Exercise - heart rate/intensity/interval training?

sarastark86

Hi all,

I am new here so hello everyone

I am 5"4 and currently weigh about 58kg (128lbs?), I've got a bit out of shape and put on a few pounds over the past year as I haven't been exercising much (and possibly down to changing my pill) although before that I was pretty fit. At my lightest I was 53-54kg but I'm aiming to get back down to 55-56kg which is where my body *used to* seem happy to stabilise (fingers crossed this hasn't crept up permanently!) so my goals are to lose about 5lbs and generally tone up and fitten up. So I've got a 10-day pass for the local gym to give myself a kick up the *** I'm gonna try and go maybe 7 or 8 of the 10 days, on day 2 so far and on track... been sticking to my 1,200 calories a day since I started focusing on this again (as of last Monday 13 June so not that long!).

I just wondered what is considered the optimum heart rate/intensity of exercise for burning fat? The gym machines say my HR (I'm 25) should be around 127 for 'fat burn' and up to about 160 for 'cardio'. 127 is like a fast walk for me, if I try to keep my HR that low it feels like I'm not really working out! So I just wondered is it better to try to keep it low or just go for working hard and burning as many calories as possible? I've always been of the latter school but interested to hear opinions??

emsibun

I'd be interested in the answer to this too: I usually maintain my heart rate at 155+ and it's a long time since I knew my best workout figures. I asked at the gym but the trainer I asked wasnt particularly helpful. He just said working at 120 or below with my resting heart rate would be a waste of time and that anything over that would burn fat.:grumble:

jmijaressf

emsibun, what the gym trainer was referring to was burning more calories at a higher intensity. Usually when you work out at a higher heart rate, you burn more calories and your metabolism is revved up for the next few hours. Though training at that intensity uses mostly glycogen (sugars) in your system, but will also burn some fat in the process. It's a good way to work towards weight loss if you don't have a lot of time to work out.

sarastark86, the general rule of thumb for burning fat is that you have to exercise at a longer duration at a slightly lower heart rate. On my long, easy runs I stay under 70% max heart rate using the Karvonen Heart Rate calculation (takes into account morning resting heart rate). For my long runs if I stay under 70% I tend to be lighter as the week goes on. So today I'm going to run about 6 miles or so which will take a little over an hour and I'll keep my heart rate under 70%. The idea being that for about the first 12 minutes or so my body will be burning mostly glycogen and then will shift over to burning the fat stores.

If you can track down a copy of a book titled "Heart Rate Monitor Training for the Compleat Idiot" by John L. Parker, that's where I got my info from. Compleat is not a typo. That's how he chose to spell it...

sarastark86

Thanks and where does interval training fit into all of this?? Is that good news or bad news for fat burning?

jmijaressf

Thanks and where does interval training fit into all of this?? Is that good news or bad news for fat burning?

Interval training takes you through different HR zones. Here's a sample of what I'm going to do one day next week:

1 Mile warm-up at < 70%
5 Minutes at > 85% with 3 Minutes Recovery (Repeat 5x)
1 Mile Cool-Down

Since interval training will elevate your heart rate through different zones, you'll burn more calories than if you just stayed below 70%. Is it good news or bad news for fat burning? Half and half. High intensity is good for burning glycogen, but not much fat. If you want to burn fat, stay in the slight lower zone. However, interval training is your metabolism so definitely do both.