walking

[pbborg]

is it better to go at a pace that gives you more fat burn as opposed to cardio if you are trying to lose weight?

[Heybales]

No.

Because it's your diet - eating less than you burn in total - that will determine losing fat weight.

It's the day in total - not just the workout that matters.

Exercise is for heart health and body transformations.

Don't confuse the two.

For example, would you rather eat 2000 and burn 2500 for the day and lose 1 lb weekly,

Or burn 2000 for the day and have to eat 1500 for that same 1 lb weekly?

The faster pace walk will allow you to burn more (not that example more, but more), and make better health improvements for a while.

Eventually you'll weigh less and be moving the same pace - so it'll actually be less of a workout - you'll lose aerobic fitness then if that's all you do.

But you may feel like jogging before that point!

[checking]

Yes and no. No as detailed by @Heybales . Yes for dieting if you have the time - You will be able to continue going for a much longer period of time at a sub-aerobic (fat-burn level) than you will be able at an aerobic level. For example, you might be able to burn 400 Kcal/hour with light jogging and 300 kCal/hour for moderately brisk walking. But if you get winded, tired and quit after 15 minutes of jogging, you only burn 100 calories. If you can jogging continuously for 15 minutes, it is pretty certain that you can walk continuously for an hour or more: 300+ calories.

As for CV fitness and body shape, rather that weight loss, hands down aerobic. IMHO, you should be doing both. Personally, I average about 30k steps a day, but only about 8k (<1 hr) are aerobic jogging/running/fartlek intervals.

[madmen]

I agree with @Heybales & @checking  in the sense that your question might be more complex to have an appropriate answer because it depends on your level of fitness, your goal, your nutrition, etc...

As a general guideline: low intensity cardio for more than 40 min is intended to burn fat.