Why Incline Treadmill Walking Burns More Fat (In Under 90 Seconds)

[@ericrobertsfitness]

If you need a free calorie deficit calculator, click this link here! 👉🏽ericrobertsfitness.com/free-calorie-calculator/

[@CrystalCuddington]

I love the opening to this video, 'I'm fucking sick of nobody explaining things...' So am I! That's why I follow YOUR channel. You're so thorough. Thanks for being a fantastic KZbinr.

[@joeshmoe8952]

All I know is once I started doing incline fast pace walking on treadmill after lifting everything got better for me than just lifting alone.

[@setapartaay925]

Awesome!! What is face paced? I’m testing out this theory, as I’ve heard it just a couple of weeks ago, so… I’m here. I just started walking on incline for 30 minutes total: 10 min speed 3.0 incline 6; 10 minutes speed 2.5 incline incline 12, and then 10 minutes speed 2.0 incline 15. Wondering if I should speed it up a bit😬😮‍💨

[@joeshmoe8952]

@@setapartaay925 I set the incline all the way up to the highest level & keep the speed around 3.0 & I’ll do about 15 to 20 mins. I used to hold on to the hand rest bars on the treadmill but I don’t anymore. It makes it way harder when you don’t hold on and gives you a better work out. Every now and then I’ll do sprints on the treadmill. Run for about 30 seconds or more at full speed on the treadmill and then walk for 40 seconds or more. I’ll try to repeat that process at least 4-5 times. HIIT is a good workout out, helps with a lot of different things. By the way, fast pace would be walking on the treadmill at a speed of 3.0 or higher. It’s just walking fast.

[@BlackMarq20]

It’s possible you were burning more calories which led to you being in a deficit.

[@DRum886]

​@@setapartaay925Your speed should be good. Maybe increase it to 3.5-4.0 if it's too easy.

[@setapartaay925]

@@DRum886 thank you!!! That seems like running to me at a speed of 4.0. I’m pretty much dying at 3.5. I’ll dominate it though, in due time. Thanks for your advice!!

[@ciaofficial1723]

Direct to the point Not misleading Informational Helpful Under 2 mins Here's a new subscriber

[@LovelyLady1111]

Same

[@mossgeorge2001]

So are going for the gym for energy or cocaine, I don't judge 😅​@@LovelyLady1111

[@catfuckersnumberone]

And loves cocaine

[@NayaA-Ri]

That's right, so this is what my nutritionist suggested. Just walk, no running because running will only make you feel tired and eventually hungry.

[@martelljhixson]

It will definitely increase hunger impulse much more than walking. Running is better for losing weight if your don’t turn around and eat the refrigerator because of increased hunger. 😂

[@vaevictis2789]

​@@martelljhixsonyou really think the more fatigue and hunger your weight loss routine generate, the better? That some masochistic stuff

[@martelljhixson]

@@vaevictis2789 read my comment again. How the hell did you misinterpret my statement that grossly?

[@Real28]

That's terrible advice. High heart rate 2-3 times a week is TREMENDOUS for your cardiovascular system and proven to lower resting heart rate and increase longevity. You don't need to run everyday, unless you love it. But you should still do it at least once or twice a week.

[@gwwelch]

Well the beauty of incline walking is it is relatively low impact, you can do it for an hour plus if you need to and you can burn a ton of calories if you jack the incline to 12 degrees or more and still be fresh enough to lift the next day.

[@geffro1754]

Walking for an hour though 😬

[@binkibonko69]

biking is so much lower impact and you can bike for hours on end

[@Propane_Acccessories]

@@geffro1754It is all perspective. I did the stair climber for 1 hour before. Felt like I was walking the line between life and death. An incline walk is so much more sustainable in the long run for me.

[@KrownedKiiNG]

Keep doing these man. You’re probably the most sensible person in this creator fitness industry. Everyone else does a whole lot of yapping

[@WBaltimore]

That opening line caught me off guard, but it was GOLD! 🤣🤣🤣

[@QueenBea1990]

Lmao you said or cocaine 😂

[@gorillatrading5452]

Inclined treadmill for the win for bigger people. Less stress on the joints until you can get to a reasonable weight, and start running distance.

[@VirginiaJimenez-gs3px]

What I got is that I can do cocaine as a pre workout. Got it.

[@JessePinkman-nx3ji]

the forbidden preworkout💀

[@isiight.]

A lot of professional athletes throughout time have used the booger sugar. It works.

[@markofrankenstein1627]

Scientist here. low heart does not burn fat, that's nonsense. Fats have to be converted into ketones which are only used in the absence of sugars(carbs)

[@kengvue1699]

How do you make the content educational and comedic? This guy:

[@Wh1teMist]

I learned more from you in one minute than … a lot of googling. Thanks mate!

[@spaghetti2021]

If you're in a caloric deficit, then why does it make a difference if you run or walk incline? You're not eating enough carbs to burn if you're in a caloric deficit, so you'll burn fat no matter running straight or walking incline

[@DarkoFitCoach]

High intensity needs carbs and if in deficit and not enough carbs then muscles are broken down to supply glucose that is needed Walking is low intensity thus never needs glucose and body can tap from the fat reserves

[@spaghetti2021]

@DarkoFitCoach thank you for taking time to answer me, but that doesn't really answer my question. What I'm trying to find out is, why does it matter whether you run straight or walk on incline for different types of fat (white fat vs brown fat, adipose fat vs visveral fat) burning as long as you are in a caloric deficit? How does one type of movement determine the type of fat you burn?

[@DarkoFitCoach]

@@spaghetti2021 walking = low intensity = more relative fatburning Weightlifting = high intensity = glucose needed thus less relative fatburning

[@spaghetti2021]

@DarkoFitCoach got it, and thank you, but relative to specific types of fat being burned. He made it seem like you can target between adipose fat or visceral fat depending on if you do low impact vs. high intensity. I understand high intensity vs low impact for overall general fat burning. It's whether you they make a difference for specific type of fat. I hate to keep making you write more

[@DarkoFitCoach]

@@spaghetti2021 no difference in type of fat.

[@signoresummers]

Straight to the point, Subscribed!

[@sluggergod]

I've subscribed to this man's channel after watching this video

[@kupcuk]

any meta analysis supporting "slow -> fat, fast ->carbs" is appreciated.

[@RamblinRick_]

I think I understand. To burn stored body fat: inclined walking plus calorie deficit. If I'm already calorie deficit, then does walking mean I burn more? I ask, because I've been calorie-deficit for seven months (no exercise regimen), and lost nearly 50 pounds; I started at 188. For my build, that was borderline obese. Will walking expedite the process? I really want to keep the fat off so I am never fat again. EVER! thanks

[@toxicnena]

walking will always expedite weight loss, even slow walking a mile or two day.

[@xenoz349]

yes and no. to burn fat, low intesnity exercises WITH a calorie defecit. Calorie defecit is mandatory for fat loss and weight loss.

[@efitreze]

As a dietitian, I thought you're going to say some bullshit, but you took the right path.

[@mimi_8799]

Running also makes you more hungry which can make it difficult to stay in your calorie deficit. I just stick with low intensity cardio.

[@liamodonnell5931]

I liked and subscribed right after you said cocaine as a fuel source.. I didn't know this was a thing!

[@DamonBrooks-og2ti]

LMAO!! 😂 Calm down "E" alot of the masses don't understand true knowledge!!!! Keep the education coming...

[@ashish_sunny]

Instant sub! Man you are hila-rious😂😂😂

[@nuddin99]

What’s also true is that indeed incline walking does burn more fat relative to carbs. But you are burning less calories in general by walking. It’s just spinning your wheels at that point. The fat to carb ratio from running is lower but you are burning substantially more calories to begin with if you do that.

[@DarkoFitCoach]

Running burns more fat in absolute sense. As it burns more calories Walking burns less absolute calories but the % of those calories burnt will be more from fat

[@nottsoserious]

Running burns a lot more calories per time, but not too much more per distance... I recommend people to incline walk because it's easier to make it a habit

[@DarkoFitCoach]

@@nottsoserious yes i said the same. Also running increases fatigue whilst walking almost doesnt at all. Humans are made to walk and not run

[@burning4rmwithin]

​@DarkoFitCoach I don't know about running but I can jog forever. But incline walking kills my joints and hips.

[@DarkoFitCoach]

@@burning4rmwithin just do what works for u. Its all good

[@ssingh8166]

running also eats ur muscles giving u a skinny fat look...incline walking burns fat not muscle

[@DaBlaccGhost]

Okay, i can keep using my pre workout, thanks coach

[@marius-g300fs]

Awesome bro ! Very well explained and simple. Thank you for the explanation and information at the same time !

[@soccerhub2543]

When the truth sounds like a lie because of all the crappy videos I have seen before this. Thank you, bro

[@wstanford]

Damn good video! Subscribed!

[@jamesjdm]

Yeah, but we also need to understand another point here Yes, walking at a lower heart rate means that you're burning more fat than carbs however Running does burn more calories and while the percentage of fat burned is lower that's not the whole story You will burn more fat OVERALL from running. Period. It will not be the same ratio of carbs burned to fat burned as walking But If you run for 30 minutes and burn 600 calorie 250 will be from fay Walking 300 cals 180 from fay Higher ratio Lower overall

[@Propane_Acccessories]

I think that incline walking is just an easier way to get cardio in. My cardio health is lacking, so a 10% incline at 2.5 mph keeps my heart rate at 140 bpm and I can keep it there for hours. If I tried to burn all those calories by running, I would be burnt out way faster and would burn less calories total.

[@NG-sw3fi]

Thank you sir. Only comes down to that calorie deficit.

[@Jenny19Marie]

Hahaha love this. Assuming you are eating in a calorie deficit, at that point is it better for weight loss to do a "fat-burn" vs cardio workout?

[@wombat7961]

It shouldn't matter ... Whatever you are comfortable with and can stick with is what works best. Consistency will result in quality.

[@OptiPrimeCA]

Nope! Your body will just compensate and burn more carbs later when you’re at rest.

[@nichtsistkostenlos6565]

This only matters if you want to start talking about how to increase your overall cardiovascular health. If you want to to have a strong cardiovascular system, you'll spend 75% or more of your cardio in Zone 2 which is relatively low heart rate that maximizes your mitochondrial function. Then do the other 25% of your training in Zone 5 to increase your max heart rate. All of this is agnostic to fat burning, this is just a reason you might want to vary your exercise.

[@tournas62]

I got in to just comment “calories in calories out” but after watching it realised it was a click bait…well said

[@nosymf]

I’ve been dieting for 3 weeks almost and went from 222 to 207 but I keep seeing people saying this is unhealthy and I’ll rebound. What do you think

[@RageGamer15]

Why is it unhealthy? Don't listen to anyone. Just do what you're doing and keep everything in check so that you know whether it's right

[@nosymf]

@@RageGamer15 there saying I’m losing to much weight to fast. I don’t know how that can be a bad thing but

[@sheldonjunior8497]

You lose water weight faster than burning off calories/fat

[@CL_G]

​@nosymf It could be a bad thing for skin purposes. They don't want you to lose too much weight too fast and wind up with saggy skin.

[@nosymf]

@@sheldonjunior8497 yeah my weight went 220 -210 - 215 -207 -210 -203 I think I’m losing fat in general but also a lot is definitely water

[@Scientist287]

Alright I was hoping you were gonna make the point you made and you made it so now I click on your profile and watch more of your videos

[@VengeanceFalls]

Right on brother.

[@Boofmasterflex]

Good stuff. Loved the money analogy

[@MsGRINCHA]

Always the best

[@lurklingX]

cleared it up, and made extra sense because of the yelling 😁😂

[@bellarodriguez3249]

Hello Eric. Thank you so much for all the information you give for free. I’m learning a lot. I have a question. I had a hysterectomy this year, and after a long and painful recovery the doctor gave me the green light to start working out. They told me to start with a 2lb dumbbell and work my way up, but my lift restriction is 20lb. At the same time I cannot do much on my lower body, no squats, any type of lunges, no deadlift. The question is: how I’m supposed to build muscle on my legs and booty. I have no idea. I’m prone to gain weight on my upper body, like an apple.Any recommendations? I would really appreciate it. I’m lost. Thank you

[@Micah_Lal]

Nice one Eric 👍

[@timbauer399]

Question: The calorie is a unit of energy (specifically how much heat energy something gives off when you light it on fire). Also, unless you get into nuclear physics/reactors, energy can neither be created nor destroyed (and, as far as I'm aware, energy is *never* under any condition converted into a complex molecule such as fat). Nothing about the calorie in any way shape or form seems to have anything to do with the biomechanics of fat gain/loss in the human body. The human body doesn't burn anything, so it seems logical to assume that whatever calorie count a food has, the body isn't going to make use of it in its entirety. Wood and coal have plenty of potential energy in terms of calories, but I hope we can all agree that consuming them wouldn't make you fat. There's no nuclear reactor in the body, so your body is 100% NOT converting left over calories (ie left over energy) into fat or anything else. So why are we obsessed with calories?

[@maciejstachowski183]

Human body does indeed burn fat - you don't need to set things on fire to extract energy from them, you just need them to undergo an exothermic reaction (or, in case of human body, a series of reactions called metabolic pathways). For instance, you take one molecule of glucose, that molecule reacts with various molecules inside your body, and at the end you get carbon dioxide (which you breathe out), water (that you also get rid of) and a bit of energy. Conservation of energy holds, because to turn those back into glucose you need to add that energy back to facilitate the reaction (in nature, this is what photosynthesis does). And yes, your body converts "leftover calories" into fat - it's again a complicated chain of reactions, but glucose breaks down into acetyl-CoA, and acetyl-CoA if not used in energy generation can be synthesized into fat. You can't digest coal because it takes energy to oxidize pure carbon, but breaking down glucose releases energy. Wood (ie. cellulose) on the other hand is just something we don't have a metabolic pathway for, so it passes through undigested - but other animals can digest cellulose in wood or plants by breaking it down into simpler sugars. (This may take some energy - don't remember now - but less than you get from then breaking down those simple sugars into CO2 and H2O).

[@timbauer399]

​@maciejstachowski183 I appreciate the detailed response and the time and thought you put into it. As a point of fact, however, the human body does not convert left over calories into fat. This is physically impossible. ​And you seem to tacitly acknowledge this by describing how glucose turns into fat. Glucose is a substance, in other words, it's matter. And matter can absolutely be changed into other matter (ie glucose -> fat). But when we talk about weight loss, calories are far and wide the most brought up talking point and I find that highly bizarre. When push comes to shove, calories really have no direct relationship to fat. And we can easily show this. Wood is chock full of calories, but no amount of wood you shove into your system is going to generate fat in the human body. I'd also happily wager (and I think that we'd all agree) that eating 2000 calories of spinach and eating 2000 calories of donuts would have dramatically different affects on the body (and body fat). The "calories" really aren't the causal factor here. It's a bit like going to a duck pond and trying to measure daily duck mortality by listening to gun shots. Will more gun shots heard corelate to more dead ducks? Sure. Is it a good way to try to understand what's happening in the pond's ecosystem (or a good way to accurately measure duck deaths)? Not even a little bit.

[@maciejstachowski183]

@@timbauer399 matter can be changed into other matter, but every such process either requires or generates energy. It is of course a simplification to say that a body converts energy into fat - there's no "energy" circulating through your body, it's various molecules serving as energy carriers and energy is only briefly released from them during reactions - but it doesn't change the net balance. Fat is roughly 7 (food, ie. kilo) calories per gram, glucose is roughly 4, if you eat 200g of glucose over your caloric expenditure you will gain a little over 100g of fat, because it's got to go somewhere. (Ed. - digested food can also contribute to building muscle and other tissue, but that usually requires protein since we aren't able to synthesize muscle tissue from just carbohydrates. And those tissues are also an energy store that the body can break down in extreme cases) And conversely, if you expend 800 calories and don't replenish them with food, the body will need to take this energy from its various stores - in the short term this means glycogen stores in muscles or ATP stores in cells, but in the long term those get replenished from the main energy stores we have, which is done either by breaking down body fat (preferentially), muscle (occasionally), or other tissues in extreme cases. And there is a direct relationship between calories you see on the nutritional label and fat - those account for indigestible fractions such as fiber or charcoal, so they do represent to a certain degree of accuracy the amount of energy your body can usefully extract from the food. A bag of plant fiber will have zero calories on the nutritional label even though you can set it on fire to burn it and extract energy from it. But even if you don't account for it, most of what we consider food is close to fully digestible (so we can convert it into CO2 and H2O, which is the same as burning it in a calorimeter and releases the same amount of energy), or water content (which will not impact the calorimeter reading either), so you might be a few percent off, but that's typically no more than the usual variance in food. So there's no difference between eating 2000 kcal of spinach and 2000 kcal of donuts, except that 2000 kcal of spinach is over 8 kilograms and infeasible to eat in a single food binge. Unless you overload your digestive system to the point where you're passing matter undigested (and if you're not having a "fun" time on the toilet that's likely not the case), you will store and/or expend 2000 calories one way or the other.

[@timbauer399]

​@maciejstachowski183 I think we agree on some points, but not others. I'd like to clarify my position. My claim is that calories on a food label do not directly correlate (on a fixed ratio for all foods) to a specific amount of fat gained or lost depending on whether or not you're in a calorie surplus or deficit. I actually think this is really easy to show. 1. I think we can both agree that calories are a unit of energy and do not magically turn into fat. (wood won't turn into fat inside the body even though it has a high calorie count) 2. See point 1 😆 I'm being a bit facetious here. But given point 1, calories don't (and can't) turn directly into fat, making the claim that calories have a direct (and by direct, I assume you must mean some sort of fixed ratio, ie 500 calories surplus will ALWAYS equate to x number of grams of fat) is really quite the bold claim. For example, you keep talking about glucose turning into fat. I think we can agree not all foods even have glucose. Let's assume for a minute that only glucose can turn into fat in the human body. In order for calories to have a fixed ratio in terms of fat gain/loss, you have to assume that all calories from non-glucose sources can turn into glucose without losing any of that potential energy. That violates the laws of thermodynamics, so that's impossible. The problem is worse if there are multiple ways for the body to turn food into fat because now you have to show that each and every process that converts food to fat loses the exact same amount of potential energy in the process. I find this highly dubious at best (it stands to reason some foods are simply easier to digest than others) and this is also probably fundamentally impossible. To sum up: 1. Counting calories as a way to lose fat is, at best, an incredibly imprecise process. 2. Eating 2000 kcal of spinach will absolutely not have the same affect on fat levels in the body as eating 2000 kcal of donuts.

[@maciejstachowski183]

​@@timbauer399 different types of nutrients (proteins, fats, carbs) have different thermal effects (that's what the inefficiency in conversion you're talking about is - that "missing" energy is lost as heat), yes - for carbs it's 10% or so, for protein 25%, etc. But we know that, and if we know the amounts of macronutrients in a food we can compensate for it on a dietary label by just reducing the caloric contribution of carbs by 10%. Again, what you see on the nutritional label isn't the gross heat of combustion exactly, bioavailability is accounted for - and while it's not exact science, unless you're eating nothing but lab-grade purity macronutrients, the inaccuracy of Atwater factors for most foods is going to be insignificant compared to the inaccuracy of portion sizes, composition, etc. So with your example of spinach, if the label says "2000 calories", you're getting the same 2000 calories you'd get from donuts and put on the same amount of fat. If you burned that spinach you might get 3000 calories, and if you burned the donuts you might get 2500, but again, this is accounted for. Some foods and eating patterns can have you passing more undigested food, but in general human body doesn't like large amounts of undigested food getting too far in the digestive system - if you don't take it, your gut bacteria will, and they'll give your colon a pretty rough time. And yes, counting calories can be imprecise, but the biggest source of inaccuracy isn't because we can't tell the energy content in foods - it's the energy expenditure that's a very rough estimate. Not knowing your real resting metabolic rate and how much calories you spend on non-exercise activities such as moving from room to room, getting up from bed or scratching your head means that the few calories of inaccuracy in estimating the caloric content of food are statistical noise.

[@omurharden]

amazing video bro keep it up

[@yosephmayfield8]

Love the video

[@thenext9537]

After multiple surgeries on ankle, running isn’t in the cards for me yet, I have a treadmill it’s great. I use the slower speed but with incline and it’s hard as hell.

[@xenoz349]

just walk normally or cycle at a low intesnity they both use fat as fuel

[@abhishankpaul]

Guys, don't judge percentage of fats burned in low vs high heartbeat. Just judge the absolute mass of fat that will be burned in an excercise with a specific intensity. Even though more percentage of carbs are burned in high intensity workouts, still the absolute amount of fats burned will be far greater than the amount of fats burned in low intensity workout which has high percentage of fat burning. The only thing that matters the most is the calorie deficit and muscle conservation. E.g., consider one excercise of 100kcal burning 30% and another of 300kcal burning 20% fat. Which one will burn more amount of fat in terms of energy? Assume that the duration of excercises are same.

[@fuegoxazul]

Okay well now I gotta get me some coke then o.o

[@Dellvmnyam]

Because it’s more work to run uphill than on the flat?

[@arifinaja963]

Thanks for the explanation. The heart rate things is new knowledge to me. But how do you found out that specific choice of my energy source?

[@Veganbutchershop]

Stairs intervals are far better. Intervals of anything are far better

[@kamadowoah4584]

Yep. Intervals are incredible for fat loss.

[@FeniksGaming]

What is the best is exercise you enjoy. 60 min exercise you enjoy is far superior to 60 min of exercise you hate even if it burns more fat. Long term it will affect your consistency.

[@kamadowoah4584]

I do 24 minutes on the cross training machine 30 seconds level 15 30 seconds level 6. Burns a lot of calories

[@zzzzzz69]

Can you explain what stairs intervals are? Thank you.

[@Veganbutchershop]

@@zzzzzz69 stair machine, vary the speed to get your heart rate up. Its like walking then runnning multiple times

[@Aritul]

Thank you!

[@60westpro]

Memes are here for you to use !!!

[@o_n_y_i]

I didn't know when I burst out laughing "wth is that fat?" 😂

[@pamelalovesboundaries]

I love your explanation so much 😂😆🤣😭😭😭😭😭❤

[@derekpowersblight]

Great content.

[@Urodeprag]

Yo but doesnt burning carbs make you hungry and make it harder to lose weight?

[@rafiahmed7694]

What’s the name of the music that plays at the start of this video?

[@work-ll3vp]

so ur saying that incline with the deficit doe helps in burning stored fat

[@matthew78917]

The c0ca1ne caught me off guard 😂

[@Mrpotz_smc]

Basically different journey same destination simple

[@elizabethbagwell3795]

Well that's encouraging 🎉

[@share_accidental]

i dislike running, hate it. sticking to inclined walking or using the stairmaster actually motivates me to do cardio after strength training & core.

[@rainerhaas180]

the mental gymnastics people will do to avoid doing real cardio man

[@PaintOrDie]

So if i am fasted with emptied glucose-depos and no carbs in the system; what will fuel my running then? And even if I run with carbs in the system and I burn them while running, it prevents it later on to get transformed to fat. Right? Hence; running burns fat as well, either direct, or indirect if you are carb loaded. /Lost 40lbs running for a year and kept 80% muscle mass.

[@riveroso21]

Thank you for the video. The comparison to groceries makes sense. But would it be fair to say that a calorie deficit plus walking on an incline is preferable to running?

[@100spoonsonatable9]

Whatever works for you. Walking burns calories faster- so better for a quick workout but the amount of calories burned from fat will be higher if you’re incline walking. Both are great for losing weight tbh.

[@jamesow5163]

Exercise if you can, on an empty stomach. Try intermediate fasting. Eat more protein, animal fat, veg, fruits. Less rice, bread, noodles, cakes. No sugar drinks. Do cardio exercise eg walking, running, swimming, cycling, climbing up stairs. Do weight training as well.

[@mr_0n10n5]

Yeah but what about inclined walking?

[@arthuraguiar3502]

What about fasted cardio????😅😅

[@rubenadorno5353]

Thank you sir

[@abracadabra6324]

What about if you are on a ketogenic diet?

[@YourCrazyCatNeighbor_randz]

Thanks for the video, that's interesting. Although, some question remain. If we don't eat carbs for example, but still practice high rate activities. What are we burning actually? We still consume fuel somehow

[@TheOatmealPeople]

Ketones I guess

[@ZedDynasty9]

I thought walking is thought to be better because you can do it longer which = more calories burned.

[@TimothyHughes-kf7bh]

Thanks bro

[@wayward03]

It's easier to Walk incline for a long time than to run. It's also easier to become full and stay feeling full eating fatty meat than carbs so you lose weight easier.

[@General_Kenobi_212]

I prefer incline walking as it's better on my joints, and I can do it for much longer than running

[@martinherrington4478]

OK, I’m left with more questions than answers. So how do I lose the fat???

[@sergioperez2771]

I literally never see anyone doing incline treadmill correctly. They elevate the treadmill, then hold on to the HR grips, lean back, and walk essentially at the same level as if they were on flat ground.

[@johnny6767g]

Calories in vs calories out

[@Bored0720]

Nice

[@TonyTheTruckGuy]

Guess I’m just stuck not burning any body fat 😅

[@IDarkCalibur]

is it like related to keto diet?

[@superbin1]

Nice video

[@Maelodas]

Wait what? I’m not loosing my tummy fat? That’s the ONE THING IM TRYING TO LOSE.

[@xenoz349]

Yea, Even if you're working crazy hard to burn fat or calories you NEED to be on a calorie defecit or else your body wont use the fat already stored in your body as energy to burn.

[@ams4328]

I don't know bro, I lost 12kg in 12 weeks working out on exercise bike, 56 minutes per day, 3-4 days per week, and my heart rate was an average of 155, and my diet was steamed rice, chicken, and some vegetables. Now I'm working out with an average heart rate of 109 and I'm burning about 400 calories per session (56 minutes), so if the low heart rate burning fat theory is true I will let you know if it is 👍

[@Orson_Welp]

Instructions unclear. Did a lot of cocaine and my apartment is spotless

[@J.Skyler]

hell yeah dude

[@AlbertBalbastreMorte]

The wobbly thing

[@mikesmith-fw9nc]

Imagine my surprise ...walking uphill burns more energy than on the flat

[@MikeDunn]

Great points, except that incline walking is not necessarily lower heart rate than jogging. Both are adjustable (although you can only jog so slow).

[@burning4rmwithin]

So... as long as you're working out and starving yourself, you'll lose weight?

[@andyj6159]

I subbed at 0:06

[@julianbruce7595]

As a physician I can confidently confirm what you're saying about heart rate vs energy consumption is not true. Heart rate has absolutely nothing to do with what your body consumes for energy. Without ingested carbs within 24 hours your body uses primarily fat for energy, by day 3 the brain begins to use ketone bodies as it no longer can rely on glucose from gluconeogenesis. What you said about the calories in vs calories out is 100% true though. And why is incline at a slower pace more demanding energy wise than running flat...think introductory college physics and having to fight a constant unrelenting downwards force from gravity with an equal upward force.

[@nichtsistkostenlos6565]

Heart rate doesn't directly determine source of energy consumption, but it's certainly correlated, because below your lactate threshold (Zone 1 and Zone 2) you are primarily burning fat as an energy source, and above your lactate threshold (Zone 3+) your muscles start using stored muscle glycogen for faster access to fuel. This is very well known in the exercise literature.

[@TheCr0oked1]

Ok but once you run out of carbs the jogging will burn way more, just because you burn the fat over carbs doesnt mean they disapear, burn through it all

[@anujjain4076]

Isn't it taxing on the knees ?

[@lurklingX]

it can give you shinsplints if you don't stretch. and it can mess with your tendons. again, stretching helps prevent that. intervals on incline would be better.

[@Avienity]

Yes, I do indeed use cocaine when I hit the gym. Really helps me on that 225 benchpreess 7 days in a row.

[@ResponseDigitalMedia]

Then explain how can the calories of a Twinkie and that of a ribeye are burned the same way? They arent.

[@--RBuo84]

I‘ll say it in 3 seconds: „Because it‘s harder“

[@Joes35]

Hey Eric, thanks for the no BS info. I started at 6’3” 260 4 months ago and have gotten down to 215 but have realized all the muscle i previously had is gone. Would you recommend a 5-6 month bulk or just continue lifting and walking? Early on, I was at a big deficit, like 1000 calories below and I had little to no energy to lift. Now, I’m on less of a deficit and seeing some gains.

[@jamess.9743]

got it! don’t try