Ok, here's the thing....

I'm in 2 fun runs this summer. Don't think me a hypocrite because I bash cardio and then run myself. There is a difference. I am doing these {short} runs for fun - NOT to lose fat.

I find it funny that some advertisements on the radio boast, "Join {enter random cardio class here} and burn up to 1,000 calories an hour!" HA! I'd like to know who is burning that many calories an hour. You must have to be at least 200lbs and working at your MAX potential the ENTIRE time. Even then, I'd be extremely skeptical. I think it's false advertising. It's false hope.

I burn more calories lifting weights in one hour than I do running for one hour. How do I know? I have a little gizmo that tracks my pulse, age, weight, etc. On average, I burn about 500 calories an hour lifting weights. Want to know how much I burn running? About 350. Not to mention the after burn I get. "As much as 95% of the calorie cost of intense anaerobic exercise can come AFTER exercise!" says Dr. Christopher Scott, PHD, who is an exercise physiology professor at the University of Southern Maine. So in addition to those 500 calories I burn while weight lifting, I'm burning that much more when I'm done! He goes on to say, "The afterburn effect is minimal for traditional cardio".

Read the article here: http://www.builtlean.com/2011/06/29/afterburn-effect-of-exercise-qa-with-dr-christopher-scott-phd/

While at the hair salon yesterday, I happened to read an article in SELF on running (which was pro-running, btw). It said, HANDS DOWN, running was the best way to "torch" calories. And then it said, that on an average, slow distance running will burn 158 to 240 calories in 45 - 60 minutes. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I almost laughed out loud! Who is "torching" calories at that rate??? I wouldn't even burn off the avocado I just ate, in that case!

"Tempo" runs push you closer to your anaerobic threshold but still only burn 130 - 195 in 30 minutes. AND, it says "you don't want to clock more than two of these sessions a week, so your body has time to bounce back between workouts." Really??

HIIT had a way better calorie burn - coming in at 80 - 200 calories in 10 - 20 minutes. So in 1/3 of the time, you can burn almost just as much.

In case you are interested in the article, you can find it here: http://www.self.com/fitness/2012/07/secret-to-burn-fat-faster?currentPage=1

I get what they are saying though. For people who are new to fitness, running is a good foundation. A good starting point. You will loose weight not matter WHAT you start doing, if you've been used to being sedentary. But, you'll have a long way to go to build up to that hour and "reap the reward" of that measly 240 calories.

I generally don't read articles in magazines like SELF or SHAPE or any other fitness mag that is offering help and advice to exercisers (yesterday, it was either that or celebrity gossip mags). They have one goal in mind: SELL MAGAZINES. And guess what? Headlining an article on the front cover that says, "Intense Workout Inside!" just doesn't sell. We want everything to be easy, don't we?