Too high heart rate = no/low weight loss?

NikkiDerrig386

I was talking to my Dad and he said that he thinks I am working out too hard. I have this thing of sweating and trying to get my heart rate up as high as I can to feel like I am "working out". He told me that if I am trying to loose weight that I should focus on not getting my heart rate so high because it burns muscle and sugar and not fat. In reality I do go over 85% of my heart rate. It is good for your heart but I guess not the waist. Does anyone have any additional information about that?

jewelzz

for fat loss I do lower impact cardio and use larger muscle groups

amicklin

I don't have to much to add on this as far as scientific information to prove/disprove but I do think there is some validity to what yoru dad is saying. Cardio is important for your overall health and cardiovasular system and I have heard that it can be counterproductive when trying to work on muscle gains.

Will be interested to see what everyone has to say on this.

Becky1971

My book says that 70 - 80 is for fat and carb burning, 80-90 is for athletic training to increase performance. With that said, I can't get myself into 70. It's frustrating me, I got there once. I'm always sticky and all, but my hr doesn't get into my zone.

bmontgomery87

A lot of people do some low intensity "cardio" sessions for fat loss.

But for overall fitness theres nothing wrong with your style of training. And If your cals are under your maintenance amount, you're still gonna lose weight.

I'm a big fan of high intensity interval training for fat loss. I like training hard.

deannarey13

What your dad told you is 100% true.

I am like you. I like to do high impact fast pace cardio. My heart rate is often at 160-175. This is all fine and good for cardiovascular health, but not for fat loss. I actually found that after 3 weeks of only doing this type of cardio my weight stayed the same but my body fat % WENT UP. Meaning, I was actually burning lean muscle mass instead. Not good.

Needless to say, I have changed my workout program.

NikkiDerrig386

My resting heart rate is 61 (patting self on the back thats really good) and it says I should be at heart rate 130. It is just to low for me. I am usually in the 170's to 180's. Yesterday I didnt go over 158 and I felt frustrated bc it wasnt hard enough. If thats what I need though I have to work harder and not working out so hard (that sentence just even make sense )..

Becky1971

Isn't that 130 just a low? Like my range is 135 to 150.

My resting heart rate is 61 (patting self on the back thats really good) and it says I should be at heart rate 130. It is just to low for me. I am usually in the 170's. Yesterday I didnt go over 158 and I felt frustrated bc it wasnt hard enough. If thats what I need though I have to work harder and not working out so hard (that sentence just even make sense )..

Nomomush

Yes--your father is correct. When I train with my trainer, he/she holds my HRM watch while I wear my chest strap. Once I have hit 85%, he/she makes me stop so I can bring it back down to 65% before I start my next exercises. Also, he/;she makes me maintain right at 85% for maximum fat burning without going into the anabolic stage.

Oh and this changes when your weight changes. As I've lost weight, my MHR has changed.

Hope that helps.

jamie1888

Here's an interesting read:

http://www.alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

Basically, yes, if you keep your heart rate in that "fat burning zone", you will burn more fat calories DURING exercise. However, if you work in the "cardio zone", you will burn less fat calories DURING the exercise, but you keep burning fat calories long AFTER the exercise. So, in regards to fat burn, there's no difference. So, working at a higher heart rate can burn the same amount of fat, but also improve cardiovascular fitness! (that's a good thing IMO, and as far as the study shows!)

StacyD015

Yeah Ive been told this by the ppl in my gym. Theres 2 different % HR for different things you want to achieve...
ok so im 24 years old and to get to the fat burning zone i need to be at about 118-137 on HR Monitor.

Use this site and it gives you our target HR for entering your "fat burning zone"

Hope this helps!

http://www.fitsense.co.uk/fit_article.php?id=3

jonathandavid_t

From what I've read, although the % of fat burnt in high-intensity exercise is lower than in low-intensity exercise, the TOTAL calories of fat burnt will be higher in high-intensity exercise.

E.g. (made-up numbers):
30 mins low-intensity. HR 65%max. kcal burnt 150. kcal from fat 100 (75%)
30 mins high-intensity. HR 85%max. kcal burnt 300. kcal from fat 175 (58%)

Lower %, but higher value.

There are some good quality posts in the forums on this, spend an hour finding them (I didn't bookmark them unfortunately).

I think it's been found that the best option for both fat loss AND fitness is high-intensity intervals so you alternate between say 90% max HR for 45-60sec and then drop it back down to say 65-70%max for a minute or two before working hard again.

W0zzie

Hiya

I went on a research bender a little while ago on this topic and pretty much satisfied myself that it is more or less a myth as far as weight loss goes. It "may" be useful if you are "training" to go for the fitness zone but for weight loss the more burn the better and you burn more when you work harder. Obviously don't go max though as that then starts to be a safety issue.

The key point that changed my mind is some advice that basically fat oxidisation for the remainder of the day means the zone thing "while" you are working out becomes more or less irrelevant.

For one of the best threads around on it check this out: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/135948-the-fat-burning-zone?hl=fat+burn+fitness#posts-1858567

As always - different strokes for different folks - but my own view - doesn't matter - hard or soft - work how you want to work.

Cheers

jmminmn

Not everyone fits into the "norms" of heart rates when working out. For example, I can easily get to a 180 on a brisk walk. Jogging will put me at about 200.

(My resting heart rate is a healty 65 and I'm 34 years old)

Listen to what your body tells you - everyone is different.

NikkiDerrig386

Maximal Heart Rate = 195

Intensity Target Heart Rate
50-55% 128-135
60-65% 141-148
70-75% 155-162
80-85% 168-175
http://www.fitwatch.com/qkcalc/thr.html

SO where should I be to lose lbs 55% or 65%?

That makes sense bc when I first started working out I lost so much lbs I was 114 at my lowest and I wasnt working out nearly as hard!!

AllyS7

I second the HIIT. I do this type of workout at least 2 times a week. My heart rate ranges from 174-184 during the high intensity and then 124-160 during the lower intensity. My other cardio sessions are 1 lower intensity HR (110-127) and 2 longer (167-180) sessions.

I haven't had a problem loosing the weight (yet).

jamie1888

Really people, why ask if you are just going to dismiss the facts?

Read:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/135948-the-fat-burning-zone?hl=fat+burn+fitness#posts-1858567


Read:
http://www.alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

scottb81

Different HR intensities develop different systems in the body. For total fitness, all of them are important.

BerryH

Though differen HR "zones" burn different proportions of carbs vs fat, weight loss is simply a matter of calories in against calories out. If you train hard, you'll burn more calories, simple as that. BUT you might not be able to maintain it for long - find a level that works for you. Bear in mind that high intensity training will carry on torching calories for hours after you quit.

BigBoneSista

I was talking to my Dad and he said that he thinks I am working out too hard. I have this thing of sweating and trying to get my heart rate up as high as I can to feel like I am "working out". He told me that if I am trying to loose weight that I should focus on not getting my heart rate so high because it burns muscle and sugar and not fat. In reality I do go over 85% of my heart rate. It is good for your heart but I guess not the waist. Does anyone have any additional information about that?

If you plan on working out at that rate it should only be done for 20 to 30 minutes. Anything after that will cause you to burn more muscles and deplete your glycogen stores.

BigBoneSista

Really people, why ask if you are just going to dismiss the facts?

Read:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/135948-the-fat-burning-zone?hl=fat+burn+fitness#posts-1858567


Read:
http://www.alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

Yep. All this zone stuff was a marketing ploy for the fitness boom.

NikkiDerrig386

Really people, why ask if you are just going to dismiss the facts?

Read:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/135948-the-fat-burning-zone?hl=fat+burn+fitness#posts-1858567


Read:
http://www.alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

Who is dismissing facts?

myofibril

Here's an interesting read:

http://www.alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

Basically, yes, if you keep your heart rate in that "fat burning zone", you will burn more fat calories DURING exercise. However, if you work in the "cardio zone", you will burn less fat calories DURING the exercise, but you keep burning fat calories long AFTER the exercise. So, in regards to fat burn, there's no difference. So, working at a higher heart rate can burn the same amount of fat, but also improve cardiovascular fitness! (that's a good thing IMO, and as far as the study shows!)

Correct (great link by the way.)

It seems that people still seem to buy into the idea of a "fat burning" workout which is pretty much outdated.

The body uses a mix of energy substrates, mainly fat and carbs, to power exercise. The % of fat in comparison to carbs used depends mostly on the intensity of the exercise. Low intensity tends to elicit a greater % of fat used in contrast to carbs hence the "fat burning zone." However over the course of a 24 hr period there is pretty much no difference fat oxidation between higher intensity workouts and lower ones. Low intensity burns more during the workout, high intensity more post workout levelling out the amount to roughly the same (if not more for high intensity.)

In addition the fat deployed during exercise comes mostly from triglycerides already present in muscle cells, not from the squidy places you want them. Perhaps most importantly the total amount of fat burned during exercise is miniscule.

What does this mean? That cardio work, be it high or low intensity, is over rated if you using it primarily as a fat loss tool. Diet is the main weapon in this respect. You can bust your *kitten* on the treadmill trying to burn off 300 calories in 30 minutes or you can just not eat that chocolate bar in the first place.

Don't get me wrong. I use both high and low intensity cardio in my own training and both have excellent health and overall performance benefits. However in the fat loss realm it is better to think of diet and then weights, with cardio of whatever type coming a distant third in pure efficiency terms.

NikkiDerrig386

Here's an interesting read:

http://www.alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

Basically, yes, if you keep your heart rate in that "fat burning zone", you will burn more fat calories DURING exercise. However, if you work in the "cardio zone", you will burn less fat calories DURING the exercise, but you keep burning fat calories long AFTER the exercise. So, in regards to fat burn, there's no difference. So, working at a higher heart rate can burn the same amount of fat, but also improve cardiovascular fitness! (that's a good thing IMO, and as far as the study shows!)

Correct (great link by the way.)

It seems that people still seem to buy into the idea of a "fat burning" workout which is pretty much outdated.

The body uses a mix of energy substrates, mainly fat and carbs, to power exercise. The % of fat in comparison to carbs used depends mostly on the intensity of the exercise. Low intensity tends to elicit a greater % of fat used in contrast to carbs hence the "fat burning zone." However over the course of a 24 hr period there is pretty much no difference fat oxidation between higher intensity workouts and lower ones. Low intensity burns more during the workout, high intensity more post workout levelling out the amount to roughly the same (if not more for high intensity.)

In addition the fat deployed during exercise comes mostly from triglycerides already present in muscle cells, not from the squidy places you want them. Perhaps most importantly the total amount of fat burned during exercise is miniscule.

What does this mean? That cardio work, be it high or low intensity, is over rated if you using it primarily as a fat loss tool. Diet is the main weapon in this respect. You can bust your *kitten* on the treadmill trying to burn off 300 calories in 30 minutes or you can just not eat that chocolate bar in the first place.

Don't get me wrong. I use both high and low intensity cardio in my own training and both have excellent health and overall performance benefits. However in the fat loss realm it is better to think of diet and then weights, with cardio of whatever type coming a distant third in pure efficiency terms.

Just when I thought I could take a break lol jk. Thanx for all the info guys. I am every zone during my workouts so I am covered either way. I do interval training and circuits, yoga, you name it.

amicklin

Great explanation!

Here's an interesting read:

http://www.alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

Basically, yes, if you keep your heart rate in that "fat burning zone", you will burn more fat calories DURING exercise. However, if you work in the "cardio zone", you will burn less fat calories DURING the exercise, but you keep burning fat calories long AFTER the exercise. So, in regards to fat burn, there's no difference. So, working at a higher heart rate can burn the same amount of fat, but also improve cardiovascular fitness! (that's a good thing IMO, and as far as the study shows!)

Correct (great link by the way.)

It seems that people still seem to buy into the idea of a "fat burning" workout which is pretty much outdated.

The body uses a mix of energy substrates, mainly fat and carbs, to power exercise. The % of fat in comparison to carbs used depends mostly on the intensity of the exercise. Low intensity tends to elicit a greater % of fat used in contrast to carbs hence the "fat burning zone." However over the course of a 24 hr period there is pretty much no difference fat oxidation between higher intensity workouts and lower ones. Low intensity burns more during the workout, high intensity more post workout levelling out the amount to roughly the same (if not more for high intensity.)

In addition the fat deployed during exercise comes mostly from triglycerides already present in muscle cells, not from the squidy places you want them. Perhaps most importantly the total amount of fat burned during exercise is miniscule.

What does this mean? That cardio work, be it high or low intensity, is over rated if you using it primarily as a fat loss tool. Diet is the main weapon in this respect. You can bust your *kitten* on the treadmill trying to burn off 300 calories in 30 minutes or you can just not eat that chocolate bar in the first place.

Don't get me wrong. I use both high and low intensity cardio in my own training and both have excellent health and overall performance benefits. However in the fat loss realm it is better to think of diet and then weights, with cardio of whatever type coming a distant third in pure efficiency terms.

myofibril

Just when I thought I could take a break lol jk. Thanx for all the info guys. I am every zone during my workouts so I am covered either way. I do interval training and circuits, yoga, you name it.

Lol - well, if it ain't broke then don't try and fix it.

In reality I think a routine which mixes up intensity, be it weights and cardio, works extremely well for most people. You look amazing so keep on keeping on....

jamie1888

Really people, why ask if you are just going to dismiss the facts?

Read:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/135948-the-fat-burning-zone?hl=fat+burn+fitness#posts-1858567


Read:
http://www.alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

Who is dismissing facts?

The folks that keep hammering that low intensity is the best for fat burning and that your pops is right!

mrphil86

I'm glad someone FINNALY addressed this. I've been meaning to but kept forgetting about it. I like the article msf74 posted, thats what I always heard and makes sense.

Thank you Ms. urbinachick24.

NikkiDerrig386

Just when I thought I could take a break lol jk. Thanx for all the info guys. I am every zone during my workouts so I am covered either way. I do interval training and circuits, yoga, you name it.

Lol - well, if it ain't broke then don't try and fix it.

In reality I think a routine which mixes up intensity, be it weights and cardio, works extremely well for most people. You look amazing so keep on keeping on....

Thanx The winter was bad this year. I gained 10 lbs :sad: so I have to get back down! Having a thin bf doesnt help bc he thinks I can eat what he eats. YOU MEN JUST DONT GET IT!! LOL

NikkiDerrig386

Really people, why ask if you are just going to dismiss the facts?

Read:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/135948-the-fat-burning-zone?hl=fat+burn+fitness#posts-1858567


Read:
http://www.alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

Who is dismissing facts?

The folks that keep hammering that low intensity is the best for fat burning and that your pops is right!

Gotcha ya! I was like hey im just asking lol

JohnnyNull

There is no such thing as a "fat-burning zone".