big scientific debate. Thanks for the imput guys....

Bradd.......I think what really happened regarding the role of running in human evolution is that.....Number one, almost all land animals are much faster than man.........for relatively short bursts......

So early man discovered that if he started the chase, the animals of course, would tear off and dissapear....

Man would simply jog after the animals and eventually catch up to the animals that had sprinted away and were now resting after their sprint to safety

The animals, sensing the danger once again, would sprint away, and man would simply continue the jog after them

.....and once again, the jogging man would eventually catch up to the now resting animals and the scenario would continue until the animals were spent from sprinting too much.....The humans would then have an easy sprear shot for the now exhausted animals

So I believe that man evolved as a jogger, not a sprinter
 

speed dawg

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
4,808
Reaction score
1,242
Location
The Dirty South
Rubirosa said:
Opinions ?
I got slightly overweight in my early 30's, so I started jogging 2 miles on grass every day. I would always finish my jog by sprinting the last 200 yards of the 2nd mile, but for the most part, it was a brisk, easy workout I enjoyed. My waist got smaller and I felt great .
Fast forward almost 20 years and I am the heaviest I've ever been (5'10" probably 195lbs.)
I'm getting back into Martial Arts and lifting, but I would like to run sometimes too. I don't like wind sprints because of the pounding on my knees and back, but would jogging like I did in my younger, faster metabolism days be a waste of time in terms of shrinking my waist?
I know, I know....Small waists are made in the kitchen and not the gym, but jogging helped me many years ago
Wow, you should just like me. Except I'm now 5'10", 210 lbs. with a bad back. I'm also about to get into martial arts too. I prefer sprinting, because to me THAT is what is easier on my joints, rather than jogging. Jogging just seems to be a constant pounding plus I hate that sh*t. Although I did used to get very good results from it. But with my back the way it is now, it's pretty much out of the question.
 

Rubirosa

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
508
Reaction score
36
The only answer I can offer is that this type of hunting still occurs today in parts of Southern Africa where the prey is antelope and the terrain is flat and covered with shrubs....
Regarding sprinting used by early man in hunting.........I don't possess enough info..........
 

JeremiahLesko

New Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
USA, Pennsylvania,Scranton
It seems you really like jogging, if you are thinking that you can loose weight by jogging then you set your time for jogging. I think you don't like sprinting any more, but as per me both sprinting and weightlifting can help you to get in shape, loose pounds and tone up. So its your choice what you want to continue.
 

ArcBound

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
114
Location
U.S. East
Sprinting taxes me mentally too much at the moment. Between grad school and regular workouts, it is extremely hard to force myself to sprint. Maybe when I build more willpower but eh, I'm being realistic.

At the moment I walk everywhere. A lot of my job also requires me to stand up all day. And frankly between that and my normal workouts half of my abs are visible, love handles are almost gone. I'm sure sprints are good, but I think even if you ran or jog regularly it would be very good for weight loss purposes. Also calories, but I don't need to tell you that.

Of course I am 23 so it might me metabolism, but a lot of my friends who sit a lot for work are overweight. In my opinion while people say sprinting might be the best, I think it is better to find one that fits your schedule, lifestyle, and most importantly one that you are going to do persistently without stopping. I have friends that try to go all out with sprints all the time because they want to lose that weight quickly, but what ends up happening is they burn themselves out, or lose willpower from week to week, or just lazy. Whereas if they just walked or ran/jogged regularly persistently they would have reached their goals already.
 

soden

Don Juan
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
42
Reaction score
1
Answer is real simple:

Running is the best way to burn many kcal, because you can keep it up for a longer duration (>1hour).
BUT if your time is limited and you cant go for more than 45 minutes its best to do Sprint intervals.

Considering your starting post where you mentioned you did it every day AND that you are back into material arts, go for the long duration running at least 2 times a week >1hour.

Thats the physiological answer :rockon:
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
When it comes to burning calories, the best form of cardio is definitely sprinting. While few people who are better-served jogging instead of sprinting because some are still recovering from an injury or with low cardiovascular endurance! So basically, it is usually based on your health resistance and how your body can adapt to it.
 

void957

Don Juan
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
67
Reaction score
5
Location
England
Rubirosa said:
Opinions ?
I got slightly overweight in my early 30's, so I started jogging 2 miles on grass every day. I would always finish my jog by sprinting the last 200 yards of the 2nd mile, but for the most part, it was a brisk, easy workout I enjoyed. My waist got smaller and I felt great .
Fast forward almost 20 years and I am the heaviest I've ever been (5'10" probably 195lbs.)
I'm getting back into Martial Arts and lifting, but I would like to run sometimes too. I don't like wind sprints because of the pounding on my knees and back, but would jogging like I did in my younger, faster metabolism days be a waste of time in terms of shrinking my waist?
I know, I know....Small waists are made in the kitchen and not the gym, but jogging helped me many years ago

Jogging is not very effective if not paired with a clean diet. Plus i read somewhere after a certain amount of time of jogging , you start to lost muscle tissue instead of fat. So slow walking is actually recommended. Also, most importantly, keep lifting and do loads of ab exercises.
 
Top