Debate making me so CONFUSED! Intensity for Fat Burn???

amandavictoria80

Hi.

I'm really confused with the debate about zones and target heart rate/intensity with doing cardio to lose fat.

When I do cardio, I work at about 90% of my maximum heart rate. Which I would consider high intensity because I really have to push myself. Isn't that what it's all about? Or so I thought. We'll, from what I keep hearing it's not.

Should I be doing cardio at a lower intensity, or as I read it, the "Fat Burning Zone" of about 75%-80%?
I just assumed the more calories I burn, which is obviously much more at a higher intensity, is all that matters.
But I still have lots of fat in areas like my stomach even though I lose weight pretty proportionately. Maybe it's because I'm working out at too high an intensity? I'll add that I do strength/weight training as well as my cardio.

Can everyone settle this debate for me? I'd rather go by what results others have experienced.

Mayor_West

Should I be doing cardio at a lower intensity, or as I read it, the "Fat Burning Zone" of about 75%-80%?

The "Fat Burning Zone" is a myth.

I just assumed the more calories I burn, which is obviously much more at a higher intensity, is all that matters.
But I still have lots of fat in areas like my stomach even though I lose weight pretty proportionately. Maybe it's because I'm working out at too high an intensity? I'll add that I do strength/weight training as well as my cardio.

You can't spot-reduce bodyfat, so regardless of how you do your cardio, it won't make a difference.

There's a lot of information out there on High Intensity Interval Training- google 'HIIT" to get more information on it and how to incorporate it into your workouts. One of the many benefits of it is that it raises your metabolism for a longer period than standard cardio, meaning you burn more calories and thus, greater amounts of bodyfat.

ahamm002

The fat burning zone is not all it's cracked up to be. Continue your HIIT and you'll probably burn a lot more fat.

If you're confused about the fat burning zone, here's a quick dirty run down on it:

1. Different types of exercises and different intensity levels cause your body uses different energy systems.
2. The infamous "fat burning zone" occurs during moderate intensity cardio, during which time your body utilizes fat for a greater PERCENTAGE of the energy used then during other types of exercise.
3. This lead to the the theory that moderate intensity cardio is good for fat burning.
4. However, your body is analog, not digital. So while you might be burning a higher percentage of calories from fat during moderate intensity cardio, it's not really that big of a difference. So don't worry about the "fat burning zone."
5. Many studies have shown superior fat loss from HIIT when compared to moderate intensity endurance cardio.

c2sky

You could not possibly be working at your true 90% the entire time, only on intervals which is fine. Usually people can maintain 90% for about a minute or 2 at the most, then they have to decrease their intensity long enough to recover. 90% according to the charts is not always accurate. It has much more to do with than age. So please learn to perceive your exertion level on a scale of 1-10.

For those of you wondering, I"m a trainer with 23 years of experience. And here is the unscientific, but very simple method, I have come up with to monitor intensity, based on the "talk test" method.
If you can say 5 words between breaths, you are at a level 5 intensity or 50% of true hr.
If you can say 4 words between breaths, you are at a level 6 or 60% hr.
If you can say 3 words between breaths, you are at a level 7 or 70% hr.
If you can say 2 words between breaths, you are at a level 8 or 80 %.
If you can say 1 word between breaths, you are at a level 9 or 90%.

So my forumla (which has anecdotedly proven to work well) is that you count the number of words you can say between breaths, subtract that number from 10 and you have a good idea what level you are working at. Add a "0" to that number and you have a good idea of your true heart rate response. If you wear a hr monitor, assess your intensity, THEN look at your corresponding hr. This should be the levels you judge by, and that hr response will change as your fitness level changes. That is why perceived exertion is much better to judge by than hr, and I never go by the age charts. Those are just a general starting point.

But Do you see why you couldn't be at 90% the entire workout? You can if you have breaks or recovery, but not the whole workout.

Now to answer what the core of your debate seems to be, yes you use fat for energy in the lower intensity levels (5-6) but your overall calorie burn is lower. When you work out at higher intensities, you burn more overall calories, including those used in fat consumption. You will not spot reduce, however.

Now, as a trainer, I look at a person's overall goals. I take issue with those who promote ONLY interval and hard core training all the time, and I take issue with those who criticize people who do endurance training for weight loss. It depends on the person's goals. For fat loss, both are advantageous, and both ( if appropriate for the person) should be used to utilize all energy systems, avoid over training and injuries, allow for tapering and for cardiovascular health.

The important thing is that you need to progress and vary your workouts, don't just do the same thing all the time, whether it's lower or higher intensity. Build upon your intensity levels, in your cardio workouts AND your strength workouts. Vary what you do. Don't just lift the same way, or do the same videos all the time. I run but I build on those, and I have days that are intervals, days that are hills, days that are distance, and days that are maintenance. I have different strength that I do as well. And of course I do Zumba, boot camp, hiking, and other things. I'm taking a kayaking class this summer. Variety is good, but it should not be haphazard. Just don't get in a rut.

So just start out with what you are doing, build on it, monitor your intensity with understanding and add variety. I am trying to make it simple for you, but that's why personal trainers are valuable. They understand all this stuff, and good trainers know that one size does NOT fit all. So please try the pointers I have given, and let me know it goes.

amandavictoria80

Thanks for all the great info.

My heart rate monitor reads 90-97% the whole workout. I do that for about 30 minutes or more. No breaks.

c2sky

That's why you need to assess your intensity. If it's telling you 90%, it's giving you age adjusted, which is general and may not be accurate. You need to figure out how hard YOU are working through your own assessment of your own exertion level. Also, hr monitors can sometimes not accurately pick up your changes. Pay attention to your breathing. Are you speeding up and slowing down, or maintaining the same speed? If you are maintaining the same speed and you can go at that pace for a lot longer than 2 minutes, without having to slow down and recover for a while, I can guarantee it's NOT 90% of what you're truly able to do.

ahamm002

Thanks for all the great info.

My heart rate monitor reads 90-97% the whole workout. I do that for about 30 minutes or more. No breaks.

Yeah, as c2sky said, you can't possibly be at 90-97% for 30 minutes straight. The old 220-age calculation is often not accurate for true max heart rate.

c2sky

Thanks for all the great info.

My heart rate monitor reads 90-97% the whole workout. I do that for about 30 minutes or more. No breaks.

Yeah, as c2sky said, you can't possibly be at 90-97% for 30 minutes straight. The old 220-age calculation is often not accurate for true max heart rate.

Ture that! For example, my husband is an elite cyclist. He easily can maintain a hr of 180-190 for a good length of time, and he's 53. According to a chart or a general stat on a hr monitor, he should be training at 120-140. But that is way too easy for him. I trained a very active 82 year old woman. According to the hr charts her 80% hr should be about 110. But she got up to 140 before she even started breathing hard at all.

amandavictoria80

That's why you need to assess your intensity. If it's telling you 90%, it's giving you age adjusted, which is general and may not be accurate. You need to figure out how hard YOU are working through your own assessment of your own exertion level. Also, hr monitors can sometimes not accurately pick up your changes. Pay attention to your breathing. Are you speeding up and slowing down, or maintaining the same speed? If you are maintaining the same speed and you can go at that pace for a lot longer than 2 minutes, without having to slow down and recover for a while, I can guarantee it's NOT 90% of what you're truly able to do.

What's the point in wearing a chest strap and HRM then?
Seems like a lot of prep, discomfort and inconvenience for something that isn't very accurate anyways.
I'd love to just forget the hrm and not wear it if it isn't an accurate read of how hard I'm working.
Would this mean that my calories burned could be inaccurate as well? Oh my.

meshashesha2012

That's why you need to assess your intensity. If it's telling you 90%, it's giving you age adjusted, which is general and may not be accurate. You need to figure out how hard YOU are working through your own assessment of your own exertion level. Also, hr monitors can sometimes not accurately pick up your changes. Pay attention to your breathing. Are you speeding up and slowing down, or maintaining the same speed? If you are maintaining the same speed and you can go at that pace for a lot longer than 2 minutes, without having to slow down and recover for a while, I can guarantee it's NOT 90% of what you're truly able to do.

What's the point in wearing a chest strap and HRM then?
Seems like a lot of prep, discomfort and inconvenience for something that isn't very accurate anyways.
I'd love to just forget the hrm and not wear it if it isn't an accurate read of how hard I'm working.
Would this mean that my calories burned could be inaccurate as well? Oh my.

you set it up by taking a fit test where it calculates your V02 max for you, or if you already know what your V02 max is you should be able to manually input it.

if you arent setting it up for you (age, weight, gender AND V02 info) then it's not going to be that accurate.

and to answer your question, i'm having great success with having like 60% of my workouts be at the upper range of the cardio range/almost pushing into anaerobic, 25% in anaerobic range (HIIT) and the other 15% is lower fat burning range.

c2sky

I personally don't use one, but some of my clients do. I think if you do NOT know your true VO2 max, then you should try the "talk" test. Then correspond the numbers with the hr monitor to get a better idea. Then if it's worth it for you, wear it.

spartangirl79

Also, other factors can influence the talk test. For years I have been working out at the highest intensity possible (literally could get one word out between breaths, MAYBE two, when running) and had been super frustrated at my lack of speed and improvement.

Turns out I had exercise-induced asthma this whole time. My LUNGS were working to their max, but my body was not, so I never ever made any improvement in my fitness or running performance.

Just a random tidbit that probably has nothing to do with your question but I found it extremely enlightening. Since getting an inhaler, my HR is lower on runs, and my RPE is expectedly lower and I can go farther/longer without walk breaks. (duh, right?)

c2sky

Also, other factors can influence the talk test. For years I have been working out at the highest intensity possible (literally could get one word out between breaths, MAYBE two, when running) and had been super frustrated at my lack of speed and improvement.

Turns out I had exercise-induced asthma this whole time. My LUNGS were working to their max, but my body was not, so I never ever made any improvement in my fitness or running performance.

Just a random tidbit that probably has nothing to do with your question but I found it extremely enlightening. Since getting an inhaler, my HR is lower on runs, and my RPE is expectedly lower and I can go farther/longer without walk breaks. (duh, right?)

wow, glad you got that taken care of! My daughter has asthma. I should have thought to tell her of that, but I don't sense the poster has this problem.