maybe you should go out a bit more Neil and spend less time on your keyboard . lets all be on a Ketogenic diet and die of a heart attack at the age of 50 .
That's just ill-informed, ignorant scare-mongering.
There's nothing inherent
about ketogenic diets that makes people susceptible to heart attacks - that's all about presumption and inference that people on such diets will significantly consume more saturated fat.
And seventeenthly, you miss my point - I wasin't
advocating ketogenic diets - I was questioning
why, if burning fat whilst exercising is seen by some (wrongly, as it happens - but all the same) as so advantageous - then why not all the time by means of diet?
I note you ducked the question, and instead when for a weak riposte based on an assumption that correlation==causation.
for most people , the 45 minutes has no relevance , but when training it does matter .
Go on - why is it so significant?
I'll help you out - it isn't.
But feel free, all the same.
@ Rob , you probably lost a a fair amount of liquid , your 26lb loss is not 100% fat unless you have been followed by a doctor who carried out tests before and after you are gong to reach a plateau in your weight loss and will have to be more specific in your training and diet if you want to carry on .
That may, or may not be true, but is awfully presumptuous - and will have no bearing on fat burning zones or ANY 45 minute claims (history has shown us that they're most debatable...).
You should really lose the dogma and bro-science with all this fat-burning and 45 minute claims.
For weight and fat loss, sustained calorific deficit matters. Encouraging fat to be a most significant proportion of the loss is more about what you encourage to stay, than how you fuel exercise.
Still, if you're stuck in the 80s, carry on with this "fat burning zone" nonsense.