The Fat Burning Zone

AnnPT77

And 220-age is a pretty poor estimator of max heart rate. I'm 61, so 220 - age is 159. Actual max (tested) is around 181. It's been a while since I tested, but I still see HR way above 159 during workouts (and I'm not that taxed when it happens).

For training (not fat loss) purposes, if I assumed HR max was 159, I'd seriously under-train. 159 is just slitghtly into my anaerobic threshold zone.

And I'm not a special snowflake - this degree of deviation from 220-age is pretty common.

HR zones are useful for training, IMO, but a big "who cares" for weight loss, for reasons cited above. And for training purposes, I think you most usefully wanna be calculating them off actual max and actual resting, not age estimates.

Azdak

AnnPT77 wrote: »

And 220-age is a pretty poor estimator of max heart rate. I'm 61, so 220 - age is 159. Actual max (tested) is around 181. It's been a while since I tested, but I still see HR way above 159 during workouts (and I'm not that taxed when it happens).

For training (not fat loss) purposes, if I assumed HR max was 159, I'd seriously under-train. 159 is just slitghtly into my anaerobic threshold zone.

And I'm not a special snowflake - this degree of deviation from 220-age is pretty common.

HR zones are useful for training, IMO, but a big "who cares" for weight loss, for reasons cited above. And for training purposes, I think you most usefully wanna be calculating them off actual max and actual resting, not age estimates.

I've been fighting this battle online for over 20 years. Both the "fat burning zone" idea and the growth of the internet and the availability of heart rate monitors occurred at about the same time 1994-5). I can't tell you how many hundreds of people (thousands?) I've had to say this to. People who were slowing down to a crawl because their HR response to exercise did not follow the 220-age pattern.

Hypothetically, about 16% of the population will have a true HR max 20-35 beats higher than the age-predicted number. In reality, it seems like twice that.

The other problem no one even gets to is the fact that if you just take a percentage of HR max and don't include resting HR, you throw in another error factor of 15%-20%.

If one knows or has a sense of true HR max and uses the the HR reserve (Karvonen) formula to calculate target HRs, then you can come up with some meaningful and useful "zones". But for most people, RPE works just as well.

girlgroves

Azdak wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

And 220-age is a pretty poor estimator of max heart rate. I'm 61, so 220 - age is 159. Actual max (tested) is around 181. It's been a while since I tested, but I still see HR way above 159 during workouts (and I'm not that taxed when it happens).

For training (not fat loss) purposes, if I assumed HR max was 159, I'd seriously under-train. 159 is just slitghtly into my anaerobic threshold zone.

And I'm not a special snowflake - this degree of deviation from 220-age is pretty common.

HR zones are useful for training, IMO, but a big "who cares" for weight loss, for reasons cited above. And for training purposes, I think you most usefully wanna be calculating them off actual max and actual resting, not age estimates.

I've been fighting this battle online for over 20 years. Both the "fat burning zone" idea and the growth of the internet and the availability of heart rate monitors occurred at about the same time 1994-5). I can't tell you how many hundreds of people (thousands?) I've had to say this to. People who were slowing down to a crawl because their HR response to exercise did not follow the 220-age pattern.

Hypothetically, about 16% of the population will have a true HR max 20-35 beats higher than the age-predicted number. In reality, it seems like twice that.

The other problem no one even gets to is the fact that if you just take a percentage of HR max and don't include resting HR, you throw in another error factor of 15%-20%.

If one knows or has a sense of true HR max and uses the the HR reserve (Karvonen) formula to calculate target HRs, then you can come up with some meaningful and useful "zones". But for most people, RPE works just as well.

This is all really interesting - I've just had to google RPE!

lemurcat12

AnnPT77 wrote: »

And 220-age is a pretty poor estimator of max heart rate. I'm 61, so 220 - age is 159. Actual max (tested) is around 181. It's been a while since I tested, but I still see HR way above 159 during workouts (and I'm not that taxed when it happens).

For training (not fat loss) purposes, if I assumed HR max was 159, I'd seriously under-train. 159 is just slitghtly into my anaerobic threshold zone.

And I'm not a special snowflake - this degree of deviation from 220-age is pretty common.

HR zones are useful for training, IMO, but a big "who cares" for weight loss, for reasons cited above. And for training purposes, I think you most usefully wanna be calculating them off actual max and actual resting, not age estimates.

Yep, this is me too, and why I prefer -- for training purposes, not weight loss, of course -- to focus on perceived exertion.

ninerbuff

The "real" fat burning zone happens................................at rest. THIS is where you burn STORED BODY FAT if you're in a calorie deficit.
Forget he BS that machines and the fitness industry try to impose on you.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

gailsy619

bizgirl26 wrote: »

So I am just wondering how many people really pay attention to this rule? I tend to have a lower resting hear rate so for me I tend to stay close to the "Fat burning target heart rate zone' however I never try or paid any attention until it was mentioned and certainly I am losing lots of fat lok and I want to improve cardiovascular health so I try to do bursts of higher intensity anyway.
FYI... To Figure out your max heart rate (Max Heart Rate = 220 – your age). And then determine your fat-burning range, which is 60% to 70% of your max heart rate. It seems really low to me . As a 45 year old woman my fat burning range is 109-127 BPM. Some people people believe just go all out and you burns lots anyway. Thoughts? Hogwash or not ? I am going to keep doing what I have always done anyway

My fat burning number is 84...I'm 56...

NorthCascades

The zone breakpoints have to do with your body's metabolism of energy substrates, mostly fat and carbs and thus production of lactate.

Here's a good article about a simplified zone system based on your breathing instead of your heart rate.

https://www.acefitness.org/blog/1165/understanding-vt1-and-vt2

Research has found that the Talk Test (as described on pgs 382-383 in the Personal Trainer Manual) provides an accurate measure of the body’s response to increasing intensity. Where before we relied solely on percentage of heart rate, now we have discovered that talk test relates very well to similar intensities.

Below VT1: you can speak comfortably, recite the alphabet etc.

At VT1: you can no longer speak comfortably; it requires some effort at this point

Above VT1/Below VT2: speaking is possible, but not really comfortable, you can’t recite the entire alphabet with ease at this point

At VT2: Speaking is no longer possible with the exception of one or two word statements, chances are you are not going to be able to exercise much longer above this point

Again, weight (fat) loss comes from a calorie deficit. This is about pacing yourself during long events.

AnnPT77

NorthCascades wrote: »

The zone breakpoints have to do with your body's metabolism of energy substrates, mostly fat and carbs and thus production of lactate.

Here's a good article about a simplified zone system based on your breathing instead of your heart rate.

https://www.acefitness.org/blog/1165/understanding-vt1-and-vt2

Research has found that the Talk Test (as described on pgs 382-383 in the Personal Trainer Manual) provides an accurate measure of the body’s response to increasing intensity. Where before we relied solely on percentage of heart rate, now we have discovered that talk test relates very well to similar intensities.

Below VT1: you can speak comfortably, recite the alphabet etc.

At VT1: you can no longer speak comfortably; it requires some effort at this point

Above VT1/Below VT2: speaking is possible, but not really comfortable, you can’t recite the entire alphabet with ease at this point

At VT2: Speaking is no longer possible with the exception of one or two word statements, chances are you are not going to be able to exercise much longer above this point

Again, weight (fat) loss comes from a calorie deficit. This is about pacing yourself during long events.

Good link.

More generally, as it indicates, heart rate zones are also about training yourself for many types of competitive events, some of which may focus more on cardiovascular/O2 implications than on fuel per se. My sport, rowing, is a short, power-endurance activity, in the commonest form of competition (2K sprint). At elite levels, it's an anaerobic start, high-aerobic middle (longest segment), anaerobic sprint to finish . . . and even us chintzy amateurs train in that direction. This is of course not the only sport with its own particular demands and specifically tailored training (in this sense, all sports are unique ).

So the HR zones are also about the training, needed if one works a periodized cardiovascular training plan to improve anaerobic threshold (among other things), not just about the fueling during races (though I understand the point about fuel source being relevant to the zone definitions, and of extreme importance to long endurance events).

It's still true that for general health & fitness purposes, worrying about this is over-thinking. Even for training, the RPE methods (including the talk-test method you mention) can be used, and are a better guide if you don't know actual HR max, VO2 max, etc.