"1.The most effective way to reduce fat is by maintaining a heartrate 50% higher than your basal rate for 30 minutes a day-any higher and you approach anaerobic which is 1/18th as efficient at consuming fat."

Those are some strange figures. 50% higher than basal for me is 90BPM. Anaerobic rate (i.e. where my heart/lungs can't keep up for more than a few minutes) starts at about 180, or 3x basal rate.

Those 'fat burning efficiency' studies are misleading too, because they measure fat burned per calorie expended (for which the range of values is quite small), not fat burned per unit of time.

I agree with Minh. If exercise is another chore you have to do then you probably won't do it.

I run with my dog three times a week for 5km each time. It takes us about 50 minutes per session (faster if he wouldn't stop to pee so often). It's a great way to get exercise and walk the dog at the same time. And we both really enjoy it. Edmonton's river valley is great for running year-round.

Going to the gym became a chore, riding the exercise bike at home was unbearably dull, but running outdoors is something I truly enjoy.

I didn't miss the point, I just didn't need a study to tell me how hard I should work out, how long I should work out, or how frequently I should work out. I easily put in 5-6 hours of exercise per week-mostly running(except this week, because I'm preparing for a half marathon this weekend), at various levels of intensity. But as long as we're talking about missing the point; 1.The most effective way to reduce fat is by maintaining a heartrate 50% higher than your basal rate for 30 minutes a day-any higher and you approach anaerobic which is 1/18th as efficient at consuming fat. 2.The study wasn't done on athletes or hockey players, it was done on sedentary, overweight, postmenapausal (i.e. a host of hormonal complications) women, mean age 57. The point I was making was that "fit" means proper nutrition, and the proper attitude towards activity. You have to want to do whatever, as hard,as long as you can, not as somebody else decrees. Add variety to fine tune that fitness level-Pilates/yoga for balance and flexibility, Interval training for peaking the cardio, and even resistance training for the fast twitch muscle (see Ryan, I'm learning). Throw in some activities you might enjoy if you are fit like golf or skiing, and you might just prefer this way of life! I'd be curious to see how many of the women in this study turned exercise into a way of life after the study ended, and how many went back to the couch.

I think people who have made previous comments have totally missed the point. You can burn more fat by training your body to do more of a physical activity for 3 minutes, thus increasing your heartrate. Then, level off for a few minutes, and then repeat. Basically, this is how athletes have been training all along. Look at hockey players, for example, they get on the ice for a few minutes, they tire out, back to the bench, and then on again. I, myself, am a cyclist. Without previous knowledge about this study, this has been my basic routine. I bike 3-4 times a week for 1-1 hour each time. It's no wonder I've lost considerable amount of body fat over the past 2 years. This is great news indeed, and I will continue in this style until I am a lean, mean, sculpting machine!

I say we need to view exercise differently. Not as something we do because of research results, or because of some vague fitness objectives. Exercise time needs not be that time we "set aside" each week. Exercise because you like it, ie, by doing an activity you enjoy. Also , do it in good company sometimes. And incorporate it into your daily routine, like walking part of the way to work. Physical activities can be enjoyable and practical , too.

Geez, not another study. It seems to me that there is so much effort spent on quantifying something as esoteric as fitness that we are marginalizing it. Health isn't exclusively dependent on fitness and vice versa, but it sure gives you a head start towards healthy living. I would like to think that a sedentary state should be enough to chase us off the couch, but it seems that we work pretty hard to find the "path of least resistance". Now this lifestyle is killing us slowly. We make food choices by the lowest common denominator of speed, cost, and convenience and supplement our nutritional debt artificially. We cant exercise unless some "expert" (with all due respect to Ryan, who seems to know what he is talking about) deems it worthy, and then we have to time it, measure the effort, and record it for posterity. I mostly run, and I set the pace and duration by how I feel at that time- sometimes that means I'll golf, bike, snowboard, or even take a day off instead. I really think that we are making this much harder than it really is - set a reasonable goal and just do it! Your body will thank you later.

I think that this study is misleading somewhat. It's not as simple as more exercise = more benefit, all the time. It's all relative to how hard you workout. Basic F.I.T. (frequency, intensity, time)

You can obtain equal or more benefits from a workout of shorter duration, if your level of effort is higher.

Don't have time to jog for 40 min?? Do sprints for 15.

Don't have time for 3 sets of bench press?? Do one, but make sure you push wayyy outside your comfort zone. (momentary muscle failure)

You have a choice.. Workout harder, or workout longer. You can't do both. But the benefits are the same. (outside the realm of skill or metabolic conditioning of course)

I think that the study was point less and has stated the obvious.

- No exercise = No benefits
- Little exercise = Little benefits
- More exercise = More benefits.

I say get the heck off the couch and do something, stop being so lazy because that is what is boils down to.