Lean and Hard

(Photo: Healthy Choices Daily) When I was about 15, I started running. I mean I ran as a child, playing sports and that sort of thing, but I took up running as a form of exercise. Sadly though, I took up smoking just a year or so later, to look cool and all that, and so the running got booted out the door like an unwelcome guest. Then, when I was around 18, I gave up the cigarettes (which I had indulged in for all of about 6 months) and got to running again. That lasted for quite a godly number of years. But then, blah blah blah, you've heard the story in previous posts, I got sick from simple carbs and just got too heavy for running to be possible. Now here I am again, having gained significant ground back toward my goal of lean and hard, and I'm faced with this question: To run or to walk? Which is best?

Walking has been part of my fitness routine on the days I didn't do the gym. It's been gym, gym, walk, gym, walk, gym, rest, (that's 7 days, if you're counting) for months. But a few weeks ago I began transforming the walking into running. For example, I had been walking 4 times around my apartment complex. Then I substituted a few hundred feet of running to the walk, then I was walking three, running one, then walking two, running two, then I added a lap and last week I walked one and ran four. I'd like to be running six pretty soon. Then, who knows?

But is this the right approach? Which is best for getting lean and hard? Which is best for my overall health? These burning questions will be answered very soon. Actually, right now.

First, the fat burning question. According to experts, the idea that you burn more fat when you exercise at a lower intensity is a myth. While it's somewhat correct to say that you burn more fat proportionally in comparison to carbohydrates, this small difference is offset by the fact that you are burning far more calories at higher intensities. Take a look at this quote:

Myth: Exercise done at a low intensity, such as walking, is better at fat burning than other high-intensity activities, like running or cardio activities where you push yourself very hard.

The Truth: In a strict scientific sense, these claims are true because working at a lower intensity requires less quick energy and a higher percentage of fat is burned. But you'll also burn fewer calories than you would if, for the same amount of time, you work out at a harder intensity (running versus walking). If you're trying to lose weight, even though a higher percentage of fat is being used, a lower total amount of fat is lost (Busting the Great Myths of Fat Burning).

On the other hand, walking is far and above better than not doing either. And for many people (me included for a long time), running is not an option.

Another consideration is injury. Low-impact exercise is certainly prone to fewer injuries than the high-impact varieties, and running can result in injury to various parts of the body.

So, running burns more calories and increases my cardiovascular fitness better than walking, but is not always possible and can be more prone to injuries.

Here's what I'll do. I'll run, but I'll build up slowly and be careful not to over-train. Cool? Awesome.

(If you're wondering where power-walking fits in, it doesn't. You run the serious risk of getting beat up for looking so dorky.)

Lean and hard movie star of the month: Jon Hamm



Follow me on Twitter. Please subscribe to our RSS feed or sign up for free email updates.

"According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005, nutrient-dense foods are those foods that provide substantial amounts of vitamins and minerals and relatively few calories" (Wikipedia).

The way I think about food has changed over the past year. It used to be that I'd categorize the desirability of possible meals by how good they'd taste and how filling they'd be, and the more of those things, the better. That type of thinking led me into a cycle of addiction to energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods, obesity, a shortened life-expectancy, and all sorts of related health problems.

Now, when I consider the goodness and desirability of possible meals, I think about how I can pack as many great nutrients into as few calories as possible and have it all taste good to boot. With this kind of thinking I've lost 125 pounds so far, and shed some serious health problems along with those pounds. For me it's all about packing in the nutrients, not the calories.

Here's a great article that lists some awesome nutrient-dense foods. Once you've learned to identify them, the trick is putting them into tasty, calorie-sparse recipes. Obviously, there are scads of ideas on the internet, and you can learn to make them up yourself through some trial and error. A couple of great categories for putting these awesome meals together are soups and salads, just because they both can handle lots of excellent ingredients.

For example, instead of potatoes and pasta in your soups, add beans and vegetables. And in your salads, instead of the boring iceberg lettuce, make them out of spinach, carrots, walnuts, cranberries, avocados, etc. There's almost no end to the number of delicious superfoods you can easily pack into these two types of meals.

When you eat like this you're accomplishing two excellent things. You're keeping your calories down in order to get rid of fat, and you're enhancing your looks, health, fitness and longevity at the same time.

So, pack in the nutrients, not the calories!

Follow me on Twitter. Please subscribe to our RSS feed or sign up for free email updates.