Target Heart Rate Zones

yuliyax

So there is this website http://www.exercise.com/tools/target-heart-rate-calculator
And it has different target heart rate zones - fat burn, cardio, training, hardcore, what is the difference between them
I keep my heart rate between 165-180 which means I am in training and hardcore zones does that mean I won't burn as much fat if I were keeping it in lower fatburn zone even though I am burning more calories?
Please explain about target heart rate zones, so confused

Azdak

A lot of these articles overcomplicate these issues. For the average person, there are basically three "zones":

Easy

Medium

Hard

To improve your fitness, I recommend that people include all three in their routines. Longer, slower endurance workouts are done at an easy pace for a longer duration--e.g. 50%-55% effort for 60 min.

Hard workouts are usually done as intervals--alternate short "work" intervals at 85%-95% effort with recovery intervals. With warm up and cool down, these will often last no longer than 20-25 min.

Medium workouts can be done either as intervals or as continuous workouts. These are longer workouts, incorporating either longer intervals (2-10 min) at a pace that is pushing it but still tolerable, or "higher-intensity steady state" workouts where you are maintaining a harder pace, but one that can be sustained for 30-45 min.

The focus on training at different zones is on improving fitness, not necessary burning calories, but I find that doing one often enhances the other. The more fit you are, the harder you can work at any effort level, and the more calories you will burn.

Do not worry about "fat burning" or "fat burning" zones. The type of fuel you burn during an exercise session has NO effect on stored body fat.

yuliyax

Thank you!

scorpio516

Anything that starts with the 220-age=max HR is worthless.

"fat burning zone" is kinda stupid too. It's just the zone of work where the highest percentage of calories burned are fat. At harder working zones, a lower percentage of fat is burned, but ALWAYS a higher amount of fat calories.

Lets say in your fat burning zone, 75% of calories burned are fat calories, and you burn 300 cal/hr. Meaning you burn 225 fat calories.
Lets say at a hard working zone, you only burn 50% of calories as fat. But you burn 1000 cal/hr. You've just burned 500 fat calories.

C00lCountry

What is a good formula for you to use to calculate where you should be at with Heart Rate?

yuliyax

So how come HIIT is better for weightloss, surely exercising with high HR non stop would be better?

yuliyax

What is a good formula for you to use to calculate where you should be at with Heart Rate?

http://www.exercise.com/tools/target-heart-rate-calculator - as long as you know your resting hr

JoshuaL86

Bump

Azdak

So how come HIIT is better for weightloss, surely exercising with high HR non stop would be better?

HIIT is not necessarily "better for weightloss". It's one of those issues where you can't make a blanket statement that applies to all people in all situations. In small-group, carefully controlled studies, high intensity cardio has been shown to result in 'higher" fat loss, but the effects are very modest, the study groups relatively small. So you have to be careful about overgeneralizing the results. The exact mechanism is unknown, but it is suspected that HIIT results in the release of hormones that enhance fat mobilization and oxidation.

There is also some research to support the idea that "high-intensity steady state" exercise might be even more effective. That is closer to what you are describing. You get many of the same benefits as HIIT, but also a much higher immediate calorie burn. Again, there is not enough research to draw any definitive conclusions.

Too often this discussion turns into a false "either/or" debate based more on ideological positions. For the average person, following a balanced program is still going to provide the best results in the long run.