Exercise Zones??

jennbarrette

I recently got a HRM (Polar F7) and am a little confused about the exercise zones. I usually do circuit training (DVDs or EA Active) and my heart rate is in the Aerobic (70%-80% of max) to anaerobic zone (80% to 90%), but it seems for weightloss you are suppose to stay in the Weight Control zone (60%-70% of max)

Should I lower the intensity of my workouts to burn more fat, or is exercising in the upper zones still good? I really could imagine working out in the 60%-70% zone. I usually exercise 30 min twice a day.

fjtcjt

Usually the more intense your workouts are the better. Your higher hear rate causes you to burn more calories in less time and it also encourages your body to burn calories even after you have stopped your workout unlike the less intense workouts.

jennbarrette

Usually the more intense your workouts are the better. Your higher hear rate causes you to burn more calories in less time and it also encourages your body to burn calories even after you have stopped your workout unlike the less intense workouts.

That is what I thought, but then I read that high intensity burns less fat. So I was confused.

McLachfan

I've heard both and I just don't get it!

adopt4

According to my trainer it also depends on how in shape you are. He bumped mine up because I'd been going to the gym regularly for 3 mos, so now my goal is the higher ranges for my cardio.

Learning2LoveMe

Jillian was actually talking about this not too long ago on her radio show. (Btw, I LOVE Jillian :laugh: )

Anywho, basically her answer was to keep your heart rate up as it burns more overall calories, whereas the "fat burning zone" which is a little lower intensity burns just fat calories. There was some weird equation to it all but the end result was that its better to burn more overall calories with the higher heart rate, and the difference in actual fat calories being burned is pretty close to the same.

I hope this kinda makes sense. I'm not the best at explaining things. If I confused you, I apologize... let me know and I'll try to dig up the episode where she explained it. :happy:

jennbarrette

Jillian was actually talking about this not too long ago on her radio show. (Btw, I LOVE Jillian :laugh: )

Anywho, basically her answer was to keep your heart rate up as it burns more overall calories, whereas the "fat burning zone" which is a little lower intensity burns just fat calories. There was some weird equation to it all but the end result was that its better to burn more overall calories with the higher heart rate, and the difference in actual fat calories being burned is pretty close to the same.

I hope this kinda makes sense. I'm not the best at explaining things. If I confused you, I apologize... let me know and I'll try to dig up the episode where she explained it. :happy:

That makes sense. High intensity revs up your metabolism for a while after you exercise, so it burns more over all. I think I get it now Thanks!

jljohnson

I was really hoping for Banks to weigh in on this one. He always has tons of scientific info on this kind of stuff, and I think he could give some good info. I'm guessing the other posters are correct - more calorie burn overall is better than lower burn of just fat.

Azdak

Heart rate monitors are great motivators and measuring tools--I feel absolutely naked exercising without one.

However--it is easy to make things more complicated than they need to be.

As a general rule: read the manual to learn how to push the buttons, and set up the HRM. Be very wary about the exercise information.

Also, don't get too caught up in the "zones". The amount of actual "fat" burned during an exercise workout is inconsequential in the big picture--it's the calories that are more important. And even more important than the calories is increasing fitness. Plus, things like age variation and "cardiovascular drift" (increases in heart rate during a workout with no increase in intensity) make HR response to exercise less amenable to 5 or 6 precise "zone" as some authors would have you believe.

I am a big believer that your program should be structured around your fitness needs--you can increase the calorie expenditure by doing more workouts per week. Focus on fitness as much as on calorie expenditure.

OK, back to "zones" . There are essentially 3 "zones"--Easy, medium, hard. That's really all you need to know. All should be included in your routine.

Easy: 1-2 per week-- longer duration, easier intensity (55%-65%) workouts.

Medium: 2-3 per week-- medium duration, medium intensity (60%-70%) workouts

Hard: 1-2 per week-- shorter duration, higher intensity (70%-85%) workouts.

Within these guidelines, you can do a lot of different things--intervals, classes, etc. If you can only do say 4 workouts a week, try 1-2-1 as a ratio. Or do 4 "core" workouts a week, and do something recreational on the other days--long walks, bike rides, etc--just to burn more calories.

I also recommend that you do your normal routines at first and just observe your heart rate response to your current routine. Match your heart rate response to your feelings of perceived exertion and you will get a better sense of what constitutes "easy", "medium" and "hard".

jennbarrette

Thanks for the help Azdak. I really appreciate that you took that time to explain it all. I think I am probably working within those guidelines, I do a long walk with my kids once or twice a week (easy), and the medium to hard workouts 6 days a week, so I think I am doing well.