Orange Theory Fitness Question about Zones

alsaxon

No way to post pics here right? I would post my results that were sent. Anyway, I'm a little bit confused about the zones. I thought it was good I spent so much time in the orange and red, but my instructor says he wants me to spend more time in the green (zone 3). Huh? I thought orange (zone 4) was where we want to be. Spending more time in the green while sacrificing orange will reduce my effort and calorie burn I'd think. I know exactly what the 5 zones are, but his advise is confusing me. Am I missing something? I probably did spend way too much time in red. My Max HR was 229. It was tough, but I never felt like I was gonna die. My average HR was 162.

My time in the zones that matter:
Green 8:36 (instructors says he wants 12-20 here)
Orange 20:27
Red 18:50

I burned 599 in 52 minutes. Definitely didn't hit the 800-900 numbers some are seeing, but it's more than I burn myself in an hour.

Thoughts. I would think my time spent in orange/red would get me optimal results, no?

alsaxon

Also, I'm sure the more fit I get the harder it will be for me to get in the orange or red because things will get easier. But I don't understand why what I did today isn't ideal. It's possible I misunderstood, but I kept asking probing questions and still seemed to come up with more time is needed in the green.

Azdak

I suspect that if your HR is naturally that high, that your time in the "zones" is being overestimated. If OTF is using an age-predicted formula to predict your maximum heart rate (and that maximum heart rate is used to calculate your "zones"), then the fact that your actual heart rate is higher would mean that that the "zone" boundaries are too low for you and thus it says your are spending more time in the upper zones than you actually are.

In general, you want to balance out your high-intensity work with some lower-intensity endurance work, which is why the instructor is making his/her recommendations. But, like I said, I suspect your numbers are skewed because of your high maximum heart rate. I don't know if the average OTF instructor is aware of those heart rate nuances, or if there are able/willing to customize your "zones", so I don't have any more specific advice for you.

mixmastermel_b

Our instructors always say green is the fat burning zone and if you look at your results they should be more in pyramid shape with green being the highest. Your estimated calorie burn is also related to your current height/weight - at 5ft tall I max out 550-600ish for the toughest classes (to me) and I can't compare my results against someone who is 6 ft tall. Also sometimes they start the clock late and it throws all the numbers off (at least where I go) I alway just try and remember it's not exact science. People are now saying they get higher results with the watch HRM. I still use the chest strap version since that watch design is fairly ugly and an obnoxious price. Also depends on the workout itself and how long each block is- after going for over a year I can sort of predict for myself around my calorie burn.

Azdak

It's important to realize that any benefit you get from the OTF protocol comes almost entirely from the fact that it is a more supervised class with structure and group dynamics that might push you to work out harder than you might have done on your own. That can be a positive if someone is the type of person who doesn't know how or has trouble pushing themselves. It's not materially different from a boot camp class or any other type of higher-intensity circuit training.

But the rest of it is either woo or outright BS. There's no magic going on at OTF.

alsaxon

mixmastermel_b wrote: »

Our instructors always say green is the fat burning zone and if you look at your results they should be more in pyramid shape with green being the highest. Your estimated calorie burn is also related to your current height/weight - at 5ft tall I max out 550-600ish for the toughest classes (to me) and I can't compare my results against someone who is 6 ft tall. Also sometimes they start the clock late and it throws all the numbers off (at least where I go) I alway just try and remember it's not exact science. People are now saying they get higher results with the watch HRM. I still use the chest strap version since that watch design is fairly ugly and an obnoxious price. Also depends on the workout itself and how long each block is- after going for over a year I can sort of predict for myself around my calorie burn.

very helpful, I've been maxing out at 600 too. I thought I wasn't improving. I know have realized that those people that burn 800 plus calories are men or women that are bigger than me.

alsaxon

alsaxon wrote: »

mixmastermel_b wrote: »

Our instructors always say green is the fat burning zone and if you look at your results they should be more in pyramid shape with green being the highest. Your estimated calorie burn is also related to your current height/weight - at 5ft tall I max out 550-600ish for the toughest classes (to me) and I can't compare my results against someone who is 6 ft tall. Also sometimes they start the clock late and it throws all the numbers off (at least where I go) I alway just try and remember it's not exact science. People are now saying they get higher results with the watch HRM. I still use the chest strap version since that watch design is fairly ugly and an obnoxious price. Also depends on the workout itself and how long each block is- after going for over a year I can sort of predict for myself around my calorie burn.

very helpful, I've been maxing out at 600 too. I thought I wasn't improving. I know have realized that those people that burn 800 plus calories are usually men (height and weight).

donnybeeyt

Funny I ran across this blog. My daughter (24) just started OT. I'm a fan of Primal Blueprint. Mark Sisson recommends, based on research by Dr. Phil Maffetone, an aerobic zone not exceeding 180 - age. Promotes optimal fat burning as well as building aerobic capacity. He claims you will quickly adapt and it will soon require greater effort to reach this zone. Initially, most folks find their perceived exertion at this lower target rate to low to be effective but it builds a strong aerobic base over time ie. body prefers to burn fat over sugar. My daughter was spending too much time in orange and red and actually setting herself back. In fact two weeks in she came down with a bad cold. More time in green, bursts of orange. I wouldn't even count calories burned as an effective measure of progress.

NorthCascades

If your goal is fitness, it's a better idea for most people to train their aerobic system than anaerobic.

AnnPT77

donnybeeyt wrote: »

Funny I ran across this blog. My daughter (24) just started OT. I'm a fan of Primal Blueprint. Mark Sisson recommends, based on research by Dr. Phil Maffetone, an aerobic zone not exceeding 180 - age. Promotes optimal fat burning as well as building aerobic capacity. He claims you will quickly adapt and it will soon require greater effort to reach this zone. Initially, most folks find their perceived exertion at this lower target rate to low to be effective but it builds a strong aerobic base over time ie. body prefers to burn fat over sugar. My daughter was spending too much time in orange and red and actually setting herself back. In fact two weeks in she came down with a bad cold. More time in green, bursts of orange. I wouldn't even count calories burned as an effective measure of progress.

Age-based heart rate range estimates are too inaccurate for too many people to make something like "180 - age" universally reliable for anything.

There's no way I'm going to get meaningful fitness benefits from working out below HR 117 (I'm 63). Given HRmax around 180 (tested) and resting HR high 40s to low 50s, that's materially sub-aerobic. It would be ludicrous.

I count performance markers (pace at a given HR, or pace for race distance, for example) as measures of progress. Sub-117 HR would get me nowhere.

ETA: Why have we revived a 2016 thread to talk about this?