Heart Rate Zones... Max-->Anaerobic--->Fat Burning

GG70

I guess I am going to lower my workout intensity and increase duration to see if I actually burn more fat.. apparently I have been working out between my maximum heart rate (180 bpm )and an anaerobic zone (160 ish bpm ) which doesn't do much for fat burning which is 120-129 bpm.. will commit for 1 week of lowering intensity even though my body says workout hard
.. has anyone had luck with this? please share whatever you know or have experienced.. thank you.

Meggles63

I'm currently doing Insanity, and basically working all out at max for 40-50 mins. a day. No problem with burning the fat! I know that there are certain zones, but frankly, I'm burning 400-500 calories/workout and that seems to be taking care of the fat as well.

Lyadeia

The higher intensity burns more calories than lower intensity. It's the duration that matters, because sometimes you can do a lower intensity workout for an hour that burns the same or more than the higher intensity workout for 20 minutes. But, if you go as high as you can without maxing out (like an all out sprint) for 45 minutes or so, you can burn more calories doing that.

That said, it doesn't really matter if you burn "dietary fat" or "carbs" in a workout. It's all CALORIES, and it is the more calories that matter. I stick with the highest intensity workouts I can muster for about 45 minutes to maximize calorie burn.

DrG3n3

Found this the other day:

http://exercise.about.com/od/weightloss/a/The-Truth-About-The-Fat-Burning-Zone.htm

Made me decide to stay in my higher heart rate zone.

deathstarclock

If you work in a lower intensity, you burn less. You have to make up by increasing duration. If you work at a higher intensity, you burn more with lower duration. So if you have the time, work with a lower intensity to reduce the risk of injury associated with higher intensities. But if you're pressed for time, go hard or GO HOME.

Working harder also factors in with increased EPOC.

jhardenbergh

I am interested in finding out more on this as well, I just don't want to burn muscle mass, which is what I have heard by doing tons of cardio. I can't seem to stop the cardio 45-60 minutes 7 days a week,

stroutman81

Yeah, I wouldn't sweat what energy substrate is fueling your exercise sessions. That has little to do with total energy expenditure and net fat loss. Not that some lower intensity work is bad or anything. It's just that chasing a supposed "fat burning" zone is very misguided.

Keep in mind, fat comprises the greatest proportion of fuel at low intensities. So why don't we just sit on our butts in order to lose fat? See how that works?

Pinksparkle65

good job

GG70

great info.. thank you so much ... : )

Maybe we should just listen to our bodies.. Mine tells me to sweat my *kitten* off and workout hard.. I will not feel like I got a good workout if I just do "fat burning" zone... I was thrown off when I researched it a little bit after I got a HRM... It said if you workout out in fat burning zone the calories burned are 85% fat and if you go high intensity it is low percentage of fat, but higher calories.. but we are naturally speeding up our metabolisms by workout out in general. I say screw all that.. and just listen to your body.. if you want to go hard -- go for it.. doing the right thing for your body by working out.. end of story..

GG70

Yeah, I wouldn't sweat what energy substrate is fueling your exercise sessions. That has little to do with total energy expenditure and net fat loss. Not that some lower intensity work is bad or anything. It's just that chasing a supposed "fat burning" zone is very misguided.

Keep in mind, fat comprises the greatest proportion of fuel at low intensities. So why don't we just sit on our butts in order to lose fat? See how that works?

I agree.. it doesn't seem natural to me.. I have to actually work hard at keeping it low and I instinctively don't want to be there.. thanks..

stroutman81

Maybe we should just listen to our bodies..

I'd agree if I felt confident in most people speaking the same language as our bodies speak. As it stands though, I'm doubtful. Otherwise we wouldn't have people eating themselves to a point where they have hundreds of pounds of excess body fat. And we wouldn't see people trying to beat their bodies into submission with total disregard for recovery and energy availability. Things like these are why, in my opinion, sensible and individualized programming makes a heck of a lot of sense.

DrG3n3

Maybe we should just listen to our bodies..

I'd agree if I felt confident in most people speaking the same language as our bodies speak. As it stands though, I'm doubtful. Otherwise we wouldn't have people eating themselves to a point where they have hundreds of pounds of excess body fat. And we wouldn't see people trying to beat their bodies into submission with total disregard for recovery and energy availability. Things like these are why, in my opinion, sensible and individualized programming makes a heck of a lot of sense.

So true, the part about being doubtful.

Though that weblink I provided gave me numbers, and being in quantitative genetics, I like numbers. And it sorta gave me some evidence that working my big butt off at gym is better than halfing it in the "weight loss" zone that I STRUGGLE to be in.

GG70

Maybe we should just listen to our bodies..

I'd agree if I felt confident in most people speaking the same language as our bodies speak. As it stands though, I'm doubtful. Otherwise we wouldn't have people eating themselves to a point where they have hundreds of pounds of excess body fat. And we wouldn't see people trying to beat their bodies into submission with total disregard for recovery and energy availability. Things like these are why, in my opinion, sensible and individualized programming makes a heck of a lot of sense.

I am talking specifically about those of us who are working out and thinking about our target heart rates instead of how good the workout feels. I , personally, like to push myself to new levels of fitness but at the same time want to lose fat. So when I researched it, it said to go to a 120-129 bpm for maximum fat loss.. I don't think I could even break a sweat at that rate and it would stifle the feeling of fitness for me.. so that is what I was referring to.. but I know what you are saying too.

stroutman81

So true, the part about being doubtful.

Though that weblink I provided gave me numbers, and being in quantitative genetics, I like numbers. And it sorta gave me some evidence that working my big butt off at gym is better than halfing it in the "weight loss" zone that I STRUGGLE to be in.

Everything requires context. If the goal is fat loss, without a doubt, expending the most energy possible is the name of the game. However, this has to be within the limits of your individual recovery ability. We live in a culture that sees everything in polarized terms. Because of it, it's nothing to see people who are dieting, which means their bodies are short changed on energy and thus recovery ability, banging out high intensity sprints each and every single day. Heck, they'll usually pair this up with some strength training, maybe a couple of dance classes or zumba or whatever, and a jog or two.

If the the net energy you leave your body to function is too low, some crummy stuff can happen in terms of performance, metabolic rate, desire to train, rate of weight loss, etc, etc.

Which is why I can agree... working hard is a very good thing. But that needs a qualifier... working hard intelligently is the name of the game.

Because of this, how many high intensity sessions of cardio are thrown into the weekly program is going to depend on a number of variables including 1) how much fat you have to lose, 2) how many calories you're consuming relative to your total daily energy expenditures, 3) your level of conditioning and contraindications, 4) the other modes and doses of exercise you're doing, etc, etc.

And this is all in the context of fat loss. In the realm of performance, there are MANY cases where lower intensity stuff is desired as each level of intensity on the conditioning front carries its own set of specific adaptations. If you go too intensely all of the time, as our culture is apt to do, you're going to be leaving some performance adaptations on the table such as eccentric ventricular hypertrophy, which is obviously beyond the scope of this discussion. But the point remains... we can't paint things as good or bad without quite a bit of context.

stroutman81

Maybe we should just listen to our bodies..

I'd agree if I felt confident in most people speaking the same language as our bodies speak. As it stands though, I'm doubtful. Otherwise we wouldn't have people eating themselves to a point where they have hundreds of pounds of excess body fat. And we wouldn't see people trying to beat their bodies into submission with total disregard for recovery and energy availability. Things like these are why, in my opinion, sensible and individualized programming makes a heck of a lot of sense.

I am talking specifically about those of us who are working out and thinking about our target heart rates instead of how good the workout feels. I , personally, like to push myself to new levels of fitness but at the same time want to lose fat. So when I researched it, it said to go to a 120-129 bpm for maximum fat loss.. I don't think I could even break a sweat at that rate and it would stifle the feeling of fitness for me.. so that is what I was referring to.. but I know what you are saying too.

Of course I don't know what you were specifically reading with your research, but it's not that you have to go to "120-129 bpm" for maximum fat loss. It's that you'd have to hit that range to have the greatest percentage of fuel coming from the oxidation of fat. Percentages are a world apart from absolute values... which is why total energy expenditure is a much more sensible target. At least within the contexts that I outlined above.

DrG3n3

Sorry, tl;dr on that

But I make sure to eat a good portion of my exercise calories back, and I try to eat healthier foods. I just feel good after a good 45 minute 700+ calorie burn.

stroutman81

Sorry, tl;dr on that

But I make sure to eat a good portion of my exercise calories back, and I try to eat healthier foods. I just feel good after a good 45 minute 700+ calorie burn.

lol, sorry I bothered. Hopefully others will get something out of it.

GG70

Everything requires context. If the goal is fat loss, without a doubt, expending the most energy possible is the name of the game. However, this has to be within the limits of your individual recovery ability. We live in a culture that sees everything in polarized terms. Because of it, it's nothing to see people who are dieting, which means their bodies are short changed on energy and thus recovery ability, banging out high intensity sprints each and every single day. Heck, they'll usually pair this up with some strength training, maybe a couple of dance classes or zumba or whatever, and a jog or two.....


.....And this is all in the context of fat loss. In the realm of performance, there are MANY cases where lower intensity stuff is desired as each level of intensity on the conditioning front carries its own set of specific adaptations. If you go too intensely all of the time, as our culture is apt to do, you're going to be leaving some performance adaptations on the table such as eccentric ventricular hypertrophy, which is obviously beyond the scope of this discussion. But the point remains... we can't paint things as good or bad without quite a bit of context.
[/quote]

You are obviously very well-educated in this domain.. I appreciate your detailed and passionate input and you make a lot of sense. I take my health and fitness seriously and I do not starve myself.. I am not on a crash diet..but I understand you are saying how each person has an individual situation to address that cannot be answered in a forum like this with 1 answer.. I get it.. BUT at the same time I did get my answer.