ideal heart rate - does it matter that much?

yayam28

So I'm trying to figure out what's the best thing to be doing so that since I'm working at it, I might as well get the most "bang for my buck".

If I work out for 45 minutes in the "Fitness Zone" and burn 450 cals, 382 of those are from fat....I can live with that :-) But I also know that if I workout for 45 minutes in the "Aerobic Zone" and burn 680 cals, 340 of those would be from fat. If I'm working harder and burning more calories (and the net difference is only 42 calories from fat) what's the advantage to staying in the "Fitness Zone" vs "Aerobic Zone"? Don't I want to burn more calories...especially if there is such a slight difference in how many are from fat?

Perhaps this is something that's supposed to be intuitive, and I'm missing it?? :blushing: I can't seem to wrap my head around why I need to be so hung up on whether I'm burning 50% or 85% of my calories from fat. Any info to shed light on this would be appreciated :-)

Thanks

yayam28

If I had finished reading the posts before asking my question I wouldn't have needed to ask :blushing: Guess my fingers were faster than my brain (again)

DL121004

Perhaps this is something that's supposed to be intuitive, and I'm missing it?? :blushing: I can't seem to wrap my head around why I need to be so hung up on whether I'm burning 50% or 85% of my calories from fat. Any info to shed light on this would be appreciated

Simple answer: You shouldn't be.

fteale

When I run my HR is always 168-180 for 60-70 mins. I haven't had problems burning fat with that.

DL121004

When I run my HR is always 168-180 for 60-70 mins. I haven't had problems burning fat with that.

Right, and that's what I was getting at in my above posts.

The only real reasons that I can think of off the top of my head for most to work out in the fat-burning zone is that they either aren't fit enough to work at a higher rate, or they are endurance athletes training for that purpose.

For pure weight loss, just focus on burning Cals when doing your cardio.

pukekolive

As I said I am very heavy at 270lbs and have a resting heartbeat (lying in bed) of between 51 and 60. I regularly work out between 125 (easy), thru 135 (moderate) and if I want more of a sweat up around 145.

When I am walking a mile as fast as I can for fitness measuring reasons I go up as far as 160 for short periods without feeling ill effects.

Doing some cardio at high levels as part of a fitness plan is also great for heart -health and stamina and as the old saying goes 'gets the blood moving'. We all also know the increased endorphin benefits that a great burn brings!

I am walking for cardio at the moment as I am so unfit and follow a plan to increase my fitness - I have taken 6 1/2 minutes off the time it takes me to walk 1 kilometre just since late December 2011. My heartbeat recovery rate has also improved tremendously during that time.

I attribute this increase in performance to using a heart rate monitor as part of my fitness equipment.

Meggles63

When I run my HR is always 168-180 for 60-70 mins. I haven't had problems burning fat with that.

Right, and that's what I was getting at in my above posts.

The only real reasons that I can think of off the top of my head for most to work out in the fat-burning zone is that they either aren't fit enough to work at a higher rate, or they are endurance athletes training for that purpose.

For pure weight loss, just focus on burning Cals when doing your cardio.

^^^This! Keep it easy and simple and it works!

durangocal

Thanks for all the info! Was dreading the thought of having to go slow on the machine. I've always hated the fact that when I check my heart rate I am in the red zone as if I am doing something wrong-I always knew I was in the anaerobic zone but now that I have a better understanding of it bring on the RED! My weight loss thus far has been steady so I guess I shouldn't have second guessed myself although I left heavy as well so was wondering if the lifting was the reason for my weight loss. Again thanks for the great info!

furbutt

Yes! Before I was using my HRM MFP was calculating my burn at 100 cals per minute when it was truly only 70. So for a 10 mile run MFP had me at 1000 cals burned ( so needing 2100 calories) when truly the burn was 700 (as tracked by my HRM) add that up over a week and it is an extra 2000 calories not burned that I thought were!

2fit4fat

Bump

kimber89

Bump

Azdak

Thanks for all the info! Was dreading the thought of having to go slow on the machine. I've always hated the fact that when I check my heart rate I am in the red zone as if I am doing something wrong-I always knew I was in the anaerobic zone but now that I have a better understanding of it bring on the RED! My weight loss thus far has been steady so I guess I shouldn't have second guessed myself although I left heavy as well so was wondering if the lifting was the reason for my weight loss. Again thanks for the great info!

I am not sure if I missed some detail, but you don't really know if you are in the "red zone" unless you know your actual maximum heart rate, or you can correlate your exercise heart rate with feelings of perceived exertion. A lot of people have an actual max HR that is 20-30 beats/min higher than any age-prediction formula will estimate. If you are going off of a standard heart rate chart, then you may not be in the "red zone" at all.

That's my biggest issue with both heart rate training and the idea of complicated "zones". Since most people do not know their HRmax (or even that HR max can vary widely between individuals), the "zone" information can be more confusing than informative.

Throw in the phenomenon of "cardiovascular drift" (that's when, during a longer cardio workout, heart rate begins to "drift" upward with no change in workload and no change in oxygen uptake), and to me the idea of 5 training "zones" is not very useful. For most people "easy", "medium", and "hard" are all you need.

DL121004

Before I was using my HRM MFP was calculating my burn at 100 cals per minute when it was truly only 70.

Do you mean "100 Cals per mile"??

worej

Before I was using my HRM MFP was calculating my burn at 100 cals per minute when it was truly only 70.

Do you mean "100 Cals per mile"??

If you're burning 70 cals a minute, I need your routine.

durangocal

Thanks for all the info! Was dreading the thought of having to go slow on the machine. I've always hated the fact that when I check my heart rate I am in the red zone as if I am doing something wrong-I always knew I was in the anaerobic zone but now that I have a better understanding of it bring on the RED! My weight loss thus far has been steady so I guess I shouldn't have second guessed myself although I left heavy as well so was wondering if the lifting was the reason for my weight loss. Again thanks for the great info!

I am not sure if I missed some detail, but you don't really know if you are in the "red zone" unless you know your actual maximum heart rate, or you can correlate your exercise heart rate with feelings of perceived exertion. A lot of people have an actual max HR that is 20-30 beats/min higher than any age-prediction formula will estimate. If you are going off of a standard heart rate chart, then you may not be in the "red zone" at all.

That's my biggest issue with both heart rate training and the idea of complicated "zones". Since most people do not know their HRmax (or even that HR max can vary widely between individuals), the "zone" information can be more confusing than informative.

Throw in the phenomenon of "cardiovascular drift" (that's when, during a longer cardio workout, heart rate begins to "drift" upward with no change in workload and no change in oxygen uptake), and to me the idea of 5 training "zones" is not very useful. For most people "easy", "medium", and "hard" are all you need.

I like to go HARD!

godblessourhome

TRAINING ZONES
Healthy Heart Zone (Warm up) --- 50 - 60% of maximum heart rate: The easiest zone and probably the best zone for people just starting a fitness program. It can also be used as a warm up for more serious walkers. This zone has been shown to help decrease body fat, blood pressure and cholesterol. It also decreases the risk of degenerative diseases and has a low risk of injury. 85% of calories burned in this zone are fats!
Fitness Zone (Fat Burning) --- 60 - 70% of maximum heart rate: This zone provides the same benefits as the healthy heart zone, but is more intense and burns more total calories. The percent of fat calories is still 85%.
Aerobic Zone (Endurance Training) --- 70 - 80% of maximum heart rate: The aerobic zone will improve your cardiovascular and respiratory system AND increase the size and strength of your heart. This is the preferred zone if you are training for an endurance event. More calories are burned with 50% from fat.
Anaerobic Zone (Performance Training) --- 80 - 90% of maximum heart rate: Benefits of this zone include an improved VO2 maximum (the highest amount of oxygen one can consume during exercise) and thus an improved cardiorespiratory system, and a higher lactate tolerance ability which means your endurance will improve and you'll be able to fight fatigue better. This is a high intensity zone burning more calories, 15 % from fat.
Red Line (Maximum Effort) --- 90 - 100% of maximum heart rate: Although this zone burns the highest number of calories, it is very intense. Most people can only stay in this zone for short periods. You should only train in this zone if you are in very good shape and have been cleared by a physician to do so.

very interesting info! thanks!

Azdak

Thanks for all the info! Was dreading the thought of having to go slow on the machine. I've always hated the fact that when I check my heart rate I am in the red zone as if I am doing something wrong-I always knew I was in the anaerobic zone but now that I have a better understanding of it bring on the RED! My weight loss thus far has been steady so I guess I shouldn't have second guessed myself although I left heavy as well so was wondering if the lifting was the reason for my weight loss. Again thanks for the great info!

I am not sure if I missed some detail, but you don't really know if you are in the "red zone" unless you know your actual maximum heart rate, or you can correlate your exercise heart rate with feelings of perceived exertion. A lot of people have an actual max HR that is 20-30 beats/min higher than any age-prediction formula will estimate. If you are going off of a standard heart rate chart, then you may not be in the "red zone" at all.

That's my biggest issue with both heart rate training and the idea of complicated "zones". Since most people do not know their HRmax (or even that HR max can vary widely between individuals), the "zone" information can be more confusing than informative.

Throw in the phenomenon of "cardiovascular drift" (that's when, during a longer cardio workout, heart rate begins to "drift" upward with no change in workload and no change in oxygen uptake), and to me the idea of 5 training "zones" is not very useful. For most people "easy", "medium", and "hard" are all you need.

I like to go HARD!

So do I, but I have learned that all HIIT and no LSD gives Jack a dull metabolism.

Taymay75

bump

deedog007

Agreed.. half and half.. i know your in good shape especially with the higher elevation in Boulder (less oxygen)... great training location!!!

Its all about what your trying to achieve. I do half and half when I work out. For the first half of my work out i bust my *kitten* and keep my heart rate in the 80-100% range. I burn a lot of calories doing this over 700 in 35 minutes. You do not burn many calories from fat when in the higher ranges, your main fuel is glycogen. In this zone your body learns how to deal with high levels of lactic acid as well, and improves your endurance. For the second half I keep my heart rate in the 50-70%. In this range 85% of the calories you burn are from fat. I do not burn nearly as much doing this but still manage to burn around 400 calories. You will have to work longer to burn more calories but they are mostly fat so if weight loss is your goal this is key. in the 70-80% you still burn calories from fat but not nearly as many.

Heart Rate Training is the best way to achieve your goal whether is is weight loss or peak physical condition.

All of this is what i have learned from reading about it on google so sorry if i do not have the tiny details correct.

deedog007

Love it best advice i got.. i was confused about this , ever since i got my Polar Heart Rate monitor last year!!!

Let me make this easy for everyone: You burn more fat at REST than any exercise you can do in an hour. Your RMR is the rate your body uses calories at rest. Those calories are from fat and most people are well over 1000 calories a day for RMR. So what's your best bet? RAISE YOUR RMR. That's NOT going to happen through steady state cardio. The body has to be INTENSELY trained and that will usually be ANAEROBIC exercise. Heavy weight lifting, HIIT, Tabata Protocol, etc. are INTENSE training and all raise RMR.

A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

geezer99

Here is a site which considers both age and resting heart rate (which reflects your physical condition)
http://www.sportfit.com/sportfitglossary/energetics_aerobic_krvnn.html

bullriderswife08

This was so helpful! Thank you all so much for your great advice. I was wondering about these same things!

Azdak

Let me make this easy for everyone: You burn more fat at REST than any exercise you can do in an hour. Your RMR is the rate your body uses calories at rest. Those calories are from fat and most people are well over 1000 calories a day for RMR. So what's your best bet? RAISE YOUR RMR. That's NOT going to happen through steady state cardio. The body has to be INTENSELY trained and that will usually be ANAEROBIC exercise. Heavy weight lifting, HIIT, Tabata Protocol, etc. are INTENSE training and all raise RMR.

A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

But since they burn so few calories in comparison to a longer, steady-state workout, the total calorie burn is pretty much a wash (or you still burn more with a longer workout).

Studies looking at the effects of different types of exercise on RMR show results that are all over the map. Whether it's because the studies aren't done very well, or there is a lot of variability in response is unknown.

You can also get significant "afterburn" effects from higher-intensity steady-state workouts as well. In many ways, the 45 min HISS workout might be the best of all in that you can get an EPOC equal to or better than anything from HIIT, and you get a good chunk of calories burned during the workout as well--unlike HIIT or heavy weight training.

To me the bottom line, both from a research and a practical standpoint, is that, rather than chasing the "perfect" program, the vast majority of exercisers will do best with a balanced program that consists of endurance cardio, HISS, HIIT, and medium to heavy strength training.

skichick1968

Interval training, mix of cardio and resistance and try out different classes to get rid of the "boredom"! Some of my classes are intense where I'm going for endurance (kickboxing), and others are lower heart rate (Zumba). Mix it up!