Maximum Heart Rate

arewethereyet

I need some help from all you very smart MFP members.

I have been working out in the fat burning zone using the generic numbers.The formula is: 220-(your age) 47 = (100% max HR) 173 (172 come tomorrow:grumble: )

Fat burning zone should be 173 x 80% = 138 should be the fat burning mode, with spikes to 150 or so for cardio.

BUT I dont feel like I am working hard at 138, and I burn fewer calories as time goes on.

Today I went to the park. 1st let me say I walked at the same cadence as on the treadmill,because I use a pre set up Itunes routine. My HR was up 10-15 points walking the same speed, but using my body only-no little rubber thing helping me a long.

Also, for some reason I decided to see what I could do. I took off and ran flat out like I missed the bus, for about a 1/16 of a mile. My HR went to 190 and I did not explode!

I have been holding my HR by slowing down the machines thinking FAT BURN>>>>>>>>FAT BURN>>>>>>> But it appears I have not been int he FB zone for MY body.

Now I am wondering if this has been my plateau issue all along.

Anyone have any comments, concerns or advice regarding HR and working out?

"Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy."

arewethereyet

I need some help from all you very smart MFP members.

I have been working out in the fat burning zone using the generic numbers.The formula is: 220-(your age) 47 = (100% max HR) 173 (172 come tomorrow:grumble: )

Fat burning zone should be 173 x 80% = 138 should be the fat burning mode, with spikes to 150 or so for cardio.

BUT I dont feel like I am working hard at 138, and I burn fewer calories as time goes on.

Today I went to the park. 1st let me say I walked at the same cadence as on the treadmill,because I use a pre set up Itunes routine. My HR was up 10-15 points walking the same speed, but using my body only-no little rubber thing helping me a long.

Also, for some reason I decided to see what I could do. I took off and ran flat out like I missed the bus, for about a 1/16 of a mile. My HR went to 190 and I did not explode!

I have been holding my HR by slowing down the machines thinking FAT BURN>>>>>>>>FAT BURN>>>>>>> But it appears I have not been int he FB zone for MY body.

Now I am wondering if this has been my plateau issue all along.

Anyone have any comments, concerns or advice regarding HR and working out?

"Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy."

aprilvet

arewethereyet- I think this whole "fat-burning zone" thing is cr*p!!!! The harder you work yourself, the more calories you will burn!. Period. While the percentage of those calories taken from fat sources versus glycogen stores may be greater in the lower heart rate ranges, since you are burning more calories in a shorter time at the higher heart rates, you actually burn more fat over time!!! This was a huge discovery for me! And it has paid good dividends!:bigsmile: I have learned that I need to push myself and keep my heart rate in my cardiovascular zone for long periods to get real changes. AND I am more cardiovascularly fit now!!!!:drinker:

Hope this helps!!

hiddensecant

Exercising beyond your target zone is not a bad thing. If you're healthy, it wont give you a heart attack. And atheletes do it all the time to improve their performance.

While exercising in your target zone is for optimal fat-burning, exercising beyond your target zone will also burn fat. It's just not in the "optimal" range as you start to get into the anaerobic stage.

Look up HIIT and go for both (high intensity interval training).

msarro

arewethereyet- I think this whole "fat-burning zone" thing is cr*p!!!! The harder you work yourself, the more calories you will burn!. Period. While the percentage of those calories taken from fat sources versus glycogen stores may be greater in the lower heart rate ranges, since you are burning more calories in a shorter time at the higher heart rates, you actually burn more fat over time!!! This was a huge discovery for me! And it has paid good dividends!:bigsmile: I have learned that I need to push myself and keep my heart rate in my cardiovascular zone for long periods to get real changes. AND I am more cardiovascularly fit now!!!!:drinker:

Hope this helps!!

Actually, it really isn't cr*p. Your body burns different fuel sources depending on the intensity of the exercise. That's why long distance runners often can't sprint for crap - same muscles but of different compositions, burning different fuel sources.

Basically the closer you get to your max heart rate, the less calories come from fat and more come from glycogen. You are burning calories, but at the wrong place. Both will however increase your cardiovascular fitness though.

Here's a good break down:
http://www.thewalkingsite.com/thr.html

Mireille

I don't have an answer for you either but I work out at my maximum heart rate too. I don't feel like I'm working out unless I'm doing so.
:flowerforyou:

arewethereyet

I don't have an answer for you either but I work out at my maximum heart rate too. I don't feel like I'm working out unless I'm doing so.
:flowerforyou:

Thanks Mir. I am passing on the name of a good dentist for the littel dude below:laugh:

arewethereyet

arewethereyet- I think this whole "fat-burning zone" thing is cr*p!!!! The harder you work yourself, the more calories you will burn!. Period. While the percentage of those calories taken from fat sources versus glycogen stores may be greater in the lower heart rate ranges, since you are burning more calories in a shorter time at the higher heart rates, you actually burn more fat over time!!! This was a huge discovery for me! And it has paid good dividends!:bigsmile: I have learned that I need to push myself and keep my heart rate in my cardiovascular zone for long periods to get real changes. AND I am more cardiovascularly fit now!!!!:drinker:

Hope this helps!!

Actually, it really isn't cr*p. Your body burns different fuel sources depending on the intensity of the exercise. That's why long distance runners often can't sprint for crap - same muscles, different fuel source.

Basically the closer you get to your max heart rate, the less calories come from fat and more come from glycogen. You are burning calories, but at the wrong place. Both will however increase your cardiovascular fitness though.

Here's a good break down:
http://www.thewalkingsite.com/thr.html

Msarro........so what I want to know is this: Could my fat burn zone be more like 150's than 130's??? I want to burn fat, for sure.

I have been doing 3 minute intervals to shake up my system, but I am trying to figure out if I stay at 150 could this possibly be Fat Burn zone for me??

:flowerforyou:

GIBride01

[[/quote]

Actually, it really isn't cr*p. Your body burns different fuel sources depending on the intensity of the exercise. That's why long distance runners often can't sprint for crap - same muscles, different fuel source.

Basically the closer you get to your max heart rate, the less calories come from fat and more come from glycogen. You are burning calories, but at the wrong place. Both will however increase your cardiovascular fitness though.

Here's a good break down:
http://www.thewalkingsite.com/thr.html
[/quote]

Agreed, but I do think you need to do both low and high intensity workouts as part of a good routine, IMO. I know I managed to put on my extra weight doing nice, easy low intensity walks, yoga, pilates..good exercise but not burning enough to utilize all the calories I was taking in. I do a high intensity step cardio class weekly, where my heart rate frequently in the upper 190's ( my THR is 186)...even now after having done it for 4 months and 20 pounds lighter - good news is I have yet to explode. Burns a truckload of calories, help make me stronger and more fit, and the lower intensity pilates and dog walking help burn fat. Its all about balance...

hiddensecant

I have been doing 3 minute intervals to shake up my system, but I am trying to figure out if I stay at 150 could this possibly be Fat Burn zone for me??

:flowerforyou:

No, this is not the fat burning zone for you.

However, you should have a good mix between high and low intensity workouts. You can even mix it up wtih your running, going at max speed for a few minutes then backing down to target for a few minutes. If you look up High Intensity Interval Training, you'll find more specific recommendations on how many minutes you should spend at each zone.

jtintx

If you saw 190 on your HRM and there was nothing there causing electrical interference or any cross-talk with another HRM then your MaxHR is at least 190. You should use 190 in your calculations, not 173, or 172 now. BTW, Happy Birthday!

aprilvet

So, my comment on fat burning zone being cr*p got a lot of attention, but I think I was mis-understood. There is valid physiology behind it. However, if you just look at the numbers, the more calories you burn, the more weight you will lose because at the end of the day, if you are in a calorie deficit your body will draw on its fat to replenish its glycogen stores- those stores you burned through in your higher intensity workout. So for those of us that want the most bang for our buck, if I'm going to exercise for an hour, I want to burn 600 calories, not 250. Plus, with higher intensity, I am doing my heart good as well!

But as everyone has said, you need a combination of both types of training. I just don't like to hear people afraid of working out closer to their max hr because they think they won't burn fat!!!!

And 150 is definately in your cardio zone, which is about 80-85% of max.

:flowerforyou:

Azdak

arewethereyet- I think this whole "fat-burning zone" thing is cr*p!!!! The harder you work yourself, the more calories you will burn!. Period. While the percentage of those calories taken from fat sources versus glycogen stores may be greater in the lower heart rate ranges, since you are burning more calories in a shorter time at the higher heart rates, you actually burn more fat over time!!! This was a huge discovery for me! And it has paid good dividends!:bigsmile: I have learned that I need to push myself and keep my heart rate in my cardiovascular zone for long periods to get real changes. AND I am more cardiovascularly fit now!!!!:drinker:

Hope this helps!!

Actually, it really isn't cr*p. Your body burns different fuel sources depending on the intensity of the exercise. That's why long distance runners often can't sprint for crap - same muscles but of different compositions, burning different fuel sources.

Basically the closer you get to your max heart rate, the less calories come from fat and more come from glycogen. You are burning calories, but at the wrong place. Both will however increase your cardiovascular fitness though.

Here's a good break down:
http://www.thewalkingsite.com/thr.html

Yes, it IS cr*p. Fuel substrate utilized during exercise has NO effect on stored body fat. It's two completely different processes.

Iceprincessk25

I posted this already elsewhere but I'll put it here as well. It's what SONGBRYDSWEET has to say regarding HR ~ :bigsmile:

Well the 'cardio zone' vs. 'fat burning zone' is pretty dated, but every once in a while it pops back up like a cold sore.

People generally refer to the 'cardio zone' as the heart rate level during which you burn only 'sugar'. Some people think it's ineffective for fat loss, or dangerous because it puts too much strain on the heart (which is total bull). The 'fat burning zone' is generally thought to be a lower heart rate level that burns more fat and is the only thing necessary during weight loss and it spares all your glycogen for lifting, yadda yadda.

However, it's all crap, and here's what really happens:

At lower intensities, like while sitting, you're utilizing about 70% calories from oxidative systems that can use fatty acids, and 30% from non-oxidative systems that use glucose. However, you're burning almost nothing. Obviously, even though you're using more fatty acids, you're not burning calories and you're not improving your cardiovascular health. The same goes for low-intensity exercise (<65% MHR). You're still using glucose and fatty acids. At moderate levels, about 65-75% MHR, you're using glucose and fatty acids at about a 50/50 split and burning far more calories than you would at lower HR's. You can keep this up for a loooooooong time. And at higher HR, about 85%+, you're burning about 25% fatty acids and 75% glucose, but wasting a lot of calories. You can't sustain it as long though, because you teeter at the lactic acid threshold, and lactic acid causes pH changes that don't allow for proper energy production, so you reach fatigue. However, you're still going to use BOTH glucose and fatty acids, and the better trained you are, the better you can use fatty acids even at high intensities. It's important to incorporate all types of training to prevent overuse injuries and train your energy systems dynamically. But it's better to include moderate-high intensity work more often because it burns more calories and improves your cardiovascular health as well.

Hope that helps!

Azdak

This is a common problem. There is substantial variation in max heart rates. The HRmax calculations have a standard error of 10-12 bpm. That means your true HRmax could very well be 190 or higher.

If you are in good health and feel like you are "cruising" at the calculated rate, go harder if that feels OK. Use your HRM to learn about YOUR heart rate response to exercise--don't let it rule you.

And don't worry about staying in a "fat burning" zone. The entire concept is based on false science. The best cardio routines combine workouts with a mix of intensities and durations.

GIBride01

At moderate levels, about 65-75% MHR, you're using glucose and fatty acids at about a 50/50 split and burning far more calories than you would at lower HR's. You can keep this up for a loooooooong time. And at higher HR, about 85%+, you're burning about 25% fatty acids and 75% glucose, but wasting a lot of calories.

But it's better to include moderate-high intensity work more often because it burns more calories and improves your cardiovascular health as well.

Hope that helps!

First, sorry to hack the above quote to death, but I wanted to pull out the specific above chunk..If you read the posting saying why this theroy is crap, you see it really isint crap.:huh: Confusing, but...

I think the problem is the science nerds (myself included..) dont like hearing "cardio zone" and "fat burning zone", as it really oversimplifies. Moderate level intensity exercise uses stored energy ie. fat , more effectively than really high intensity exercise and you can work out longer at that moderate intensity, therefore burning more fat overall in your workout. So using the terms "cardio zone" and "fat burning zone" is scientifically incorrect, it might be an ok way for someone without the science degree to think about working out. Hope that makes sense, I just hate seeing someone told that what they think is crap.

arewethereyet

If you saw 190 on your HRM and there was nothing there causing electrical interference or any cross-talk with another HRM then your MaxHR is at least 190. You should use 190 in your calculations, not 173, or 172 now. BTW, Happy Birthday!

BINGO that is what I am looking for!!

Yes it was a true reading. I could tell my HR had not been this high in a long, long time.

:smooched:

arewethereyet

At moderate levels, about 65-75% MHR, you're using glucose and fatty acids at about a 50/50 split and burning far more calories than you would at lower HR's. You can keep this up for a loooooooong time. And at higher HR, about 85%+, you're burning about 25% fatty acids and 75% glucose, but wasting a lot of calories.

But it's better to include moderate-high intensity work more often because it burns more calories and improves your cardiovascular health as well.

Hope that helps!

First, sorry to hack the above quote to death, but I wanted to pull out the specific above chunk..If you read the posting saying why this theroy is crap, you see it really isint crap.:huh: Confusing, but...

I think the problem is the science nerds (myself included..) dont like hearing "cardio zone" and "fat burning zone", as it really oversimplifies. Moderate level intensity exercise uses stored energy ie. fat , more effectively than really high intensity exercise and you can work out longer at that moderate intensity, therefore burning more fat overall in your workout. So using the terms "cardio zone" and "fat burning zone" is scientifically incorrect, it might be an ok way for someone without the science degree to think about working out. Hope that makes sense, I just hate seeing someone told that what they think is crap.

I think the working out longer part has a lot to do with it. About 10 yrs ago I went to a small gym. They put me on a treadmill, set up the computer with Fat Burn zone and let me go. 1 hour and each time my HR would go above the FB zone, it would slow me down, or lower the incline.

I was there 3 months. My son lost 50 pounds kicking *kitten* on the ellip.........I lost 3 pounds.

I am now goingto kick it up a notch.

Thanks for ALL of your responses. I love your pearls of wisdom!

msarro

arewethereyet- I think this whole "fat-burning zone" thing is cr*p!!!! The harder you work yourself, the more calories you will burn!. Period. While the percentage of those calories taken from fat sources versus glycogen stores may be greater in the lower heart rate ranges, since you are burning more calories in a shorter time at the higher heart rates, you actually burn more fat over time!!! This was a huge discovery for me! And it has paid good dividends!:bigsmile: I have learned that I need to push myself and keep my heart rate in my cardiovascular zone for long periods to get real changes. AND I am more cardiovascularly fit now!!!!:drinker:

Hope this helps!!

Actually, it really isn't cr*p. Your body burns different fuel sources depending on the intensity of the exercise. That's why long distance runners often can't sprint for crap - same muscles but of different compositions, burning different fuel sources.

Basically the closer you get to your max heart rate, the less calories come from fat and more come from glycogen. You are burning calories, but at the wrong place. Both will however increase your cardiovascular fitness though.

Here's a good break down:
http://www.thewalkingsite.com/thr.html

Yes, it IS cr*p. Fuel substrate utilized during exercise has NO effect on stored body fat. It's two completely different processes.

Um, if that was the case, why is it the average swimmer of the English channel will burn 14lbs of pure fat during the trip? Fat is absolutely utilized during exercise, unless I'm missing what you're saying.

12by311

Tag to read later.

sarabear

I know Banks explained it to me once, and I don't remember how he put it................BANKS! HELP!!!:happy:

aprilvet

Um, if that was the case, why is it the average swimmer of the English channel will burn 14lbs of pure fat during the trip? Fat is absolutely utilized during exercise, unless I'm missing what you're saying.

In your example of swimming the English Channel, swimmers DO burn pounds of fat during their 10+ hours swim; however, they burn all of their glycogen stores first. It is not until 5-7 hours into the swim that the body runs out of glycogen and resorts to burning its fat. See this link-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2160968.stm

So, I did not intend to insult anyone; however, purposely exercising at a lower intensity just because you think you will burn more fat just doesn't play out in reality. I think this is why so many people quit exercising, thinking they're doing all this work and not getting any results.

Get out of your comfort zone, people! Your body will thank you!!!

:flowerforyou: :flowerforyou:

msarro

Um, if that was the case, why is it the average swimmer of the English channel will burn 14lbs of pure fat during the trip? Fat is absolutely utilized during exercise, unless I'm missing what you're saying.

In your example of swimming the English Channel, swimmers DO burn pounds of fat during their 10+ hours swim; however, they burn all of their glycogen stores first. It is not until 5-7 hours into the swim that the body runs out of glycogen and resorts to burning its fat. See this link-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2160968.stm

So, I did not intend to insult anyone; however, purposely exercising at a lower intensity just because you think you will burn more fat just doesn't play out in reality. I think this is why so many people quit exercising, thinking they're doing all this work and not getting any results.

Get out of your comfort zone, people! Your body will thank you!!!

:flowerforyou: :flowerforyou:

I'm going to step out on a limb here and say that a number of people here are here with medical conditions, and what works for you may be quite dangerous for others (someone with a heart condition or who is prone to strokes should never have their heart rate raised that high without the supervision of a doctor IMHO).

Further, when you train that hard you are most likely going to cross the lactic threshold, which will help.... if you want to be a sprinter or build muscle mass. For people who are trying to build endurance and burn fat, I must firmly disagree. Sure you could burn a lot of calories for 10 minutes, but you'll burn a lot more if you're able to keep the exercise going for an hour. Also depending on how long you maintain that intensity will also change the muscle composition.

jtintx

Get out of your comfort zone, people! Your body will thank you!!!

Amen!

You can go for HOURS in your so-called "fat burning zone" but who actually does work out for hours? Most people probably spend about an hour working out. So ramp up the intensity (interval work) and you'll see results more quickly.

It ain't supposed to hurt but it ain't supposed to feel good either....at least that's they way I look at it.
The feelin' good comes after the workout.

SHBoss1673

Um, what? Who Where? Someone called me?

Oh, ok, I just read through the whole thing. Um AWTY, first, if you REAAAAAALLLYYY want to know your maximum heart rate, pop by the doctor, they should be able to put you on their machine and test you. the 220 - age thing is just a very rough estimate assuming you are average in just about every way. So it's a guideline, not a rule.

For example: my wife is 37 and wears an HRM, it tells her, for instance, during spinning that she's averaging 92% MHR (Max Heart Rate) for the hour class, which she obviously isn't or she would collapse dead . What it's telling her is that she is working at what WOULD be her max heart rate if she were an average athlete with utterly average body function. She isn't so it's wrong, but if you weren't knowledgeable about this stuff, that could be a scarey number to see.


As to the fat burning zone thing. Ugh, I hate that term. But anyway. It's a ramp up process, as we work at a higher and higher heart rate, the body requires more and more energy faster and faster. Unfortunately, stored fat cannot be delivered to muscles fast enough, nor can it be converted to glycogen fast enough to re-supply our muscles when they are at the anaerobic threshold (for most that means about 82 to 88% of Max Heart Rate ).

So as we ramp up exercise and the heart rate approaches the anaerobic threshold , the percentage of energy for those muscles coming from stored glycogen goes up and up, and when the muscles run out of glycogen (called technical failure), we are unable to work for about 30 seconds to 1 minute. You know what I mean, the point where you just can't lift that bench press bar up one more time, or when you just can't do that one more pull up, that's technical failure.

What does all this have to do with fat % burned? Well, at lower levels, the body doesn't need AS MUCH energy, so it deems itself capable of converting stored fat to energy fast enough, so it uses more fat. At higher levels, the body deems itself not able to replenish energy with fat stores, so it opens up the "flood gates" of glycogen, which means less fat used.

Why I think this is a flawed and outdated notion though, isn't because of the above paragraph, it's what happens after. When the energy is depleted, it needs to be recovered, somehow. Part of that will be from the food we have eaten, but part will come from stored fat as well, so while during the exercise, we burn a higher fat % at lower levels; at higher levels, where we approach anaerobic activity, the body needs hours post exercise to replenish it's stored glycogen levels, which means a raised metabolic rate at that time (heat and hormones are needed to break down fat to glucose).

The added benefit to higher intensity activity is increased health. When we work our body close to or to failure, the body compensates by adding muscle, and lung capacity (among other things), thus allowing us to work in that higher zone for longer periods, and burn more calories for longer periods.
The downfall of higher intensity is the possibility for injury or other health problems.

Side note, this is why people who have never worked out or are really obese and work out lightly still see massive body changes in the beginning. Because when you are at that level, almost ANY workout is anaerobic, and the body reacts the same way it would if you were in good shape and working out at a very intense level. Sadly it doesn't stay this way, as our muscles develop, we need to do harder and harder work to get them to the "next level".

jtintx

This was posted by Azdak on another thread but pertains to what we are talking about:

...it doesn't make any difference. Any "fat" that you do consume during exercise is not coming from stored body fat (i.e. the visible "bulges" you see). Fuel substrates used during exercise and overall body composition changes are two different processes.

Banks...do you know what he is referring to? If we aren't burning stored body fat what are we burning?

SHBoss1673

This was posted by Azdak on another thread but pertains to what we are talking about:

...it doesn't make any difference. Any "fat" that you do consume during exercise is not coming from stored body fat (i.e. the visible "bulges" you see). Fuel substrates used during exercise and overall body composition changes are two different processes.

Banks...do you know what he is referring to? If we aren't burning stored body fat what are we burning?

No idea. Never, ever read that in any of the (feels like 10 thousand) medical studies I have read on the human metabolism.

When we run out of glycogen (or the body perceives the need for extra energy like when we exercise) the body uses the process called liposys to turn body fat into fatty acids and glycol which is then transported to the cells needing fuel or to the liver for processing. It starts this process well before we run out of glycogen though, it starts the minute the level of energy needed exceeds the amount of normal energy consumed.

Edited for sounding harsher then I meant to when I was writing. sorry for that.

Azdak

arewethereyet- I think this whole "fat-burning zone" thing is cr*p!!!! The harder you work yourself, the more calories you will burn!. Period. While the percentage of those calories taken from fat sources versus glycogen stores may be greater in the lower heart rate ranges, since you are burning more calories in a shorter time at the higher heart rates, you actually burn more fat over time!!! This was a huge discovery for me! And it has paid good dividends!:bigsmile: I have learned that I need to push myself and keep my heart rate in my cardiovascular zone for long periods to get real changes. AND I am more cardiovascularly fit now!!!!:drinker:

Hope this helps!!

Actually, it really isn't cr*p. Your body burns different fuel sources depending on the intensity of the exercise. That's why long distance runners often can't sprint for crap - same muscles but of different compositions, burning different fuel sources.

Basically the closer you get to your max heart rate, the less calories come from fat and more come from glycogen. You are burning calories, but at the wrong place. Both will however increase your cardiovascular fitness though.

Here's a good break down:
http://www.thewalkingsite.com/thr.html

Yes, it IS cr*p. Fuel substrate utilized during exercise has NO effect on stored body fat. It's two completely different processes.

Um, if that was the case, why is it the average swimmer of the English channel will burn 14lbs of pure fat during the trip? Fat is absolutely utilized during exercise, unless I'm missing what you're saying.

I read the story and it pretty much confirms what I know. Swimming the EC is a completely different activity than something the average person is going to face during exercise. I was a little abrupt in my response because I have been fighting this stuff for 25 years and it is frustrating to see it come up over and over again. And it is frustrating to see people follow poorer quality workout routines based on false information.

arewethereyet

arewethereyet- I think this whole "fat-burning zone" thing is cr*p!!!! The harder you work yourself, the more calories you will burn!. Period. While the percentage of those calories taken from fat sources versus glycogen stores may be greater in the lower heart rate ranges, since you are burning more calories in a shorter time at the higher heart rates, you actually burn more fat over time!!! This was a huge discovery for me! And it has paid good dividends!:bigsmile: I have learned that I need to push myself and keep my heart rate in my cardiovascular zone for long periods to get real changes. AND I am more cardiovascularly fit now!!!!:drinker:

Hope this helps!!

Actually, it really isn't cr*p. Your body burns different fuel sources depending on the intensity of the exercise. That's why long distance runners often can't sprint for crap - same muscles but of different compositions, burning different fuel sources.

Basically the closer you get to your max heart rate, the less calories come from fat and more come from glycogen. You are burning calories, but at the wrong place. Both will however increase your cardiovascular fitness though.

Here's a good break down:
http://www.thewalkingsite.com/thr.html

Yes, it IS cr*p. Fuel substrate utilized during exercise has NO effect on stored body fat. It's two completely different processes.

Um, if that was the case, why is it the average swimmer of the English channel will burn 14lbs of pure fat during the trip? Fat is absolutely utilized during exercise, unless I'm missing what you're saying.

I read the story and it pretty much confirms what I know. Swimming the EC is a completely different activity than something the average person is going to face during exercise. I was a little abrupt in my response because I have been fighting this stuff for 25 years and it is frustrating to see it come up over and over again. And it is frustrating to see people follow poorer quality workout routines based on false information.

Well...today is my Birthday and I get what I want.

What I wanted was different opinions, and that I got!!

Thank you one and all for your different view points. I really appreciate them all!!

I think what I have gotten from all of this is I need to vary my workout, I need to work harder (durn it ) , not listen so closely to a number written somewhere.

I need to enjoy lower level long burns as well as high intensity killing myself modes.

I was really surprised at the 190 BPM! I know in the beginning if I had done that it would have been on the local news.........KABOOM.....

So I will take it that I am getting healthier, the old ticker is pumping the way it should and now it is teasing me to do more~

Azdak

This was posted by Azdak on another thread but pertains to what we are talking about:

...it doesn't make any difference. Any "fat" that you do consume during exercise is not coming from stored body fat (i.e. the visible "bulges" you see). Fuel substrates used during exercise and overall body composition changes are two different processes.

Banks...do you know what he is referring to? If we aren't burning stored body fat what are we burning?

No idea what Azdak was talking about, and no idea where that little morsel came from. Never, ever read that in any of the (feels like 10 thousand) medical studies I have read on the human metabolism.

When we run out of glycogen (or the body perceives the need for extra energy like when we exercise) the body uses the process called liposys to turn body fat into fatty acids and glycol which is then transported to the cells needing fuel or to the liver for processing. It starts this process well before we run out of glycogen though, it starts the minute the level of energy needed exceeds the amount of normal energy consumed.

We are referring to different things. There is more than enough energy readily available in the way of circulating glucose, triglycerides, amino acids, stored muscle glycogen and stored triglycerides in the muscles themselves to fuel the average exercise workout. The body never gets to the point where it mobilizes stored adipose tissue. Unfortunately, due to several moves and computer changes, I no longer have the individual studies to cite--I thought we had put this subject to bed about 15 years ago.

So, yes, fats are utilized as a fuel substrate during exercise. And they obviously are the preferred substrate during endurance exercise since they produce almost 3x the ATP per equal amount of glucose. But you are not burning the fat off your *kitten* during the workout itself (unless you are swimming the english channel).

I fight against the "fat burning" concept partly because it is wrong, but mostly because I see it as an unnecessary distraction. The optimal fitness routine is one that is going to combine weight loss and improve fitness, that includes a variety of workouts. That means endurance workouts, cross training workouts, interval workouts, higher intensity workouts, etc--all, of course, relevant to the individual's fitness level, health, etc. That will result in not only weight loss, but improved fitness and health as well--which then allows the person to engage in higher-quality workouts and which leads to: greater weight loss and greater improvement in health and fitness. All too often, I hear from people who are drudging through mediocre, boring workouts because some "expert" told them they had to stay in the "fat burning" zone.

SHBoss1673

So, yes, fats are utilized as a fuel substrate during exercise. And they obviously are the preferred substrate during endurance exercise since they produce almost 3x the ATP per equal amount of glucose. But you are not burning the fat off your *kitten* during the workout itself (unless you are swimming the english channel).

I cut out the part I disagree with. Humans do, in fact, break down adipose (body) fat during exercise. The degree of which is determined by our body, and to a degree, how fit we are, but it happens during exercise for all humans.

I'll cite the following study as my main source, but I have others (I'd need to find them again).

http://tinyurl.com/dn9a5j

In general I agree that we need to do more then just moderate activity, but to say that exercise doesn't burn body fat at all is wrong, even in routines that don't completely deplete glycogen stores.


I'll quote part of the study's findings:

"Mild- or moderate-intensity exercise [25–65% of maximal oxygen consumption (O2max)] is associated with a 5–10-fold increase in fat oxidation above resting amounts (3) because of increased energy requirements of muscle and enhanced fatty acid availability. A large portion of the increased supply of fatty acids is provided by lipolysis of adipose tissue triacylglycerols,"