Cardio - Fitness vs. Fat Burn Zone

MissMaryMac33

So I've been doing Zumba/SoulGrooves/Cardio Kickboxing classes for over a year and I usually work as hard as possible and walk out of there drenched in sweat. I burn 400-500 and hour and according to my Polar FT7 HRM --- the majority of the time (45-55 minutes) is in FITNESS zone.

This week I decided to tone it done and not work out like a crazy woman. I burned 300-400 in each class but almost the entire hour was in FAT BURN zone and not Fitness zone.

I like the sound of being in fat burn longer.... do you pay attention to this? Which one is better?

jakejacobsen

bump

Rachiepie6

I got my Polar FT60 on Tuesday, I do try to have my overall weekly burn to meet the numbers it gave me for weight loss. But I'm also interested in my fitness and performance as well. I'm not too fussed at the moment, if after a couple weeks something isn't working I'll look back into it..

Rachiepie6

Edit: Sorry - accidentally posted twice.

jonikeffer

My understanding is that the fat burning zone simply means a higher *percentage* of what you burn will be fat, but that you will burn more calories overall in the cardio/fitness zone. My father, who is a health fiend, says it is better to workout at the higher intensity if you are able to. He tells beginners to work in the fat burning zone so they won't become discouraged while their body is getting used to working out. By burning more calories overall, you will ultimately burn more fat in the long run.

mmhenry28

My understanding is that the fat burning zone simply means a higher *percentage* of what you burn will be fat, but that you will burn more calories overall in the cardio/fitness zone. My father, who is a health fiend, says it is better to workout at the higher intensity if you are able to. He tells beginners to work in the fat burning zone so they won't become discouraged while their body is getting used to working out. By burning more calories overall, you will ultimately burn more fat in the long run.

My personal trainer, seconded this

cirellim

"Zones" are irrelevant there is no specific zone in which you are burning purely fat or some other source of body weight. The only real advantage and believe me its a relatively small one at that, to doing high intensity type workouts is you will receive slight "after burn" affects where you continue to burn calories even after you've finished your workout. However, I've ever found that to be quite minimal although it is still occurring so it does have a positive effect overall. Realistically all it comes down to is total amount of calories burned, nothing more.

kennefood

I would say this all depends on your goal and diet. It is believed that if you over work your body, you will wind up with your body cannibalizing muscle instead of just burning fat. In the case that someone expects muscle growth, this is not a desirable option. Instead, it is said you should try to maintain your heart rate in a lower range (fat burning zone) so you're not losing muscle mass. It's a no brainer that you will burn more calories by working harder. You will give up muscle mass by over working your body and not dieting correctly to compensate.

cirellim

My understanding is that the fat burning zone simply means a higher *percentage* of what you burn will be fat, but that you will burn more calories overall in the cardio/fitness zone. My father, who is a health fiend, says it is better to workout at the higher intensity if you are able to. He tells beginners to work in the fat burning zone so they won't become discouraged while their body is getting used to working out. By burning more calories overall, you will ultimately burn more fat in the long run.

My personal trainer, seconded this

Most trainers are half-*kitten* educated fitness freaks that believe way too much of what they read. It's incredible how easy it is to become a certified trainer these days. I've got a buddy that basically paid the tuition cheated on every test and just administers all his own personal knowledge relating to fitness to his clients and gets paid to do so. Not trying to single you out at all just want to be honest here. Hey, sounds like a pretty good gig to me though, won't lie.

MissMaryMac33

Thank you for the replies... I'm glad to know that both zones are actually still burning fat...

I sure don't want to lose muscle but I since I aim for 130-150g protein a day I'm not too worried. Today I actually hit 200g protein but that's not a normal day. I think my diet is ok... my daily next is 1300 to lose 1/2lb a week (on my last 15 lbs) and I eat most of my exercise calories back.

cirellim

I would say this all depends on your goal and diet. It is believed that if you over work your body, you will wind up with your body cannibalizing muscle instead of just burning fat. In the case that someone expects muscle growth, this is not a desirable option. Instead, it is said you should try to maintain your heart rate in a lower range (fat burning zone) so you're not losing muscle mass. It's a no brainer that you will burn more calories by working harder. You will give up muscle mass by over working your body and not dieting correctly to compensate.

Cardio does not make you go catabolic and it does not make you burn muscle if your hear rate isn't in the "fat burning zone". To be blunt, that is total non-sense, the not dieting correctly part is the only thing I can agree with but so long as you eat some type of meal before the workout (whatever it may be) your body isn't going into a catabolic state for at least 72 hours. There's empirical scientific evidence proving so.

cirellim

Thank you for the replies... I'm glad to know that both zones are actually still burning fat...

I sure don't want to lose muscle but I since I aim for 130-150g protein a day I'm not too worried. Today I actually hit 200g protein but that's not a normal day. I think my diet is ok... my daily next is 1300 to lose 1/2lb a week (on my last 15 lbs) and I eat most of my exercise calories back.

Any protein over your body weight is really unnecessary, furthermore carbohydrates are actually more muscle sparing than protein is.

kennefood

I would say this all depends on your goal and diet. It is believed that if you over work your body, you will wind up with your body cannibalizing muscle instead of just burning fat. In the case that someone expects muscle growth, this is not a desirable option. Instead, it is said you should try to maintain your heart rate in a lower range (fat burning zone) so you're not losing muscle mass. It's a no brainer that you will burn more calories by working harder. You will give up muscle mass by over working your body and not dieting correctly to compensate.

Cardio does not make you go catabolic and it does not make you burn muscle if your hear rate isn't in the "fat burning zone". To be blunt, that is total non-sense, the not dieting correctly part is the only thing I can agree with but so long as you eat some type of meal before the workout (whatever it may be) your body isn't going into a catabolic state for at least 72 hours. There's empirical scientific evidence proving so.

Thank you for correcting my statement. It was a theory I was made aware of by mulitple trainer / nutritionist / body builders, but never really understood the science behind it. Every time anything was mentioned to me about heart rate, it came with questions about my goals and diet.

MissMaryMac33

Thank you for the replies... I'm glad to know that both zones are actually still burning fat...

I sure don't want to lose muscle but I since I aim for 130-150g protein a day I'm not too worried. Today I actually hit 200g protein but that's not a normal day. I think my diet is ok... my daily next is 1300 to lose 1/2lb a week (on my last 15 lbs) and I eat most of my exercise calories back.

Any protein over your body weight is really unnecessary, furthermore carbohydrates are actually more muscle sparing than protein is.

That's why i said my normail daily is 130-150. Today was out of the norm.