HRM fat calories vs. regular calories burned?

Laceylala

I have a Polar F6 and for the past several weeks have been going back and forth between my low, mid and high heart rates to see how many calories I burn in each range.
I find that I have much better form doing my circuit training in the low range. And I can do cardio either in mid or high depending on how ambitious I am that day.
I notice that when I do my circuit training on low, when I push stop and look at the stats the HRM tells me "55% fat cals." When I do mid range for circuit training or cardio and push stop at the end it says "45% fat cals." And in the high range "40% fat cals."

Here is my Q: What's the a difference? I mean I get the general dif...but could use some elaboration, because many of us are generally just concerned with how many cals we burn each day in trying to lose weight. And I doubt it is a "bottom line" kind of thing when it comes to burning calories.
Should we be striving to hit that lower HR to burn more fat cals? Or does it really matter in the end? Are calories just calories? Or when you burn fat cals are you building more muscle? Because it doesn't seem that way to me, but I must not be googling the right word combo to find information on this right now!

Thanks for the input, Lacey

Azdak

Calories are calories. That "Fat %" number on the HRM is really there for entertainment purposes only. It has NO relevance to your weight loss program and not only does it have no scientific validation, the scientific evidence directly contradicts the "fat burning" concept embodied in that number. It's a leftover from the days 15-20 years ago when the "fat burning" zone concept was first expressed. Like many corporations, Polar has no obligation to tell the truth and they aren't about to voluntarily change a marketing ploy that makes them a buttload of $$

That number is a perfect example of how you can "tell a lie by only telling a partial truth".

lilchino4af

I'm by no means well versed in this but from what I can tell from using numerous machines is that the lower HR is geared towards fat burning whereas a higher HR targets cardio. My guess for this is that you're using your muscles more diliberately and slowly to maintain a lower HR which makes them work harder (especially if using incline and resistance) which in turn burns more calories. Like I said, just a guess, but it seems to make sense to me!

Iceprincessk25

Calories are calories. That "Fat %" number on the HRM is really there for entertainment purposes only. It has NO relevance to your weight loss program and not only does it have no scientific validation, the scientific evidence directly contradicts the "fat burning" concept embodied in that number. It's a leftover from the days 15-20 years ago when the "fat burning" zone concept was first expressed. Like many corporations, Polar has no obligation to tell the truth and they aren't about to voluntarily change a marketing ploy that makes them a buttload of $$

That number is a perfect example of how you can "tell a lie by only telling a partial truth".

I told you the whole fat burning zone thing needed your words!

Azdak

I'm by no means well versed in this but from what I can tell from using numerous machines is that the lower HR is geared towards fat burning whereas a higher HR targets cardio. My guess for this is that you're using your muscles more diliberately and slowly to maintain a lower HR which makes them work harder (especially if using incline and resistance) which in turn burns more calories. Like I said, just a guess, but it seems to make sense to me!

No "guesses" needed on this topic. The science has been done. The facts are clear.

Laceylala

Thanks for the input everyone. I will ignore that number. In the end it is one less thing to think about, so I am down with that!