Heart rate and "fat burning zone"

Scallyboo

Hi all,

Quick question. I treated myself to a garmin forerunner 110.
I use it for running and cycling.

Apparently my Max HR is 200 - 35 = 185bpm.
The best heart rate zone to be in for fat burning is 55% - 75% which is 99 - 130bpm.

I typically run a 8.5 - 9 min mile. My heart rate for most of my run is 165 - 175 and towards the end of a run and I am tired it would reach 180.

Am I doing something wrong?
I'm 35, 5 ft. 2" and 133 pounds.

Thanks in advance!

Keefypoos

this can get complex but I'll give it a shot

the higher the heart rate the more calories you burn.
after 20 mins or so the body has switched to burning fat/ muscle tissue as its primary source of energy supply hence body builders dont like to do large amounts of cardio.

if you slow your pace to "fat burning zone" heart rates you will in theory burn a higher percentage of fat against muscle tissure but the over all calories used will be less.

so what I do is go at my natural pace and after my exercise have a protien shake to help replace muscle tissus used.

Kate7294

Bump...
Just because I find it interesting.

MeanderingMammal

Apparently my Max HR is 200 - 35 = 185bpm.

It's a gross approximation that relies on many assumptions to be remotely close to meaningful.

The best heart rate zone to be in for fat burning is 55% - 75% which is 99 - 130bpm.

The difference in balance between glycogen and fat consumption is so small as to be meaningless for most trainers

I typically run a 8.5 - 9 min mile. My heart rate for most of my run is 165 - 175 and towards the end of a run and I am tired it would reach 180.

As long as you're eating back what you expend I really wouldn't worry about it. As your fitness improves the figures become even more meaningless than they were in the first place.

Scallyboo

thanks for the info

chivalryder

this can get complex but I'll give it a shot

the higher the heart rate the more calories you burn.
after 20 mins or so the body has switched to burning fat/ muscle tissue as its primary source of energy supply hence body builders dont like to do large amounts of cardio.

if you slow your pace to "fat burning zone" heart rates you will in theory burn a higher percentage of fat against muscle tissure but the over all calories used will be less.

so what I do is go at my natural pace and after my exercise have a protien shake to help replace muscle tissus used.

This is so horribly untrue, it's not even funny.

Under steady-state cardio, your body will burn up its glycogen stores before it starts eating fat and protein stores. You need to be doing steady cardio for 2+ hours before your body starts eating protein.

Patttience

Basically you have to do a lot of exercise if you want to lose weight. About 1.5 hours a day 7 days a week pretty much. The thing is most people tend to need to eat back the calories you burn if its any less. All the research is point in this direction.

So if you are going to do exercise, do it for general health and fitness.

To lose weight, manage your diet. I've been doing it with success all year.

MeanderingMammal

Basically you have to do a lot of exercise if you want to lose weight.

No, you just need a calorie deficit, and training can help with that.

SkepticalOwl

this can get complex but I'll give it a shot

the higher the heart rate the more calories you burn.
after 20 mins or so the body has switched to burning fat/ muscle tissue as its primary source of energy supply hence body builders dont like to do large amounts of cardio.

if you slow your pace to "fat burning zone" heart rates you will in theory burn a higher percentage of fat against muscle tissure but the over all calories used will be less.

so what I do is go at my natural pace and after my exercise have a protien shake to help replace muscle tissus used.

This is so horribly untrue, it's not even funny.

Under steady-state cardio, your body will burn up its glycogen stores before it starts eating fat and protein stores. You need to be doing steady cardio for 2+ hours before your body starts eating protein.

Generally, I agree, however the length of time before the switch from glycogen to fat metabolism will depend on your glycogen stores. If you've been eating at a steep deficit you may find yourself bonking (switching to fat metabolism) sooner. Distance runners carbo-load before a long race to put off the transition as long as possible. In my experience, I can feel it when my muscles run out of glycogen -- I'm suddenly running through molasses!

MeanderingMammal

....however the length of time before the switch from glycogen to fat metabolism will depend on your glycogen stores. If you've been eating at a steep deficit you may find yourself bonking (switching to fat metabolism) sooner. Distance runners carbo-load before a long race to put off the transition as long as possible. In my experience, I can feel it when my muscles run out of glycogen -- I'm suddenly running through molasses!

However it's certainly not 20 minutes. Even in significant defecit it'll take me 90 minutes before I'm struggling for fuel, and the idea that muscles are going to be depleted unless one is doing that level of activity repeatedly is pure broscience.

When you're running in the range that glycogen depletion is an issue, you're likely to have a feeding strategy, or at least be exploring the idea of feeding strategies.

SkepticalOwl

....however the length of time before the switch from glycogen to fat metabolism will depend on your glycogen stores. If you've been eating at a steep deficit you may find yourself bonking (switching to fat metabolism) sooner. Distance runners carbo-load before a long race to put off the transition as long as possible. In my experience, I can feel it when my muscles run out of glycogen -- I'm suddenly running through molasses!

However it's certainly not 20 minutes. Even in significant defecit it'll take me 90 minutes before I'm struggling for fuel, and the idea that muscles are going to be depleted unless one is doing that level of activity repeatedly is pure broscience.

When you're running in the range that glycogen depletion is an issue, you're likely to have a feeding strategy, or at least be exploring the idea of feeding strategies.

Yes. Totally agree. Not 20 minutes, definitely!

yopeeps025

this can get complex but I'll give it a shot

the higher the heart rate the more calories you burn.
after 20 mins or so the body has switched to burning fat/ muscle tissue as its primary source of energy supply hence body builders dont like to do large amounts of cardio.

if you slow your pace to "fat burning zone" heart rates you will in theory burn a higher percentage of fat against muscle tissure but the over all calories used will be less.

so what I do is go at my natural pace and after my exercise have a protien shake to help replace muscle tissus used.

This is so horribly untrue, it's not even funny.

Under steady-state cardio, your body will burn up its glycogen stores before it starts eating fat and protein stores. You need to be doing steady cardio for 2+ hours before your body starts eating protein.

Or weight training first then cardio.

stefa711

Apparently my Max HR is 200 - 35 = 185bpm.
The best heart rate zone to be in for fat burning is 55% - 75% which is 99 - 130bpm.

I typically run a 8.5 - 9 min mile. My heart rate for most of my run is 165 - 175 and towards the end of a run and I am tired it would reach 180.

I am surprised no one has hit on this yet, but you shouldn't rely on such a generic formula to find your heart rate zones.
As your fitness level increases, your lactate threshold will change.
Read these articles and put in some time to do the test to find your lactate threshold and heart rate zones! It really will help you to get the most out of your training.

http://www.runnersworld.com/running-tips/how-can-i-train-heart-rate-monitor

http://www.runnersworld.com/running-tips/how-do-i-train-based-heart-rate