The study ..
To better understand the effects of differing amounts of exercise, the researchers studied 175 overweight sedentary men and women who were beginning to show signs of lipid problems. They were randomized into one of four groups: no exercise, low dose/moderate intensity (equivalent of 11 miles of walking per week), low dose/vigorous intensity (11 miles of jogging per week) or high dose/vigorous intensity (17 miles of jogging per week).

"There were no significant changes in visceral, subcutaneous or total fat in either of the low exercise groups for men or women, which suggest that this amount of exercise is adequate to prevent significant gain in fat around the stomach, and that the amount of exercise is more important than the intensity," Slentz said.

"On the other hand, participants who exercised at a level equivalent to 17 miles of jogging each week saw significant declines in visceral fat, subcutaneous abdominal fat and total abdominal fat," Slentz continued. "While this may seem like a lot of exercise, our previously sedentary and overweight subjects were quite capable of doing this amount."

What I find interesting.. this is what we are told not to do... Intensity type Jogging.. because of the loss of muscle.. but What's the use to having all that muscle if your loaded with internal organ fat.. Heck I can feel my abs's but I still have a 41inch waist.. ..:confused:

Here is the study:
http://www.dukemednews.org/news/article.php?id=9238

17 miles/week is not "high dose/vigorous".
Say you ran 5 times a week.
17/5=3.4 miles
That's a 3.4 mile run 3 times per week.
Let's say you jogged very slowly, 6 mph. You ran slowly for 34 minutes.

I have other doubts about this study as well...

The study fails to explain the speeds at which the subjects ran in any of the groups, or how the exercise was split up throughout the week. Also, there are other factors at work here. Were they doing weight training? How do their diets compare? They were told not to change their diets during the study, but this is still questionable. There are so many variables that they missed, and even the one variable that they tested, exercise intensity, probably wasn't tested accurately because it only tested a small range of exercise routines.

This study showed only one thing. The more you run, the more calories you burn, the more fat you lose. This is true. All they've basically said is exercise is better than not exercising.

Also, they didn't tested changes in lean body mass, which they should have done, to compare muscle loss at different ranges. CASD, you're right that running a real lot can cause muscle loss, but the amounts of running they suggest that you do in this experiment are not at a level where it would make it more difficult to maintain lean mass.

EDIT: After reading the page you linked to, the numbers you listed for each of the study groups were inaccurate. The one I calculated for, the "high dose/vigorous" group should have been for 20 miles a week. I'm not going to fix all the numbers because it's pretty similar.

yea part of the study says 17 miles and the other part says 20 miles ?? who knows..
Yes I would feel better if they listed HR's ..ages...weights..etc..,

I just got back from my cardio...
Treadmill walking.. no incline
Started at 3.6 for 10min
3.8 for 10
3.9 for 15min
4.0 for 10min
5min. cool down

I went 3.12 miles burned like 380 cals.
heart rate around 132 avg.

Ususally I go 3.5 at a 2 incline and only worry about HR and not miles..
I'll give this mileage thing a try for a couple of weeks..

I did alot of reading on this on sunday.. and what I've come up with is what we all already know... Diet-cardio-lifting is the best way to lose/control this..
Seems that cardio alone and dieting alone.. do about the same so it's when you combine everything that you lose internal fat..

What is confusing is they don't get into.. HR's , ages..etcc., because this would tell us if maybe a fast walk for 3 miles would be the same as a 3 mile jog.. or better.. for muscle retension
The moral of the story seems to be this.. it's not the intensity of the workout as much as "How Much You Do".. But without knowing how much muscle mass was lost..well it's kind of hit and miss for us..:) they do touch appond this.. and it does seem like LISS for a period of time is best..So we are back to what we know already..