If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Just watched this video on youtube. How do his claims (you burn the opposite of what you burn during your workout, for the next 36-48 hours) hold up scientifically and in relation to the Primal Blueprint?
I think it holds up, PB expands on the notion of using fat for energy by forcing your body to stay in fat-burning mode by depriving it of unnecessary carbs in your diet. Short, intense workouts are definitely a part of the blueprint.
It's about 1/2 crap. Your body is not going to break down muscle for carb unles you USE UP THE STORED CARB that you have(muscle and liver glycogen). The idea that you would do a long, mostly fat-burning(by definition low intensity) workout then break down muscle for sugar afterward is grossly retarded. Why would you? You didn't use any significant portion of the carb you started with. Long AND hard aerobic exercise like running 10+ miles as fast as you can do it will create this situation but BECAUSE it uses a lot of fat AND A LOT OF SUGAR.
The other side that Pankratose mentions is fine. You will burn fat after short, intense exercise. It's not of any huge benefit, though. Losing weight w/o diet is impossible unless you work like Phelps. First exercise priority should be weights to aoid muscle loss. Aerobics is thid priority to maybe speed things up a bit, way overrated for weight loss. Good for health, of course.
Long-easy exercise is fine. Short-hard is good. Long-hard can be bad unless you have a real good reason, like a gold medal in the marathon.
btw - The fat OR sugar thing is over-simplified to the point of being wrong. You always use some of both. The harder you exercise the more of BOTH you use per minute but the amount of sugar goes up FASTER.