Fat Burn vs Cardio questions on heartrate

arewethereyet

I have read a lot of articles on exercise. I have incorporated weight training thanks to MFP ppl who posted great info. Changed up my routine, increased the amount of time each day from 30-45 minutes.

:flowerforyou: My question is: What is the difference between calories burned in cardio vs fat burning zone?

I have a hard time keeping my heart rate in the fat burning zone. I go into the high 140's on the elliptical and walking. My research tells me fat burning is between 121-136 for my age.


I want to do what is best for my body (and of COURSE make the poundage go away!)

arewethereyet

I have read a lot of articles on exercise. I have incorporated weight training thanks to MFP ppl who posted great info. Changed up my routine, increased the amount of time each day from 30-45 minutes.

:flowerforyou: My question is: What is the difference between calories burned in cardio vs fat burning zone?

I have a hard time keeping my heart rate in the fat burning zone. I go into the high 140's on the elliptical and walking. My research tells me fat burning is between 121-136 for my age.


I want to do what is best for my body (and of COURSE make the poundage go away!)

banks1850

Well, different zones burn calories at a different rate, the fat burn zone also burns more fat calories vs muscle and just plain intake calories. The fat burn zone burns cals at a lower rate, thus giving your body time to pull the calories it needs from fat instead of scrambling to grab any calories it can find.

arewethereyet

ahhhhhhhh. now that makes sense. Thanks for responding...ever so helpful you are :flowerforyou:

timragan

Banks,

I have a calorie burn question for you.

I am doing 1 hour on the elliptical 5-6 days weekly. The calorie burn is indicated at 780 for 1 hour. I am 52, 297 lbs. My heart rate runs about 115-125 during the workout.

I recently purchased one of the fancy heart rate wristwatches that includes a calorie burn measurement. Per instructions I program it for my age, sex, and current weight. I start the timer and touch the watch about every ten minutes during the workout.

At the end of the hour the watch tells me I burned 1150 calories.

I tend think that both displays are wrong and that my actual burn is probably 500 calories.

I assume you've studied this aspect of fitness. What say you?

Thanks in advance. You have a great site.

banks1850

well, that fancy Heart Rate Monitor probably isn't fancy enough if you have to stop to take a pulse. I have a polar F6 which records your heart rate at all times (it has a chest strap). While the wrist pulse monitor is probably more accurate then the machine (because measureing any heart rate is better then none), the more advanced models are doing it constantly.

as to your question: 500? No way, not for an hour at 120 BMP. I would bet my next house payment on that.

1150 sounds close though, for an hour of vigorous activity at your age, weight, and height; 780 sounds pretty low. I know at 80% max heart rate for me, an hour would be somewhere around 950 to 1050 calories. And I'm only 182 lbs (granted, 80% max for me is about 150 bpm, but that's a matter of physical factors, I'm a runner who is in athletic shape so...); yeah, thinking about it, 780 sounds way low.

arewethereyet

Polar 6 is the best! :happy:

I find myself exercising more so I can build up the calorie deficit.

:bigsmile: :bigsmile:

timragan

Thanks for the info. I knew you'd know.

As for the model I purchased I am sure that part of my choice is the habit of staying away from things that won't fit around my chest. I actually need to get over that because since I've dropped my weight to its current level I can actually buy clothes at any store. In fact this weekend I bought an XL shirt. WOW!

I was straining the 5X shirts when I started this effort 6 months ago.

I really don't mind the finger touch. It takes the reading in about 5 seconds or less.

Its a MIO Motiva and now that I know the calorie burn is a good number.

I used to run but don't know if that will happen again. I will end up trying it when I get another 50+ pounds off but I have a prosthetic left knee and right hip so non or low impact cardio is probably smarter. I really used to enjoy longs runs when I was fit.

Thanks again.

yoginimary

Here's another burn question. Yesterday I did a test of 30 minutes of walking verses 30 minutes elliptical:

walking - easy/moderate - average HR 125 - 200 calories burned
elliptical - moderate/hard - average HR 146 - 250 calories burned

50 more calories?!?! I could walk for hours but the elliptical wears me out after about an hour or so. Any thoughts?

songbyrdsweet

Here's another burn question. Yesterday I did a test of 30 minutes of walking verses 30 minutes elliptical:

walking - easy/moderate - average HR 125 - 200 calories burned
elliptical - moderate/hard - average HR 146 - 250 calories burned

50 more calories?!?! I could walk for hours but the elliptical wears me out after about an hour or so. Any thoughts?

Depending on a person's level of conditioning, their HR will increase greatly while performing lower-impact exercise, and they may not be able to maintain higher intensities long enough to see a big difference in the calorie burn between the two. If that's the case, the only reason to aim for a higher % of MHR is to ensure there are cardiovascular benefits, which you'll only see at 65%+. If fat loss is the only goal and there's enough time in the day to walk for hours, by all means walk. However, not everyone can increase their HR enough to see CV benefits from walking, which is when it becomes necessary to run/elliptical/etc., and at that point they can usually sustain 70-85% MHR for an extended period of time and see a huge calorie burn. Lance Armstrong probably won't see a HR above 72 from walking, poor guy. :laugh:

banks1850

I'll answer both. :happy:

first tim,

the reason why I suggest a polar isn't because of discomfort, it's because without constant monitoring, it's only estimating. The polars do constant monitoring, so the heart rate is always accurate, and the calorie count is likewise always accurate. The Mio may be "mostly" accurate, but not necessarilly. See my difference? Now granted, if you're exercising at a constant rate, then it won't be very far off, but if you vary even a few BPM over the course of an hour, that can make a big difference.

Mary,
That sounds about right to me. Call it a 10 to 15% increase in Heart Rate, 50 calories more in 30 minutes would be reasonable for 2 reasons. 1) Even thought the eliptical is a great workout, it's an artificial workout that has no direct real world exercise correlation, because of this, there is no directly targeted muscle group, while this is good for keeping the muscles confused and moving, it's not as good at the cardiopulminary aspect. 2) walking is actually a very intense exercise if done at a moderate pace (4 to 5.5 mph). It engages the core to a degree, almost all of the leg muscles, arms, obliques, and hip flexors, if you are walking up or down hills or over uneven ground, it's even better (although a bit harder on the body orthopedically speaking) because balance is needed which engages even more muscles (well, to be truthful, it engages more fibers of the SAME muscles, which amounts to the same thing). So with all that said, the body will usually perform better when doing exercises that have a 'real world' equivalent. But that doesn't mean the others are not any good, for example, the eliptical is great if you have plantar faciatis, because there is very little pressure put in those areas, It's also very good if you have issues with osteoarthritis in your back, because there is no jarring effect like you have with walking or running.

yoginimary

Fair enough.

Ok guys, tell me how to get the calorie burn - preferably at the gym where it is air conditioned! I've done kickboxing, spin class, step, walk/jog, elliptical, & circuit. Can't seem to get over than 500 calorie mark (per hour). Am I just not big enough?

songbyrdsweet

Fair enough.

Ok guys, tell me how to get the calorie burn - preferably at the gym where it is air conditioned! I've done kickboxing, spin class, step, walk/jog, elliptical, & circuit. Can't seem to get over than 500 calorie mark (per hour). Am I just not big enough?

Even when I do step with the highest step and all the higher-intensity stuff (adding all the jumps, and doing the jumps even when we don't have to) I'll burn like 498. The only time I burn over 500 in an hour is plain ole' running outside. If I truck along for an hour, I burn 700-800 calories (that's at 5'0 and averaging 135). You won't burn as much on a treadmill since the ground is moving beneath you, so you don't have to propel yourself forward as much.

shorerider

At your weight, it is going to be hard. I have heard that some cyclists burn close to 1000 an hour but that's in like the Tour de France when they cycle for hours at like 35 or more mph.

arjames82

I have read a lot of articles on exercise. I have incorporated weight training thanks to MFP ppl who posted great info. Changed up my routine, increased the amount of time each day from 30-45 minutes.

:flowerforyou: My question is: What is the difference between calories burned in cardio vs fat burning zone?

I have a hard time keeping my heart rate in the fat burning zone. I go into the high 140's on the elliptical and walking. My research tells me fat burning is between 121-136 for my age.


I want to do what is best for my body (and of COURSE make the poundage go away!)

When I joined my gym, it was explained to me that that HR numbers are lower for the fat burning zone because at a lower working intensity, you will be able to sustain the activity for a longer time, thus burning more calories. In the cardio zone, you are working harder, but will not be able to sustain the activity as long.

arjames82

At your weight, it is going to be hard. I have heard that some cyclists burn close to 1000 an hour but that's in like the Tour de France when they cycle for hours at like 35 or more mph.

I LOVE cycling. I try to do it at least 3 days per week as it's one of the best cardio workouts I've found for myself. I wear a Polar F6 whenever I workout, and I burn between 850-950 calories (at 197 pounds) for each hour long workout.

banks1850

Fair enough.

Ok guys, tell me how to get the calorie burn - preferably at the gym where it is air conditioned! I've done kickboxing, spin class, step, walk/jog, elliptical, & circuit. Can't seem to get over than 500 calorie mark (per hour). Am I just not big enough?

anything over 80 to 82% Max HR will get you above 600 cals an hour. For instance, I just burned 450 in about 35 minutes (literally 10 minutes ago), by running at a 77% HR. If I pushed it up to 82% it would have been about 500. I have, in the past, run at an 85 to 88% pace, and in 30 minutes gotten about 550 cals or so, that's a rough pace though, I wouldn't want to do it for an hour, it would be rough on my hip flexors for that long.

arewethereyet

Banks-I have plantars fasciitis and this why I bought really good elip machine. I found it at Play It Again Sports for 1/2 the orig price. someone else bought it and used it to dry towels...I have had many machines like that in the course of my life.

I found it amazing that when walking at a moderate pace-say 15-18 minute mile, I could not keep my heart rate in the fat burning range, but I didnt want to stop because it felt so good to be strong, feel strong. I was at 85-90 % for most of my walk

I always thought walking was for wimps and I was oh, so hot on my elliptical machine.

You explained it well. Thanks

Emdicio

...As for the model I purchased I am sure that part of my choice is the habit of staying away from things that won't fit around my chest.....

Tim-

just an fyi on this issue. I have a 56" chest measurement (was a 60"/4XL shirt) and was also worried about the band fitting but the Medium band (standard size with the Polar F6) easily fit around my chest - it's quite stretchy. Also, they sell a large band for even more room for ~$8. It is really nice knowing exactly how many calories you burned each session.

Hope this is useful.......Mike

timragan

Thanks to all.

chipper15173

question? so than is it better to keep your HR in the fat burning zone (60-70% of max HR) or in the arobic zone (70-80% of max HR), while losing weight? I am struggling with this now myself. i treadmill for 60 mins @3.0 every 5 mins go up to 3.5 for 5 mins than back down for 5 and burn over 600 calories. my HR is 128 to 150. i also have asthma and getting over 140 i can start having problems if i don't use my inhaler before hand.
boy, banks you are full of knowledge. i would have to have a chat with you about all this and the calorie stuff too. i struggling with that right now also.....dffernet subject, sorry.

thanks, chipper