Is this MFP blog post for real?

successgal1

I was just browsing the blog and went from an article about HIIT to this one about heart rates and being in a "fat burning" zone.

How to Target Your Heart Rate & Get Into the Fat-Burning Zone | MyFitnessPal http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/how-target-your-heart-rate-get-into-the-fat-burning-zone/

I thought, based on comments here, that fat burning zones weren't really a thing. Now I'm confused again!

Not to mention but if my max heart rate is 180, 220 minus my age, then I was working out at that level 2 days ago when I did my step aerobics and added 1 lb weights to my arms for the first time. (Fitbit hr) and I tried to modify to ease up a bit. Without weights my heart rate sticks around 135-145, which according to that article still means I was above a "fat burning" zone.

Thoughts?

bagge72

There is too much information, and it is confusing to people, the reality is that it all evens out in the end, if you burn more calories than you eat, you will lose the weight. This really is a blog from a company trying to sell their product, what they are doing is trying to give you the reason you need their heart rate monitors.

rainbowbow

Heart rate zones do exist and are excellent for increasing training metrics, increasing vo2 max, etc.

As far as "fat burning" zones, yes, these exist where you are burning more energy from fat. But this is irrelevant as long-term fat loss comes down to overall calorie deficit.

If you are burning more calories you will be inevitably be burning more fat over time. So you can ignore them for that.

This article is essentially an advertisement for wahoo the company. I would just make a good habit of ignoring everything on the MFP Blog.

zyxst

I don't believe anything posted in the MFP blog.

NorthCascades

successgal1 wrote: »

I thought, based on comments here, that fat burning zones weren't really a thing. Now I'm confused again!

No, it's totally a thing. It's just a different thing than people think it is. I don't blame you for being confused.

I go for long bike rides and ski tours. Hours at a time. Burn thousands of calories sometimes. I don't have many thousands of calories of carbs ready to be used for exercise. So I need to use mostly fat to do this stuff. At higher intensities you burn glycogen (carbohydrate) and at lower intensity you burn fat. The fat burning zone is about pacing for endurance athletes.

cwolfman13

successgal1 wrote: »

I was just browsing the blog and went from an article about HIIT to this one about heart rates and being in a "fat burning" zone.

How to Target Your Heart Rate & Get Into the Fat-Burning Zone | MyFitnessPal http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/how-target-your-heart-rate-get-into-the-fat-burning-zone/

I thought, based on comments here, that fat burning zones weren't really a thing. Now I'm confused again!

Not to mention but if my max heart rate is 180, 220 minus my age, then I was working out at that level 2 days ago when I did my step aerobics and added 1 lb weights to my arms for the first time. (Fitbit hr) and I tried to modify to ease up a bit. Without weights my heart rate sticks around 135-145, which according to that article still means I was above a "fat burning" zone.

Thoughts?

There is a "fat burning" zone...all this means is that for that particular activity, you're burning more fat for fuel than anything else...you actually burn more fat sleeping than doing any other activity. What you have to understand though, is that it's irrelevant. You are constantly cycling between fat burning, glycogen burning, fat accumulation, glycogen replenishment, etc and that what ultimately matters is your net position...i.e. you want to be in a net deficiency of energy.

Look at it this way...sedentary people are more or less using fat for fuel most of the time...but they still get fat right? Why? Because there net position is a surplus of energy coming in...they're consuming more energy than they are expending regardless of the fact that they are basically living in a fat burning zone most of the time.

Think of it like a bank account. Say you have this big fat wad of cash sitting there in your bank account. All day long you're making deposits and withdrawals (this is what your body does with stored fat)...if your deposits and withdrawals are equivalent, you will maintain a neutral balance in your account...if your deposits exceed your withdrawals, your account will grow (your bank account is gonna get fat yo)...if your withdrawals exceed your deposits, and do so on a consistent basis, you're going to shrink your bank account...

MontyMuttland

As others have said here, that blog is mainly focused at getting you to use their product rather than strict science.
That's not to say it's all rubbish, it's just not all that exact.
From a biological point of view, the basic fact is our bodies are extremely efficient at converting excess energy (sugars) produced from metabolising food into fat for storage, but when it comes to reversing the process it's not so keen.
Your digestive system gets busy on whatever foods are available for it to process whenever they arrive, so the amount of energy available to cover your bodies' needs is constantly changing, as are your bodies' energy needs at any given time.
At times when there's more energy available than is needed, excess starts getting converted into fat and vice-versa.
But it actually costs the body energy to start turning fat back into energy it can use, hence the reluctance to start the process until really needed.
But the bottom line is the body isn't sitting waiting for you to hit a certain heart rate before burning fat and there isn't a ceiling point where it decides to reduce fat burning in favour of metabolising food.

successgal1

bagge72 wrote: »

There is too much information, and it is confusing to people, the reality is that it all evens out in the end, if you burn more calories than you eat, you will lose the weight. This really is a blog from a company trying to sell their product, what they are doing is trying to give you the reason you need their heart rate monitors.

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't really note any ads while I was reading it on my phone, my brain is pretty well trained to screen out ad noise.

tahxirez

successgal1 wrote: »

bagge72 wrote: »

There is too much information, and it is confusing to people, the reality is that it all evens out in the end, if you burn more calories than you eat, you will lose the weight. This really is a blog from a company trying to sell their product, what they are doing is trying to give you the reason you need their heart rate monitors.

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't really note any ads while I was reading it on my phone, my brain is pretty well trained to screen out ad noise.

This poster is talking about Under Armour I think. I have learned some stuff from the blog when I started out but I get even more from the forum and people who have lived it.

TR0berts

successgal1 wrote: »

bagge72 wrote: »

There is too much information, and it is confusing to people, the reality is that it all evens out in the end, if you burn more calories than you eat, you will lose the weight. This really is a blog from a company trying to sell their product, what they are doing is trying to give you the reason you need their heart rate monitors.

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't really note any ads while I was reading it on my phone, my brain is pretty well trained to screen out ad noise.

The third bullet point: "Do a Field Test or Home Test with the Wahoo Fitness app."

That whole blog was a big pile of Nope. It's as if whomever wrote it - didn't notice the actual byline - doesn't understand energy balance at all. That, or is willfully obscuring the truth in order to make it seem like their app is more important than it really is.

rainbowbow

TR0berts wrote: »

successgal1 wrote: »

bagge72 wrote: »

There is too much information, and it is confusing to people, the reality is that it all evens out in the end, if you burn more calories than you eat, you will lose the weight. This really is a blog from a company trying to sell their product, what they are doing is trying to give you the reason you need their heart rate monitors.

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't really note any ads while I was reading it on my phone, my brain is pretty well trained to screen out ad noise.

The third bullet point: "Do a Field Test or Home Test with the Wahoo Fitness app."

That whole blog was a big pile of Nope. It's as if whomever wrote it - didn't notice the actual byline - doesn't understand energy balance at all. That, or is willfully obscuring the truth in order to make it seem like their app is more important than it really is.

^ As a pessimist, i'm going to say this is probably more in line with the truth.

NorthCascades

successgal1 wrote: »

bagge72 wrote: »

There is too much information, and it is confusing to people, the reality is that it all evens out in the end, if you burn more calories than you eat, you will lose the weight. This really is a blog from a company trying to sell their product, what they are doing is trying to give you the reason you need their heart rate monitors.

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't really note any ads while I was reading it on my phone, my brain is pretty well trained to screen out ad noise.

That's why they're moving away from banners and popups and being more insidious, like posting blogs that you think are about ways to be more healthy and fit, but, in reality, are subtle encouragements to buy products. "Be confused about your heart rate and how it relates to your belly, then buy our HRM." "It's cold out there but you should start running. We sell thermal base layers."

successgal1

Ok it's making sense. So much seemingly conflicting information when all I want to do is lose as much fat in the shortest amount of time in the most effective way possible (for me).

Cycling for hours on end, my legs can't take it. I used to walk when I did some overly restrictive diet, one where you have to eat small meals 6 times a day, that guy talked about the fat burning zone during walks, and advised LONG walks. Who's got time for that? Not me, and its boring. I did lose a lot of weight, but it was unsustainable and I gained it all back. And then some over time. It doesn't teach you how to change your lifestyle like MFP does.

I exercise to eat more and for fitness/body shape. I added the weights to try to get more upper body workout during the 40 minute step routine, and to make the step more intense (clearly that worked), to burn more calories in the time period, without actually adding another 2 inches to the step itself.

Overall, I think sleeping is my favorite way to lose fat!

rybo

rainbowbow wrote: »

Heart rate zones do exist and are excellent for increasing training metrics, increasing vo2 max, etc.

As far as "fat burning" zones, yes, these exist where you are burning more energy from fat. But this is irrelevant as long-term fat loss comes down to overall calorie deficit.

If you are burning more calories you will be inevitably be burning more fat over time. So you can ignore them for that.

This article is essentially an advertisement for wahoo the company. I would just make a good habit of ignoring everything on the MFP Blog.

This.
And to add or re-emphasize I should say... depending on the level of intensity of the exercise, calories burned are going to be from a combination of sources. Just because a certain intensity level uses a higher percentage from fat, doesn't mean much in the long term fat loss goal.