Target Heart Rate: "fat burning" vs "aerobic" zones

northernchic

Hi there,
I just got an elliptical and want to make sure I’m exercising effectively. Back in my Curves days I remember them talking about being in the “fat burning zone” of your heart rate and that if you go higher than that it can be as bad as not going high enough. But information I’ve been reading now seems to contradict that – it sounds like it is recommended that you maintain a higher more “aerobic” level of heart rate – that it doesn’t burn as much during the workout, but you continue to burn more after the exercise is over. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Thanks!

knantz

bump

FaeFae

BUMP

husker_gal

I have no idea if that's true but I certainly hope it is!

newnhealthierme2011

What does "bump" mean when someone post that as a response?

Angela4Health

From what I understand, working in your fat burning zone, is an aerobic workout. Working out above that is considered an anaerobic workout and yes working out anaerobically does burn more calories up to 48 hours after you finish the work out.

Angela4Health

What does "bump" mean when someone post that as a response?

when someone puts "bump" on a post, it's just to bump it back up to the top for more feedback

bobbijodmb

Im not expert but when I bought a heart rate monitor it suggested a mixture of both in a week .... ive been doing that and doing really well. I dont know the exact science, but i do about half in fat burn and half in fitness...

WomanofWorth

bump

CassieLEO

Bumpity Bump Bump! I was wondering this too!!!!

knantz

What does "bump" mean when someone post that as a response?

Bump stands for Bring Up My Topic (or so I've been told). It serves two purposes.

It takes the thread back to the top of the message board in hopes to expose it to more people in an effort to get as much information as possible. Every time someone else "bumps", it goes back to the top. So I could come in here 2 days from now and type bump, and this thread would become the top thread for that topic at that moment.

It also places the thread as one of your "My Topics" to allow you to come back and read some of the opinions later once they have been posted more easily than looking through thousands and thousands of posts.

Newfiedan

I train using HIIT and regularly go well beyond the fat burning zone as per my stats. I have managed to get into the best shape of my life using HIIT and now have moved onto metabolic resistance training (similar to kettlebell workouts) and have done very well with fat loss and muscle gain using that method. It boils down to what you have time for, for those whom are busy MRT/HIIT is the way to go, for those with time to burn then sure staying in that zone is fine. What it boils down to is cals burnt overall.

Randee75

Bump

mrphil86

It's a myth... Heart rate zones are old news. There is just one.

So yes, you can.

http://www.prevention.com/health/fitness/cardio/aerobic-exercises-and-fat-burning/article/9f3868f271903110VgnVCM10000013281eac____/

http://www.novafeel.com/fitness/myths.htm

Edit: Found a better source at explaining it.

vixi76

Bump

KellyEsparza

Good question - I wonder the same thing...

Windi38

Hi there,
I just got an elliptical and want to make sure I’m exercising effectively. Back in my Curves days I remember them talking about being in the “fat burning zone” of your heart rate and that if you go higher than that it can be as bad as not going high enough. But information I’ve been reading now seems to contradict that – it sounds like it is recommended that you maintain a higher more “aerobic” level of heart rate – that it doesn’t burn as much during the workout, but you continue to burn more after the exercise is over. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Thanks!

I burn more calories working in my 'aerobic zone' than I do my 'fat burn zone'...at least when I am riding my bike! The way I understand it, and I don't know much about it, is that as long as you are working within your 'fat burn zone', you are doing enough to burn calories, but it doesn't do much for your 'heart muscle', working in your 'aerobic zone' actually gives your heart a workout and helps it stay strong and healthy, and helps your endurance, because if your heart is beating strong and healthy, you get more oxygen in your bloodstream and that's better for you all around. I can't imagine that working in the aerobic zone would not burn more calories than working in 'fat burning zone'.

Windi38

It's a myth... Heart rate zones are old news. There is just one.

So yes, you can.

http://www.101weightlossarticles.com/misc/fatzonemyth.html

I just read the article. When I ride my bike, my average heart rate is between 156-161 depending on which route and how hard I'm pushing, and my max is usually 171-177. When I first started riding, I would max out at 181 going up the big hills, but now i'm lucky if I get in the 170's on the same hills! I ride for over an hour, usually around 1hr 15-25min. My resting heart rate is 70bpm. I don't even feel like I'm exercising at ALL anymore unless I'm at least in the 130s and higher. When I bike I burn over 600 calories, but if I walk the dogs for the same amount of time, my heart rate is in the 110's with spikes to the 130s, and I burn half the calories, if I'm lucky.

No one is going to tell me that walking the dogs will help me lose weight faster, or even as fast.....I tried it and it didn't work. I've only started losing weight since I started biking seriously.

northernchic

Thanks for the input! Glad to see I’m not the only one curious about this!

So, I found this HR calculator that takes into account your resting HR and age. From what I've seen it looks like moderate activity is the way to go which is 70-80% (correct me if I'm wrong...)

Calculator = http://www.fitwatch.com/qkcalc/thr.html

Explaination of intensity levels = http://exercise.about.com/od/cardioworkouts/g/targetheartratezones.htm