Question about fat, oxygen and HRZ

YassSpartan

So, I've seen posts about this before and I decided to elaborate a little bit in my question to see what you guys (whoever replies to this) think about this.

When I went to school one of the chapters talked about the heart rate zone (or how I called it on the subject HRZ) in regards to burning calories and the source of energy would use. The two main sources they went over it was body fat and oxygen. Of course, this topic wasn't covered in depth because it wasn't a class to become personal trainer or anything like that.

The explanation we got was that when calculating the "zone" using methods like the Karvonen Formula, you could calculate the zone or range (High and Low) where you should keep your heart beats in order to make the body use body fat as your primary source of fuel instead of oxygen (and I said primary not the only source of fuel).

Of course, there are places where they make references to bodybuilders and how they aren't too good when it comes about cardiovascular exercises and the reason why is because when they use the treadmill or other cardio machines the intensity is low since they're mainly looking to stay within "fat burning zone". True or not, I have no idea.

On the other hand, the higher your heart rate means the more you're working out, therefore you're burning more calories. Since weight loss is about burning calories, that's where the whole confusion about whether or not staying within the "zone" is the way to go or not starts. Myself included can't really understand what it is the best way to go.

Programs like P90X (I know some people like the program or some others don't) make a lot of emphasis throughout the cardiovascular DVDs to make sure to use a HRM and stay within the zone. This makes me think there is truth behind this "zone".

So before I finish, when I used Google to find more information about this, I found pretty interesting the example this website uses. The say the woman "burns more total calories and more fat calories at a higher intensity", yet the chart the show has a higher % of fat calories burned at the bottom of it. This is very confusing to be honest.



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

What are your opinions about the "fat burning zone"?

DL121004

I wrote a blog post on this very topic the other day. Hopefully it clarifies the issue for you.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/DL121004/view/heart-rate-monitors-zone-training-and-fat-burn-216961

3laine75

EatClenTrenHard

I wrote a blog post on this very topic the other day. Hopefully it clarifies the issue for you.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/DL121004/view/heart-rate-monitors-zone-training-and-fat-burn-216961

yeah thanks for post

I believe its all about calories in/out.

rainbowbow

I believe you should also take into account the "after burn" that strength exercise provides vs. aerobic exercise. I believe there was a study (don't have the link right now) however it said something along the lines of-

Aerobic range exercise- 400 calories burned in shorter amount of time
Far burning strength training- 400 calories burned in longer period of time

The people who did strength training in the fat burn range continued to burn elevated amount of calories and ended up burning an additional 400 calories throughout the day.

Thoughts? Does it rely on intensity/breakdown of type II muscle fibers?
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/betteru25.htm

I believe with aerobic activity you are using type 1 muscle fibers and this is usually in the "high intensity aerobic range". Type 2 is usually burned with "fat burning/low intensity" which continue to burn calories to regenerate.

DL121004

I believe you should also take into account the "after burn" that strength exercise provides vs. aerobic exercise. I believe there was a study (don't have the link right now) however it said something along the lines of-

Aerobic range exercise- 400 calories burned in shorter amount of time
Far burning strength training- 400 calories burned in longer period of time

The people who did strength training in the fat burn range continued to burn elevated amount of calories and ended up burning an additional 400 calories throughout the day.

Thoughts? Does it rely on intensity/breakdown of type II muscle fibers?

You raise another good point in terms of opting for more vigorous exercise, but in terms of "after burn", it is true regardless of type (cardio or resistance).

OTOH, as you build muscle with resistance work, your metabolic rate will increase due to the increased muscle mass.

There are different fitness benefits to both cardio and weight work, and that's why most people recommend a combination of both for general fitness. But when it comes to weight loss, the more vigorous, the better.

YassSpartan

I wrote a blog post on this very topic the other day. Hopefully it clarifies the issue for you.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/DL121004/view/heart-rate-monitors-zone-training-and-fat-burn-216961

Like I posted on your blog, thanks for sharing it.

Now I have another question. When we talk about calories, we're talking about a unit of measurement.

Now correct me if I'm wrong (which I probably am lol) Calories burned is the way we measure catabolism in this case, which could be the process of the cells consuming resources to perform (whatever the cells' functions might be). If that's the case, wouldn't it make sense to use more fat as "fuel" for the cells than any other type of "fuel" like oxygen or whatever else the cells use? It makes sense when we talk about burning more calories, but I'm thinking about this in a different way. For example, using this analogy, a hybrid uses electricity and gas (gas being fat to the human and let's say electricity is oxygen in this case), when the car is going from 0 to 50 it uses gas, once it gets to 50 or more it switches to electricity. Wouldn't this be kind of the same when it comes about fat burning zone?

If what I just say is not true, please forgive me, I'm just making up things trying to figure this out :bigsmile:

DL121004

I wrote a blog post on this very topic the other day. Hopefully it clarifies the issue for you.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/DL121004/view/heart-rate-monitors-zone-training-and-fat-burn-216961

Like I posted on your blog, thanks for sharing it.

Now I have another question. When we talk about calories, we're talking about a unit of measurement.

Now correct me if I'm wrong (which I probably am lol) Calories burned is the way we measure catabolism in this case, which could be the process of the cells consuming resources to perform (whatever the cells' functions might be). If that's the case, wouldn't it make sense to use more fat as "fuel" for the cells than any other type of "fuel" like oxygen or whatever else the cells use? It makes sense when we talk about burning more calories, but I'm thinking about this in a different way. For example, using this analogy, a hybrid uses electricity and gas (gas being fat to the human and let's say electricity is oxygen in this case), when the car is going from 0 to 50 it uses gas, once it gets to 50 or more it switches to electricity. Wouldn't this be kind of the same when it comes about fat burning zone?

If what I just say is not true, please forgive me, I'm just making up things trying to figure this out :bigsmile:

A Calorie is a unit of energy: the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius at sea level.

(Not to confuse things, but technically, a Calorie is 1000 calories, or kcal for kilo-calories).

What makes sense for the body to use is a combination, based on current requirements as determined by work load/effort. It's easier to use glycogen, a little more work to use fat stores as it has to go through a metabolic process to release those stores and convert them to glycogen.

That's why (to simplify) the body can burn more fat at lower intensity: the workload is such that it can use the fat stores and reserve the glycogen for more important uses. Under more vigorous work conditions, the body needs to rely more on glycogen due to that same time consuming metabolic process to burn fat.

Does that answer your question?

YassSpartan

A Calorie is a unit of energy: the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius at sea level.

(Not to confuse things, but technically, a Calorie is 1000 calories, or kcal for kilo-calories).

What makes sense for the body to use is a combination, based on current requirements as determined by work load/effort. It's easier to use glycogen, a little more work to use fat stores as it has to go through a metabolic process to release those stores and convert them to glycogen.

That's why (to simplify) the body can burn more fat at lower intensity: the workload is such that it can use the fat stores and reserve the glycogen for more important uses. Under more vigorous work conditions, the body needs to rely more on glycogen due to that same time consuming metabolic process to burn fat.

Does that answer your question?

100% answered.

And you should be preparing your gun or knife, depending on what's your weapon of preference, to kill me LOL. But doesn't this answer basically says that yes, we burn more fat within the lower intensity "fat zone" than during the higher intensity workout?

YassSpartan

I think I'll end up taking nutrition and Personal Training classes LOL

Brunner26_2

I wrote a blog post on this very topic the other day. Hopefully it clarifies the issue for you.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/DL121004/view/heart-rate-monitors-zone-training-and-fat-burn-216961

Great post.

Here's a link to a Runner's World article that goes into more detail about the training aspect you mentioned at the end, for anyone who's interested.

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-238-267--1039-0,00.html

DL121004

A Calorie is a unit of energy: the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius at sea level.

(Not to confuse things, but technically, a Calorie is 1000 calories, or kcal for kilo-calories).

What makes sense for the body to use is a combination, based on current requirements as determined by work load/effort. It's easier to use glycogen, a little more work to use fat stores as it has to go through a metabolic process to release those stores and convert them to glycogen.

That's why (to simplify) the body can burn more fat at lower intensity: the workload is such that it can use the fat stores and reserve the glycogen for more important uses. Under more vigorous work conditions, the body needs to rely more on glycogen due to that same time consuming metabolic process to burn fat.

Does that answer your question?

100% answered.

And you should be preparing your gun or knife, depending on what's your weapon of preference, to kill me LOL. But doesn't this answer basically says that yes, we burn more fat within the lower intensity "fat zone" than during the higher intensity workout?

I do have a CCW, but you need not worry - questioning/learning is a good thing! :laugh:

Read my blog post again.

We burn a higher *percent* of fat, but due to the greater Caloric expenditure, the *actual* fat Calories may be the same or higher at a higher intensity.

YassSpartan

I do have a CCW, but you need not worry - questioning/learning is a good thing! :laugh:

Read my blog post again.

We burn a higher *percent* of fat, but due to the greater Caloric expenditure, the *actual* fat Calories may be the same or higher at a higher intensity.

Oops, going back to your blog lol

DL121004

nm

tross0924

I do have a CCW, but you need not worry - questioning/learning is a good thing! :laugh:

Read my blog post again.

We burn a higher *percent* of fat, but due to the greater Caloric expenditure, the *actual* fat Calories may be the same or higher at a higher intensity.

Right so say you burn 50% of your calories from fat at low intensity and 30% at high intensity. During the same time period you burn 50 calories doing the low intensity and 100 calories at high intensity. Yes at the low intensity you burned a greater percentage of calories from fat, but the total number of calories from fat is less. 25 calories compared to 30.

So higher intensity = more total calories burned AND more fat calories burned.

ETA - all numbers fictionalized for mathematical ease.