As a former competitive runner, even when I was running 45-55 miles a week, I never dropped below 160 pounds, and never had six-pack abs.
Now running, which is considered to be a very good weight loss exercise, is still agonizingly slow at producing weight loss. Let me share with you some simple math to prove it.
-A pound of fat has 3600 calories in it
-Running 1 mile, no matter what speed, burns approximately 100 calories
-Elite runners can manage to metabolise 50% fat, 50% glycogen while running.
So, assuming that we could all reach elite runner status, it would take running 72 miles to just metabolise one pound of fat.
Pass the scallop shell please.
There's a whole lotta holes in that argument. First, allow me to say that "six packs" are not directly related to weight. Were you performing any resistance exercise other than running (specifically abdominal)? What was the specifics of your diet? Eating a lot of burgers and cake perhaps? I've trained many a runner and those with six packs were the short distance runners. Sure, some 5k 10k had them but they were in the gym hitting the weights.
Now, let's analyze your argument. Does running one mile burn 100Kcal? Based upon weight, gender, or other factors, do you think this is equal for everyone? Keeping with this, if I multiply 100Kcal/mile by 72miles, I get 7200Kcal. Oops, you lost TWO pounds of fat! That is not true. Elite runners (define "elite") metabolize 50% fat and 50% glycogen while running. Really? At what stage of running? What distance? What speed? I think O'Brien et.al. 1993 would disagree with you.
1) a more appropriate estimate of your caloric expenditure during running IS dependent upon speed and weight (just to start with). An average runner of 70KG (154lbs) will burn about 15Kcal per minute (at an 8min mile pace). After one hour, that athlete has burned 900Kcal (covering about 7.5 miles). Woo Hoo!
2) metabolic research shows that all the calories you burn during your exercise bout are NOT from fat. That would be a false assumption and to merely look at caloric consumption during exercise is to miss the forest for the trees. You burn primarily glucose (not glycogen) during exercise (glycogen is a storage form of glucose) and then a smaller portion from lipids (fat). As that exercise bout goes on, as time goes on, the amount of glucose metabolized decreases while the amount of lipid metabolization increases.
3) Research shows that marathon runners obtain almost 80% of their energy from glucose at the beginning of evercise which then tails off as exercise continues.
4) What you and many do not consider is the amount of energy you require POST exercise and during rest. You metabolize more fat after exercise than you did before. That is the key to losing weight. You increase your body's ability, need to burn fat.
As a whole, this argument that extracting a chemical from a plant in order to selectively metabolize lipids is old and naive. Here's a dirty secret for you: you do not have to take or do anything to burn fat at rest or during low levels of work. Your body does that very well on its own, no exercise needed. Fat doesn't make you fat. Lack of exercise, muscular atrophy, and an excess of energy (eating too much) makes you fat. It may also be worth noting that this chemical Fucoxanthin has not been shown to REDUCE WEIGHT; studies at ONE institution show it MAY increase thermogenesis through white adipocyte metabolism. You'll get hot and sweaty but still be just as overweight. There are no studies that indicate (nor will there ever be) that this product makes you lose weight.
If you have money to burn, buy this product but you will still burn more fat without it just not be skinner because of it.
Be healthy.
).
