Thoughs and opionions on on a slow burn?

dengarrett

(please forgive my spelling errors on the topic name :embarassed: )

Please share your thoughts and opinions on this. I was reading today on how energy is used by muscles in order to learn the best way to burn fat. This article was very helpful - http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/diet-fitness/exercise/sports-physiology.htm

The net result that I took from this is that in order to burn fat, the best is to maintain a prolonged period of exercise at a rate that allows your body to burn fat cells. Basically, your muscles burn calories in three ways:

1. Stores within the cells themselves (about three seconds worth of energy for the initial burst).
2. Glucose from the blood stream with no oxygen feed (lasts for 90 seconds or so while your heart and lungs ramp up).
3. Combined glucose / fat burned in combination with oxygen supplied after the heart rate has increased

If too great a load is placed on muscles such that enough energy is available during the third phase, then the body includes the second phase. It is during this second phase that produces lactic acid, which is what causes muscles to ache. In this second phase, the body is not burning fat - it is working anaerobically without oxygen.

So, to burn fat, it is better to place enough load on your muscles so that they burn fat in combination with oxygen, but not to the point that you force your body to burn glucose only.

For me, this means I need to work out with a target heart rate of around 120 which will improve my cardiovascular training, but not push my body into the anaerobic phase.

wbgolden

Pretty much hit the nail on the head! Runblogger as a good, if maybe a little overly technical, podcast on this same subject.

Nice post.

dengarrett

Thanks - in the end I found myself stating exactly what all the advice says But now, I understand more about the reasoning behind it which will help my motivation.

djthom

This whole thing has had me confused. I do the elliptical at the gym it says my fat burning rate is 110 and 80% burn is 136. Does that mean in order to burn fat I have to go slow. My heart rate when on elliptical tends to go up to 150 at which point I slow down until I get it to 125 but I can't maintain that because it means I'm only working out at a rate of 2.8. I naturally go at a rate of 4.0 to 5.0 keeping my heart rate around 140 when I stop paying attention to my speed & heart rate. Is this okay or should I be trying to slow down?

dengarrett

That is my take away - a slower pace allows your muscles to maintain an energy flow that supports burning fat. A higher pace requires your body into an anaerobic state which is not burning fat. And, going slower for longer is better than faster for shorter.

dengarrett

Of course it is all based on your max heart rate which is 220 - your age. At 47, 120 is best for this purpose. Over 130, I am pushed into the anerobic zone.

fteale

Yes, that's about right. The most efficient fat burning takes place when your heart rate is 60% higher than resting, so around 110 ish, for long periods.
The people with the least fat are marathon runners!

dengarrett

Yes, that's about right. The most efficient fat burning takes place when your heart rate is 60% higher than resting, so around 110 ish, for long periods.
The people with the least fat are marathon runners!

So I am better to hit the lower end of the fat-burn scale at 60%? Does that still push my cardiovascular system enough to improve fitness?

tross0924

(please forgive my spelling errors on the topic name :embarassed: )

Please share your thoughts and opinions on this. I was reading today on how energy is used by muscles in order to learn the best way to burn fat. This article was very helpful - http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/diet-fitness/exercise/sports-physiology.htm

The net result that I took from this is that in order to burn fat, the best is to maintain a prolonged period of exercise at a rate that allows your body to burn fat cells. Basically, your muscles burn calories in three ways:

1. Stores within the cells themselves (about three seconds worth of energy for the initial burst).
2. Glucose from the blood stream with no oxygen feed (lasts for 90 seconds or so while your heart and lungs ramp up).
3. Combined glucose / fat burned in combination with oxygen supplied after the heart rate has increased

If too great a load is placed on muscles such that enough energy is available during the third phase, then the body includes the second phase. It is during this second phase that produces lactic acid, which is what causes muscles to ache. In this second phase, the body is not burning fat - it is working anaerobically without oxygen.

So, to burn fat, it is better to place enough load on your muscles so that they burn fat in combination with oxygen, but not to the point that you force your body to burn glucose only.

For me, this means I need to work out with a target heart rate of around 120 which will improve my cardiovascular training, but not push my body into the anaerobic phase.

OK I admit I didn't read the article, but . . . the general consensus from what I've read is that, yes, a lower heart rate burn a higher percentage of calories from fat. But a higher heart rate burns more calories.

So lets say you exercise for an hour and 65% of the 1000 calories you burn come from your fat stores directly, because you're in the fat burning zone. So 650 calories of pure fat gone, well done. 350 came from your blood and muscle stores.

Now if you exercise for 45 minutes at a higher heart rate and burn the same 1000 calories at 50% from your fat stores. Now 500 calories of fat gone and 500 from your blood glucose.

Now fast forward 5 hours. You had to burn 750 calories to survive for those 5 hours. In the fat burning zone exercise a greater percentage of the calories you burn during this time frame come from your blood sugar stores, and less from your fat. In the faster burn example more comes from your fat during this period, so it all washes out in the end.

At the end of the day you're fairly equal in which calories burned were fat and which were blood glucose, but in the faster heart rate you only exercised 45 minutes. If you exercise the same length of time then the faster heart rate would result in more of your fat calories being burnt off than the slower fat burning zone.

Also, I'm not sure how old your article is, but lactic acid has been cleared of being the muscle soreness culprit.

So, moral of the story, yes slower exercises causes a higher % of calories being burned to be fat, but if you exercise for the same amount of time then the higher heart rate is better in the long run for calories burned, fat calories burned, and overall health increase.

dengarrett

(please forgive my spelling errors on the topic name :embarassed: )

Please share your thoughts and opinions on this. I was reading today on how energy is used by muscles in order to learn the best way to burn fat. This article was very helpful - http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/diet-fitness/exercise/sports-physiology.htm

The net result that I took from this is that in order to burn fat, the best is to maintain a prolonged period of exercise at a rate that allows your body to burn fat cells. Basically, your muscles burn calories in three ways:

1. Stores within the cells themselves (about three seconds worth of energy for the initial burst).
2. Glucose from the blood stream with no oxygen feed (lasts for 90 seconds or so while your heart and lungs ramp up).
3. Combined glucose / fat burned in combination with oxygen supplied after the heart rate has increased

If too great a load is placed on muscles such that enough energy is available during the third phase, then the body includes the second phase. It is during this second phase that produces lactic acid, which is what causes muscles to ache. In this second phase, the body is not burning fat - it is working anaerobically without oxygen.

So, to burn fat, it is better to place enough load on your muscles so that they burn fat in combination with oxygen, but not to the point that you force your body to burn glucose only.

For me, this means I need to work out with a target heart rate of around 120 which will improve my cardiovascular training, but not push my body into the anaerobic phase.

OK I admit I didn't read the article, but . . . the general consensus from what I've read is that, yes, a lower heart rate burn a higher percentage of calories from fat. But a higher heart rate burns more calories.

So lets say you exercise for an hour and 65% of the 1000 calories you burn come from your fat stores directly, because you're in the fat burning zone. So 650 calories of pure fat gone, well done. 350 came from your blood and muscle stores.

Now if you exercise for 45 minutes at a higher heart rate and burn the same 1000 calories at 50% from your fat stores. Now 500 calories of fat gone and 500 from your blood glucose.

Now fast forward 5 hours. You had to burn 750 calories to survive for those 5 hours. In the fat burning zone exercise a greater percentage of the calories you burn during this time frame come from your blood sugar stores, and less from your fat. In the faster burn example more comes from your fat during this period, so it all washes out in the end.

At the end of the day you're fairly equal in which calories burned were fat and which were blood glucose, but in the faster heart rate you only exercised 45 minutes. If you exercise the same length of time then the faster heart rate would result in more of your fat calories being burnt off than the slower fat burning zone.

Also, I'm not sure how old your article is, but lactic acid has been cleared of being the muscle soreness culprit.

So, moral of the story, yes slower exercises causes a higher % of calories being burned to be fat, but if you exercise for the same amount of time then the higher heart rate is better in the long run for calories burned, fat calories burned, and overall health increase.

Ok - so essentially it's a "pay me now or pay me later" sort of thing? If you burn calories from glucose now then it will cause your body to burn from fat later?

Also - my thinking was that if I exercise at 65% I am able to exercise for a longer period of time. For example - just now I exercised for 30 minutes at about 65%. Before, I would exercise at a heart rate of about 85% with peaks up near 95%, but I could only go at that rate for 10 minutes.

So, is 10 minutes at 85% or 30 minutes at 65% better? Would it really wash out in the end and I would burn the same amount fat?

tross0924

Well the best way is called High Intensity Interval Training, or HIIT. Basically you do 1 minute at 85% and 2 at 65% then repeat 10 times for a 30 minute run. The higher intensity ups your average heart rate for the duration of the work out but doesn't wipe you out and the lower lets you keep going the full 30 minutes.

And the pay me now or pay me later concept is a good way to sum that up.

Forgive the typos. On my phone with not much time:-)

dengarrett

Thanks - that's what I love about this site. Always a learning process. I have heard all of these terms but never had the background to put them to use.

Ok - now reading about HIIT....