How hard of a work out works best for your goal?

Tiggerrick

OK all, correct me if I am wrong:

People have misconceptions as to the length or difficulty a work out session should be. Part of the problem on this topic is that people don't always have an idea on where your body gets its energy from. Your body can use carbs, fat, and/or protein as fuel. It will use what it has on hand in that order until it runs out, then goes to the next fuel. At the begining of a workout (first 10 to 20 mins) it will burn the sugars (carbs) you have floating in your blood. As those run out, your body starts breaking down fat for energy. If you work out at a slow steady rate, it will give your body time to break down the fat into fuel, however, if you need more fuel than the speed at which your body can break down fat, it will also start breaking down protein.

Here's an interesting example for all of you along this same topic of conversation; I use a cardiac monitor that calculates not only calories, but % of FAT calories burned. My two most recent workouts are as follows:

Friday: I rode my mountain bike (vigorously) for 1hr and 50 min (12 miles) and spent 1789 calories, of which 25% were FAT calories (447)
Saturday: I hiked (moderately) for 2hrs and 30min (8 miles) and spent 853 calories, of which 60% were FAT calories (511)

I burned more FAT during the work out in which I spent the least calories.

A calorie spent is a calorie spent, and it will lead to weight loss, but you may want to be careful, or at least mindful, as to which type of fuel you want to use to keep you going.

What do you think?

olyrose

That really helps clear things up. I have been pretty confused about the fat burning / cardio zones and what was most effective.

browls0

Interesting. What about interval training? I nearly always do intervals (1 minute going hard, followed by 1 minute going slow) and I do this for 30 min. I've heard this is the best way to burn fat and to continue to do so for up to 36 hrs after finishing your workout. I've also heard that working out for more than an hour at a time can raise cortisol levels, causing fat to accumulate around the abdomen. Really, though, my workouts have never done that much for my weight. I have to watch those calories and carbs to make the scale drop.

Randee75

I like to "spike" my heart rate.....or go into intervals.

asilva3111

What I have been doing is making sure to keep my HRM (heart rate monitor) at a rate of 72-75% constantly. So, if I am walking on the treadmill between 2.8 and 3.2 mph and 5-6% incline, I can maintain that rate of 72-75% on my HRM; thus I am in the FAT BURNING ZONE for a constant 30-35 minutes and burn anywhere from 550-650 calories. The same result with the elliptical. I don't have to kill myself to have a 72-75% HRM; in fact, I keep my elliptical at a level 5 and a constant 38-40 repetitions per minute and achieve that. After 1 hr of workout between the two I am always between 1000-1150 calories burned; which a high rate are fat calories. I see the changes every morning after I do a workout of about 1-1.5 lbs less every morning after a workout.

The important part is to maintain the HRM with a chest strap at that 72-75% FAT BURNING ZONE for the remainder of your workout. In fact, I don't count how long I do a workout for. The HRM I am using records (A)bove zone, (B)elow zone, and (I)n zone. I just make sure that I do 30min (I)n zone. So at the end of the night I could have done about 34-36 minutes on each machine; elliptical and treadmill. So I do give up 4-6 minutes of wasted time, but that is just to get my heart up to that 72-75%.

Good luck and hopefully our info helped!

grouch201

It's an interesting point you bring up. The vast majority of my weight loss has been from hiking last summer where I was certainly just going for the steady burn by just keeping my legs moving up the trail. No intervals, a very minimal amount of strength training on days I didn't hike. Then this winter I was doing a lot of High Intesnisty Interval Training (INSANITY) and the weight has been much more reluctant to come off. I think this might be part of the reason....But it's getting warm, so I'm hoping that by the end of this summer I'll hit my goal weight.

DianaPowerUp

Here' s the thing - a calorie burned is a calorie burned, esp. if you are obese. Once you get close to your goal, you may want to be more "mindful" of where your cal. come from.

However, that said....most people eat more than enough carbs (and have more than enough sugar floating around) to fuel their high cardio activity, without burning "fat". If they want to burn "fat", it would make sense to eat less carbs, forcing the body to use fat as fuel, regardless of the activity (fat burning or not), instead of burning carbs/sugar. As long as your protein intake is high enough, you won't have to worry about burning off your protein/muscles.

I guess, to clarify (or not!) what I'm saying is: you can still burn "fat" if that is the only fuel your body has to burn, regardless of if your HR is at 72% or 85%. You can affect that with what you choose to eat, so your high powered run that burns more cal/hr will be burning fat cal. if your diet is really low in carbs.

rileysowner

I am thinking based on the reading I have done that your monitor is perhaps misleading you. Yes your body burns carbs, fat and protein, but the "sugar" it is burning is the glycogen stores in your muscles and liver, not primarily free sugar in your blood. It is also burning fat all the time, just the percentage used varies depending on a host of factors one of which is how much glycogen you have left in your body as that is needed for mental functions. Even protein is burned from amino acids circulating in your blood. The thing is as you exercise more intensely you burn more calories, and unlike you monitor seems to indicate, that means burning more fat calories. The difference is the percentage of fat calories to other calories changes so the percentage of the total calorie burn from fat decreases, but the amount of fat calories burned is still higher at a higher intensity. This article explains it much better than I do http://www.active.com/triathlon/Articles/The-Myth-of-the-Fat-burning-Zone.htm

The other problem with your numbers is this, how those your HRM know what you are burning? Unless it is testing your blood or what you are exhaling, it is at best a guess. Yes, at lower intensity you burn more fat by percentage, but that percentage is not fixed from person to person, nor is the percentage as higher intensity. All the reading I have done indicates higher Intensity will burn not only more calories, but more fat that lower intensity. The only possible advantage of lower intensity is that you can do it longer, but the longer you exercise the more prone to repetitive stress injuries you are so there is that increased likelihood of tendinitis and other injuries that will prevent you from working out at all due to the repeated stress of long duration exercise. Not that injuries don't happen with other forms of exercise, but some of those repetitive stress injuries can be real hassles to recover from.

Tiggerrick

From the article quoted: Actually, the body burns a greater PERCENTAGE of fat at lower intensities than at higher intensities....
and: But at higher intensities you burn way more total calories—and more fat calories overall—than you do at lower intensities.

My monitor (by Polar) keeps track of what your base HR is, and compares it to work out HR. I doubt that it's 100% acurate, matter of fact, I'd stake my life on that, but it gives you a general idea of what your body is burning.

In any case, I enjoy both types of intesity.

asilva3111

My monitor (by Polar) keeps track of what your base HR is, and compares it to work out HR. I doubt that it's 100% acurate, matter of fact, I'd stake my life on that, but it gives you a general idea of what your body is burning.

I bet it's not 100% accurate, but it's got to be pretty close. They have done enough studies and come up with the 65% to 75% to be the common ground for FAT BURNING ZONE for a reason. So, when you enter your age, gender, height and weight onto your HRM it already comes up with a number on where your heart rate should be at a non-active or passive mode. And that number is 40%; always. So, when you strap on to the HRM it reads your heart beats and automatically comes up with where you are. Try it, do nothing, sit down on the couch for over 10 minutes just breathing with the HRM and it should be pretty dog on close to 40%. If it is not, then you might want to consult with a doctor so you can find out where your passive heart rate should be due to your medical status. If being completely passive you are not at 40%, then you might want to consult a doctor. That means your heart rate is either pumping too fast, so maybe cholesterol or high blood pressure, or too slow, well, low blood pressure which could indicate many different things.

Not to say that a young adult, say in the early 20s, that is 5' 10" but weights 400 lbs, they could be as passive as they want, and their heart will not be at 40%. I bet their heart has to be much higher just due to the excessive weight. So, the HRM are based on standard situations; common numbers. I called Sportline, the maker of the HRM that I use, and that is the info they gave me. My question to them was 'how accurate are the bpm on this thing?' and their response was +/- 2bpm due to constant body movement. How about the calories burned? And her answer was that is based on how much you maintain a specific bpm and for how long. So I asked her, so you are telling me that I can walk in the treadmill and keep my HR at 75% and burned the same as if I do the same 30 minutes on the elliptical? And her answer was you could move dirt from one place to the other for 30 minutes and keep your HR at the same 75% and you will burn the same. The difference is the additional sweating from a more aggressive exercise. For example the difference between working out indoors under A/C and outdoors under the hot sun.

Good luck and hope it helps clarify some things..