Exercise noob, I'm sorry - confused on "fat burn" on HRM

lasia221

Using the Polar FT7 for reference.

I'm partially dyslexic and ADD and can miss details, so it's no shock I'm all sorts of confused when I'm bombarded with complicated info. I do not at all understand the heart rate percentages talked about, and how to figure mine out.

When I first put on the HRM before working out, my resting seems to bounce between 73 and 88. Is that normal? I mean to bounce like that. I know that that's probably a pretty high resting HR.

For today's workout it's telling me my average HR was 157, and my high was 169. I couldn't maintain the 160's for very long. My lows were in the 140's, but the after-workout tallies don't tell me my low. For my 27 minute workout....it's telling me that only 1 minute of it was "fat burning" and the rest was "cardio".

Sure, I need both but I'm trying to lose weight here, I've sure got a heck of a lot of fat to shed, 100 pounds to be precise, so what do I need to do to burn more fat?

Thus far I can't do all my workout in one lump, my legs give out before the rest of me, so I take about a 10 minute break in between sets. I started out at 10 min intervals and I'm slowly working up to 15 all at once.

I'm sorry for the stupid questions, everyone, I'm trying but I'm so confused

Azdak

Keep it simple. The "fat burning" information from your Polar is just a gimmick--it means absolutely nothing.

As far as your HR information goes, just observe for now and try to associate heart rates with your levels of perceived exertion. You will learn what corresponds to "easy", "medium" and "hard" and then you can use the HRM to help guide your workouts.

If you are doing the same routine, you can use the "avg heart rate" feature to gauge your progress--e.g. if you do the exact same workout and avg HR is Lower, that means your fitness is improving.

I wouldn't worry about the rest HR numbers right now. Some people have more fluctuations in resting HR than others--it could also be artifact from improper placement or the chest strap is not wet enough at rest.

fromaquasar

+10 to all of Azdak's stuff as ever - the man is a genius

Just one other note though how did you take your resting heart rate? you need to lie down and do nothing (except maybe read a picture book) for 20 minutes at least before you take it (and take it while still lying there) to get an accurate reading. I took mine once after I'd been sitting down for a bit and it was 87, but my actual RHR is only 62 it's surprising how quick it goes up even if your sitting or have walked around or anything!

Also your "Cardio" zone is higher than you "Fat burn zone" so don't worry if you are working in cardio you are actually burning more- it doesn't mean you've stopped burning fat, you are burning calories no matter what and the longer and higher your heart rate is up the more you will burn Good luck! x

fasttrack27

Not sure I agree w/ Azdak's first sentance, but the rest I do. At higher intensity the body can no longer get enough energy from fat so it starts taking it from other reserves. These reserves are limited and the body naturally wants to resist using them all up quickly, so it gives a signal (burn/lactate) so you slow down. That's my understanding of the system in simplified terms. As you stated, you couldn't stay in the upper level HR for long. Find the 'zone' where you can maintain a longer sustained effort and you'll burn more calories. More so than little burts with 10 min rests. (You can add interval training later once you're ready to move to the next level.) I might suggest if you do have to rest, try to not to take such long ones and keep moving a little bit like walking/marching in place or whatever. This is 'active recovery' and its much better for you than doing start/stop/start/stop. So don't get too caught up in the fat burn / cardio zone indicator, but do find the range that your body works optimally in for an extended time period. This will keep improving if you stay with it - Good luck!!

Azdak

Not sure I agree w/ Azdak's first sentance, but the rest I do. At higher intensity the body can no longer get enough energy from fat so it starts taking it from other reserves. These reserves are limited and the body naturally wants to resist using them all up quickly, so it gives a signal (burn/lactate) so you slow down. That's my understanding of the system in simplified terms. As you stated, you couldn't stay in the upper level HR for long. Find the 'zone' where you can maintain a longer sustained effort and you'll burn more calories. More so than little burts with 10 min rests. (You can add interval training later once you're ready to move to the next level.) I might suggest if you do have to rest, try to not to take such long ones and keep moving a little bit like walking/marching in place or whatever. This is 'active recovery' and its much better for you than doing start/stop/start/stop. So don't get too caught up in the fat burn / cardio zone indicator, but do find the range that your body works optimally in for an extended time period. This will keep improving if you stay with it - Good luck!!

I'll repeat--the fat-burning information (i.e. the part where is says "% of calories burned from fat") is a gimmick. It has no more veracity than one of those arcade things where you squeeze the handle to find out how "passionate" you are.

HRMs (even Polar) have a hard enough time being even somewhat accurate with their calorie estimates, There is absolutely no way, short of a metabolic cart, to determine substrate utilization. As a general, vague educational feature --pointing out that at a higher intensity, you burn a smaller % of calories from fat--I suppose you could argue the case that it is "accurate" in principle, even if the actual numbers are made up. I would say that's a bit of a stretch, however, especially since the concept of "fat burning" exercise has no practical significance.

That's not a criticism, just a point of fact. For the most part, HRMs are not precise scientific instruments. They should not be held to that high a standard--nor should their "output" be looked on as such.

Like any other consumer product, some the features are useful, some are "fluff".

This one is "fluff".

lasia221

I am just overly concerned with being as accurate as possible in determining my calories in and calories out. I need some health treatments and before I can get them I need to be well, not morbidly obese. So I really want to try and stick to the 2 pounds a week as much as possible, and thats the calorie level I chose. But this last week I didn't lose anything so I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong.

I'd hoped that a HRM would give me more accurate calorie burns than the database here at MFP.


For me to be able to continue on with exercising instead of taking breaks.....I'd have to slow things down so far that I'd burn probably half the calories in the time frame I have.

I'm sure I'm doing a lot of things wrong. But I'm trying to learn how to be better.