"Povl H. Pedersen" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
> On 2003-10-22, Sam <
[email protected]> wrote:
> > I cannot see much difference here. Both would total 60 min of exercise.
> >
> > If you hear people say that it takes 20 min to start "burning" fat, ignore the rest since
> > substrate utilization does not matter.
>
> I agree. It takes around 45 minutes to use the primary carbohydrates in your blood, and switching
> to a higher fat burning ratio.
>
> Around 75% effort is the optimal tradeoff, burns most fat per time unit.
>
> > From a practical perspective, 3x20 would be better since it reduces the need to change clothes
> > and possibly shower by one day.
>
> Agreed, and the 15 minutes saved could be added to the run, and make it 3x25 mins
> >
> > You might want to consider other exercises that impact your back problem less.
>
> Agreed.
thanks for all the input. actually my back has been fine running the reduced mileage i have been
running. i was running 30 -40 minutes before. like 5 days a week. my lower back was starting to
bother me. i stopped running for a week then started the lower mileage. i have been fine.