Thanks so much for the kind words. I sincerely appreciate them. Despite my attempts to provide quality information there is always the risk of making someone upset. I suppose that just goes with the territory.

As for your question, using the ACSM metabolic calculations I figured that a brisk hour walk at about 3.5mph on a level surface at 180 pounds would burn around 230 calories. Adding a 40 pound vest to the same walk would increase the calorie output to 281 calories. Assuming 2 times per day cardio on 7 days per week the total calorie expenditure without the vest would equal 3320 cals while the vest would bring the total to 3934 cals. The difference being just over 700 calories between the two conditions. Of course, this doesn’t count what would likely be a modest post exercise calorie expenditure, but I think you get the idea.

Doing this would almost afford you an extra 500 calorie deficit per day which isn’t too shabby and may help to drop a little fat. Walking faster or walking hills obviously increases the calorie output as well. I can’t comment on the versaclimber specifically, but any activity you do will create more of a deficit to help with fat loss.

The big picture though, is that moderate exercise as a whole doesn’t burn a ton of calories, but assuming your diet is relatively solid and you just need a little edge to keep the fat gain in check this should work just great.

Hope that helps!

For more “traditional” slow go/low(er)-intensity steady state work, what do you think of walking outside (particularly in a hilly area)with an X-vest on and also using a Versaclimber?

Typically my main focus is on diet and resistance training, but I find that if I need to lean out a touch (or simply keep fat gain in check) that these two options allow for racking up a decent number of calories burned when performed 2 times a day (1 in the a.m. and 1 in the evening)without having to resort to more exotic protocols or using ones that are especially taxing on the lower body and possibly the CNS in general.

In these instances, I am simply relying on frequency and volume of low(er)-intensity choices (or more precisely a low-intensity effort with the given choices) to help me rack up plenty of added physical activity without running my body into the ground with other trasining and life demands. Perhaps I am simply deluding myself and a more scientific examination of what I am doing would reveal that it isn’t what I think that it is, but these two choices seem like they’d allow for more caloric expenditure when compared to sitting on a bike and pedaling, even when performed on the lower end of the intensity spectrum, with one doing so by simulating training at a higher bodyweight, and the other via working just about as much total muscle mass as possible at one time.

Again, I may be way off base here or attributing things to this process that are the result of something else (or simply a figment of my imagination, hah, hah), but I figured I’d throw it out there and get your take, since you always have a knack for framing things in a very logical manner and separating fact from fiction. Mind you I am not against intervals, I just find that since I have the time and enjoy clearing my head, this lower intensity stuff is a great supplement to my other training while leaving me feeling invigorated instead of drained.(it also helps that my eating habits are disturbingly mechanical, since this makes any potential increase in appetite from such cardio no obstacle at all in my case)