Differences between heart rates?

jesseecaden
jesseecaden Posts: 14 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Can someone please explain the difference between fat burn, cardio and peak heart rates?

Replies

  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    jesseecaden wrote: »
    Can someone please explain the difference between fat burn, cardio and peak heart rates?

    Marketing. Unless you are training for something very specific, ignore it and burn some calories.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    jesseecaden wrote: »
    Can someone please explain the difference between fat burn, cardio and peak heart rates?

    The tl;dr takeaway is that they're completely irrelevant in terms of weight loss. As Tacklewasher said, relevant if you're training for a particular event/discipline, but for the Joe/Jane average using exercise to help with their caloric deficit it doesn't make a bit of difference. Substrate utilization (whether you're burning fat or glycogen, or what ratio of each during exercise) has no effect upon fat loss.
  • ntnunk
    ntnunk Posts: 936 Member
    edited March 2017
    As @Tacklewasher and @AnvilHead say, it's irrelevant unless you're an endurance athlete of some sort. Just burn those cals.

    Those zones are a marketing corruption of cardio training zones endurance athletes use to train for specific types of endurance, speed, etc.
  • LAT1963
    LAT1963 Posts: 1,375 Member
    It's more important for gauging intensity of your workout for cardio-conditioning purposes while you are doing the workout. For weight loss the main utility is making sure your intensity of exercise is low enough that you are willing to stick with your exercise plan. Too many out-of-shape folk go out, run fast as they can, get exhausted, discouraged, or injured, and quit exercising. Zones help people have more realistic, sustainable expectations of themselves.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    edited March 2017
    zachbonner_ wrote: »
    1.67x resting heart rate is fine

    My resting heart rate is around 45-50. So I should only exercise at 75-83 bpm?

    A brisk walking pace puts me higher than that, and my HR is in the 90s-100s when lifting weights. When running or cycling, I'm usually in the 130-160 bpm range depending upon intensity.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    zachbonner_ wrote: »
    1.67x resting heart rate is fine
    @zachbonner_
    Fine for what?
    I hit RHR x 3.3 on my cycle ride today - that was "fine" for what I was trying to achieve.
  • bpotts44
    bpotts44 Posts: 1,066 Member
    Google Phil Maffetone for some general guidelines on heart rate training.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    zachbonner_ wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    zachbonner_ wrote: »
    1.67x resting heart rate is fine
    @zachbonner_
    Fine for what?
    I hit RHR x 3.3 on my cycle ride today - that was "fine" for what I was trying to achieve.

    yes

    So it was just an attempt at humour?

    Don't give up your day job!
    :smiley:
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Theo166
    Theo166 Posts: 2,564 Member
    jesseecaden wrote: »
    Can someone please explain the difference between fat burn, cardio and peak heart rates?

    Fat burn is the elevated rate you can maintain for extended time like if you are doing a 100 mil bike ride. You want to slow down if your HR keeps creeping into Cardio or Peak range for very long on that ride.

    Cardio HR is for training and actual races. Spending time here is what improves your conditioning/capacity over time.

  • Running_and_Coffee
    Running_and_Coffee Posts: 811 Member
    I thinking HR is a good tool to gauge if you are really working as hard as you think you are. It's easy to talk yourself into slowing down or quitting if you subjectively think, "This is so hard! I'm overworking!" But glance down at your HRM and it says 125 bpm....you're not actually working hard at all. My HRM is my "suck it up, butter cup!" tool.
  • crackpotbaby
    crackpotbaby Posts: 1,297 Member
    I like that rather than explain terms people basically wrote, 'you don't need to know'.
  • Arizona_C
    Arizona_C Posts: 1,476 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    zachbonner_ wrote: »
    1.67x resting heart rate is fine
    @zachbonner_
    Fine for what?
    I hit RHR x 3.3 on my cycle ride today - that was "fine" for what I was trying to achieve.

    I'll join this point of view. Push yourself to 75-85% of your max heart rate when exercising, and do some long sessions.

    Don't be aftraid of pushing yourself. If you want to get great results, you need to put great work into it. And once you get into the habit, its a great feeling as well.
  • AverageJoeFit
    AverageJoeFit Posts: 251 Member
    I have a blog post about this very subject as I am experimenting with heart rate training. I just put a little of the guts of the theory below. It shows how they come about the zones and which I am training in and why. If you want to know more you can always PM me.



    Well there are a lot of ways, but the most simple way is to take 220 and subtract your age.  This method does have some inherent error in it, but it is a good starting method.  I am going to use myself as example.  As I am nearly 36 I'll use that, so 220 - 68 is 184.  Now 184 bpm should be my maximum heart rate and we can now figure out the zones from that number.  The zones are historically 90-100%, 80-90%, 70-80%, 60-70% and 50-60%.  Now if you take 90% of 184 you get 165.6 so lets round up to 166 bpm so there is the highest zone or zone 5 166 bpm to 184 bpm.  The next zone is 147.2 to 128.8 so lets round to 147 and 129. 


    I could figure the rest of the zones for myself, but TomTom has already done it for me, but now you know how it works.  You can see that the numbers aren't 100% exact, but pretty darn close.

    Now for the training method.  For long distance runners it is touted to be best to train in zone 3.  This is the aerobic training zone that you burn more calories and elevate your endurance and cardiovascular fitness. 

    In order to stay in zone 3 many runners will actually have to slow down.  I find this to be very difficult as I feel like I am going to slow to be doing any good.  Now this could be the fact that I was use to training in zone 4 instead of zone 3 up until this point.  It could also be that the 220 - my age isn't all that accurate for me. 

    Although it doesn't feel like much I am continuing to attempt to train in zone 3 for another month.  This is simply an experiment on myself to see if this works for me.   

Categories