Too much Anaerobic bad for weight loss?

SPNLuver83

I was wondering.... during most of my workouts I tend to average in the 90% range.... Is this bad for fat loss? My HRM says "fat loss" is at something like 70-85%, but working like that for most of a workout does not feel like it would give me results....

Like today during my Turbo Fire 60 class My min heart rate was at 56% (during warm up) (I did some ab work beforehand so it wasn't at full resting), peak was 106% and average was 91%. Is that bad if I am trying to loose fat??? Logic tells me the harder I push the more fat I burn

BrianSharpe

Forget everything you've heard about the "fat burning" zone. Yes, it's true that lower intensity cadrio (around 60-65% MaxHR) burns a higher proportion of fat as fuel but at the higher intensity you're burning more calories and you're still burning a portion of them from fat (and your heart is getting a better workout).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/the-secret-to-weight-loss-workouts-you-may-not-like-the-answer/article1662687/

http://scienceblogs.com/obesitypanacea/2010/06/the_myth_of_the_fat_burning_zo.php

http://www.myfit.ca/archives/viewanarticle.asp?table=fitness&ID=66&subject=Fat+Burning+Zone

keep it simple, burning more calories in total is more important than the proportionate fuel sources.

SPNLuver83

bump

FitFoodieMomBillie

I've been wondering this myself!

amyindm

What we learned in strength and conditioning classes was pretty much exactly what Brian said.

SPNLuver83

mmmm gotcha. thanks Brian!

myfitnessnmhoy

I agree with Brian, however I just want to throw out a (possibly overly cautious) warning (that probably isn't relevant to anyone reading the thread, but you never know).

For a normal, resonably fit, healthy individual, running your heart occasionally at 90% or even over 100% is healthy and even beneficial. You gotta "blow out the carbon" every now and again. Doing 100+% as your routine workout, possibly not so much, but most of my workouts stay firmly in the 90% range and I enjoy working out in that range far more than the 70% range (plus I never have much time to work out, so I have to make every minute count).

However, before you start a regimen of any exercise that includes very elevated heart rates, please make sure you mention it to your doctor and get their advice. It's advisable to at least do some minimal bloodwork and perhaps a mild stress test just to make sure there are no underlying problems that could ruin your day.

myfitnessnmhoy

I'll also add - the number of calories burned per minute doesn't rise meteorically between 70% and 90%. It's a better CARDIO workout, and you do burn more calories per minute, but you can sustain your workout at 70% a whole lot longer than you can at 90%. So if your goal is to lose weight, the "weight loss zone" is still useful, as long as you have plenty of time to exercise.

http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

At 160bpm, a fat old 220-pound 43-year-old male such as myself would burn about 1067 calories per hour. At 45 minutes of 160pbm, I'm usually pretty exhausted. So figure I can burn about 800 calories, give or take, before I can't burn any more.

At 140bpm, the same fat old me can burn 885 calories per hour. 140pbm isn't very tiring, so I can easily sustain that for an hour, and burn 85 calories with less apparent effort.

At 120bpm, I'd burn about 705 calories per hour. I could sustain a pace of 120bpm for many hours.

So for *weight loss*, it depends on your tolerance for exhaustion and the amount of time you can spend exercising. In my case, I have a one-hour lunch at work where we have decent equipment and a shower. That's 45 on the elliptical trainer and 15 minutes for a shower and to get ready to return to my desk. So I get my heart rate built up to 160 in about 15 minutes, and run at 160 until the clock runs out, and cool down while I stretch. That burns on the order of 700 calories, which is an optimal number given my available time and tolerance for exhaustion.

So the "weight loss zone" is still useful for someone looking for a long workout, and/or someone with a low tolerance for exhaustion. If an average-fit person goes for a brisk walk and can only get up to 120bpm, but can keep that walk up for three hours, they'll burn 2,100 calories. That's about three to four times as many calories as an average-fit person who runs to the point of collapse, and their workout won't hurt as much as the runner's does, so they're more likely to want to do it again. It'll just take them six times as long.

How much time do you have, and how much do you enjoy sweating?

Personally I find an exhausting workout more rewarding, and as I said before I have precious little time to spend working out.

meshashesha2012

it hasnt been a hindrance for me. i currently do 3 anaerobic HIIT sessions a week, each one is 12-15 minutes (15 seconds sprint drills). i'd love to be able to add another session but at the moment my body screams NOOOO at a 4th session.