The physical process is quite simple, for most people, one pound = 7,000 calories which means you need to expend 7,000 calories more than you eat. Now you could do that by eating the same but working out more, but it seems that decreasing caloric intake works best.

Lots of low intensity aerobic exercise does not guarantee weight loss, because increased food intake will mean you won’t lose weight (though you will become fitter). Just look at cycle tourists who ride around long distances at a slow pace (10-15mph) and you should be able to find lots of overweight people. On the other hand, go to a bike race (speeds averaging up to 25-30mph on level roads) and you won’t see hardly any. That observation seems to disprove the commonly held belief that low intensity cardio is the “fat burning zone.”

Well, my seemingly contradictory advice would be to: diet sensibly and work out moderately or else eat what you want but build up to a very intense exercise program.

-ilan

As you state, skill is also inherent in aerobic sports, obviously in “technique sports” such as speed skating and swimming where good technique is as important as fitness. I was in the pool the other day and saw a lady swimming next to me, and it was obvious that her kicking was actually slowing her down. In fact, if she just used a kickboard, she would probably go backwards! Of course, she was certainly getting more of a workout per distance than I was…. Even seemingly straightforward sports like road cycling, experienced riders have more efficient pedal strokes, as in swimming, their legs don’t resist each other as a beginner might do, and that also means that a seasoned cyclist will get less of a workout for a given distance than a beginner. That’s why the currently fashionable fixed gear bikes have traditionally been used for early season training, they teach you to adapt your pedaling to all conditions, that is, they work the skill part of pedaling.

Keep up the good work,

-ilan

The pending article may also help shed some light on why bootcamp has been more successful for you than a traditional cardio workout. I'm sure avoiding processed foods is helping as well. Keep up the great work!

I'll provide the short version here, since I'm planning to write an article about this in the near future. To be completely honest, improving mobility doesn't directly relate to fat-loss, but what it does relate to are all the factors that do cause fat loss.

For instance, if my client doesn't have good dorsiflexion (she has tight calves) or hip flexion (tight hamstrings) then we may have a harder time promoting fat loss. When we squat, her range-of-motion around her ankles will be smaller, not allowing her knees to travel as far forward, forcing her to bring her torso further forward to keep from falling over. But, because of her tight hamstrings, we have to reduce the depth of her squat or her lowerback will start rounding very early, *especially* since she's pitched forward at the hips because of her tight calves, exposing her to a high risk of injury.

We may have to cut squats out for a while, or do a partial range-of-motion squats and potentially reduce the resistance/weight, and she'll be using her quads less during the movement. If, like me, you believe that EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption) is a crucial factor in fat loss, then you're into exercises that use a lot of muscle at a high intensity, like squats.

This is getting a little long already, so I won't go into the radically increased risk or injury (both during and not during exercise) associated with poor mobility, but injuries — even aches and pains — will obviously throw off your fat-loss goals.

I hope you'll still read the article after this!