If someone could do all three, still, whats the best for fatloss?

If someone walked 5 miles, or jogged 5 miles, or ran 5 miles, they would all burn the same calories, and towards running, more afterward, But towards running, you use more carbs(glycogen) than fat for energy source.

Whats better? Everyone; post your opinions, even the top dogs! I need your opinions.

Also;

Has anyone successfully went below 10 percent fat, using walking as their cardio?

Post away!

Do all 3 of them! Mix them up, if I'm not mistaken it's called "interval training". It's just like HIIT, you walk, then you jog, then you sprint. Repeat the cycle... Theoretically, you'll use fat for the instant energy need and preserve muscle because it's not done for a prolong period of time.

Yes, I see alot of people with low bodyfat who use walking as their cardio. But they lift hard in the gym and cut the rest time too...

Sounds good! I think I'm gonna add interval training into my routine.

My cardio consists of a 2.2 mile walk at 4 MPH at least 5X per week.Sometimes if I feel inclined to do so,I do it 2X per day
My body fat is about 8-9% right now,however,I'm sure most of that
is due to diet.

If you ever go on a treadmill, try a workout at ~4 mph where you start around 8% incline, then go up to 15% gradually. I find that this gets every bit as hard as running at a 7:30 pace.

I use it to give my legs a break from the jarring of running and also to strengthen my shin muscles as they are used more walking up an incline.

I have personally never been below 10%, but I haven't really tried either until this Spring. I see absolutely no reason why walking--if done properly--would be every bit as effective a tool for fat burning as is running.

I agree that you should mix it up if you can. It will also help you from getting burned out with running.

Happy Training!

They say that 5 miles running is the same calorically as 5 miles jogging or walking. That is sort of true.

Let's say you look at a certain time window, 2 hours. If you run 5 miles, let's say you finish in 30 minutes. You burn 500 calories for 30 minutes...but then you continue to burn calories for whatever you do the other 90 minutes (sitting, lying down, whatever...you're still alive and respirating!) In fact, your thermostat is still running hot and you will burn more calories in those remaining 90 minutes than you would have had you done the same thing without running first.

If you jog at a significantly lower pace, you burn 500 calories for 60 minutes, and then 60 minutes of "other" calorie burning.

If you walk, and let's say it takes you 2 hours, then you burn 500 calories. That's it.

So, naturally, the more intense the exercise you do, the more calories you're going to burn before you hit the pillow at night.

Regarding the fat/glycogen/blood-sugar mix for energy...these things are always in flux. If you run a 6-minute mile, you will be using mostly sugar & glycogen, but the minute you stop, your body will turn to more fat, since you will have depleted a significant portion of your sugar and glycogen. It's not as if you will continue to use the same mix of energy as you did while running those 5 miles.

Every morning, unless you're overtraining, you will wake up with the same amount of sugar in your blood, and glycogen in your muscles/organs as you did before. If you ran a calorie deficit the day before, the difference is made up with fat and/or muscle. If you're training and eating right, it seems, that should be mostly/all fat, and little/no muscle.