HRM and fitness vs fat burn

Dad_of_3

Seems like you're on the right track... you've got your head around the bigger picture.

Hating on HRMs is the cool thing to do these days.

Thank you sir. I would like to think so given I have now lost 41 pounds. Then the other dude goes all bro-pinion on me.

felicityrhode

What does burning more glycogen do?

DavPul

Seems like you're on the right track... you've got your head around the bigger picture.

Hating on HRMs is the cool thing to do these days.

Thank you sir. I would like to think so given I have now lost 41 pounds. Then the other dude goes all bro-pinion on me.

So the heart rate zones that you initially inquired about, that was science and not bropinion leading you down the wrong path, right? Broscience wasn't telling you that a slow walk was better for getting in shape than more strenuous exercise, was it?

Azdak

What does burning more glycogen do?

It burns more glycogen. Glycogen is nothing more than stored muscle fuel. The body uses a constant and ever-changing mix of fuel substrates (mostly fats and carbs) during any activity. The mix is regulated primarily by the intensity of the exercise--with more intense exercise requiring a higher percentage of carbohydrates. There is NEVER a condition under which the body is only burning fat, or only burning carbohydrates.

What is important (and easy) to remember: For the most part, the mix of fuel substrate used, or the type of fuel used during a workout HAS NO EFFECT on fat loss. The body marshals whatever resources it needs to deal with the demands of the workout and then afterwards puts everything back. Fat loss is primarily driven by the long-term maintenance of a calorie deficit. Exercise contributes to that loss by contributing to that deficit, not by "burning fat" during the workout.

If they are considered at all, heart rate "zones" should be used as training guides (and you DON'T need 5 zones for that), not as weight loss guides. A good, balanced program will include endurance, tempo, and interval workouts.

Azdak

Seems like you're on the right track... you've got your head around the bigger picture.

Hating on HRMs is the cool thing to do these days.

Thank you sir. I would like to think so given I have now lost 41 pounds. Then the other dude goes all bro-pinion on me.

So the heart rate zones that you initially inquired about, that was science and not bropinion leading you down the wrong path, right? Broscience wasn't telling you that a slow walk was better for getting in shape than more strenuous exercise, was it?

Ironically enough, I have seen that exact claim made before by a bro-- :laugh: but it was in the context of the whole "too much cardio burns muscle" canard, not anything to do with "zones". .

Dad_of_3

Seems like you're on the right track... you've got your head around the bigger picture.

Hating on HRMs is the cool thing to do these days.

Thank you sir. I would like to think so given I have now lost 41 pounds. Then the other dude goes all bro-pinion on me.

So the heart rate zones that you initially inquired about, that was science and not bropinion leading you down the wrong path, right? Broscience wasn't telling you that a slow walk was better for getting in shape than more strenuous exercise, was it?

Actually, no. Broscience was telling me that I needed to take my HRM back. Other opinions since stated that at my fitness level, it did not really matter if I was in Fitness or Fat Burn mode- I was going to burn fat either way, so I needed to really push forward with the exercise. I confirmed it with a friend of mine who is an exercise physiologist, as well as some reputable sites.

icimani

I'm always confused by the zones, too. You see it everywhere - posted at the gym, and at relatively well-regarded sites like Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic.

If I go by the fat-loss zone it always seems way too slow for me and I don't feel like I'm working hard enough. (I do wear an HRM.)

Azdak

I'm always confused by the zones, too. You see it everywhere - posted at the gym, and at relatively well-regarded sites like Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic.

If I go by the fat-loss zone it always seems way too slow for me and I don't feel like I'm working hard enough. (I do wear an HRM.)

There are two big problems with "zones".

1. The one that is talked about the most is the fallacy of the "fat burning zone", i.e. the concept that there is an intensity level that will cause the body to permanently burn up a greater amount of stored body fat. That is 100% incorrect. There is a place in one's routine for doing that type of lower-intensity (50%-60% of VO2max) exercise, but it has nothing to do with "fat burning".

2. The other huge problem with using "zones" is that the theory assumes a precision and a similarity of heart rate response in the general population that simply does not exist.

All "zones" are derived as a percentage of maximum heart rate (HRmax). Yet, determining HRmax is not that easy. Every equation that purports to estimate HRmax has a substantial standard of error that renders it problematic at best. And if one tries to do a "max" exercise test to determine actual HR max, they often are unable to work at a level high enough to actually achieve that level--so, again, you have an estimate.

So, determining the "base" number from which to derive your "zones" is tough to do all by itself.

Then you have the issue of "cardiovascular drift". As your workout proceeds, heart rate will gradually increase, even with no increase in workload. I can do a lower-level "endurance" run in which I do not change the speed for 60 min and my heart rate at minute 55 will be at least 20 beats higher than it was at minute 5. Breathing and overall effort does not change, so I am not working any harder--there is just a heart rate increase. So someone who didn't know about this and was trying to maintain a "zone" heart rate (or use a heart rate interactive cardio program) would have to constantly LOWER the workload throughout the workout--thus burning fewer calories and weakening the training stimulus. Does that sound like a good idea?

Some experienced or elite athletes have learned their HR response so thoroughly, they can use "zone training" with a lot more effectiveness. Cycling seems to lend itself especially well to this approach. However, I always say that average exercisers should keep the idea of "zone" training a lot simpler:

Keep the number of "zones" to 3 -- easy, medium, hard
Give yourself a fairly wide range for each "zone"
Keep in mind that if you are doing an extended, steady-state workout, the HR response in the first 5-10 minutes should be considered the "real" heart rate to determine which "zone" you are in. After that pay more attention to breathing as a gauge of intensity and, if you don't feel you are working harder, don't reduce the workload just because HR drifts upward.

The reason why the "zone training" is so ubiquitous is that most web sites--even those for reputable places such as Mayo--are not managed by the actual experts. They are designed and managed by IT and marketing departments that just "borrow" and copy the same information they see everywhere else.

Dad_of_3

I'm always confused by the zones, too. You see it everywhere - posted at the gym, and at relatively well-regarded sites like Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic.

If I go by the fat-loss zone it always seems way too slow for me and I don't feel like I'm working hard enough. (I do wear an HRM.)

There are two big problems with "zones".

1. The one that is talked about the most is the fallacy of the "fat burning zone", i.e. the concept that there is an intensity level that will cause the body to permanently burn up a greater amount of stored body fat. That is 100% incorrect. There is a place in one's routine for doing that type of lower-intensity (50%-60% of VO2max) exercise, but it has nothing to do with "fat burning".

2. The other huge problem with using "zones" is that the theory assumes a precision and a similarity of heart rate response in the general population that simply does not exist.

All "zones" are derived as a percentage of maximum heart rate (HRmax). Yet, determining HRmax is not that easy. Every equation that purports to estimate HRmax has a substantial standard of error that renders it problematic at best. And if one tries to do a "max" exercise test to determine actual HR max, they often are unable to work at a level high enough to actually achieve that level--so, again, you have an estimate.

So, determining the "base" number from which to derive your "zones" is tough to do all by itself.

Then you have the issue of "cardiovascular drift". As your workout proceeds, heart rate will gradually increase, even with no increase in workload. I can do a lower-level "endurance" run in which I do not change the speed for 60 min and my heart rate at minute 55 will be at least 20 beats higher than it was at minute 5. Breathing and overall effort does not change, so I am not working any harder--there is just a heart rate increase. So someone who didn't know about this and was trying to maintain a "zone" heart rate (or use a heart rate interactive cardio program) would have to constantly LOWER the workload throughout the workout--thus burning fewer calories and weakening the training stimulus. Does that sound like a good idea?

Some experienced or elite athletes have learned their HR response so thoroughly, they can use "zone training" with a lot more effectiveness. Cycling seems to lend itself especially well to this approach. However, I always say that average exercisers should keep the idea of "zone" training a lot simpler:

Keep the number of "zones" to 3 -- easy, medium, hard
Give yourself a fairly wide range for each "zone"
Keep in mind that if you are doing an extended, steady-state workout, the HR response in the first 5-10 minutes should be considered the "real" heart rate to determine which "zone" you are in. After that pay more attention to breathing as a gauge of intensity and, if you don't feel you are working harder, don't reduce the workload just because HR drifts upward.

The reason why the "zone training" is so ubiquitous is that most web sites--even those for reputable places such as Mayo--are not managed by the actual experts. They are designed and managed by IT and marketing departments that just "borrow" and copy the same information they see everywhere else.

Thank you very much for this. Answers like these I can use.

DavPul

I'm always confused by the zones, too. You see it everywhere - posted at the gym, and at relatively well-regarded sites like Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic.

If I go by the fat-loss zone it always seems way too slow for me and I don't feel like I'm working hard enough. (I do wear an HRM.)

There are two big problems with "zones".

1. The one that is talked about the most is the fallacy of the "fat burning zone", i.e. the concept that there is an intensity level that will cause the body to permanently burn up a greater amount of stored body fat. That is 100% incorrect. There is a place in one's routine for doing that type of lower-intensity (50%-60% of VO2max) exercise, but it has nothing to do with "fat burning".

2. The other huge problem with using "zones" is that the theory assumes a precision and a similarity of heart rate response in the general population that simply does not exist.

All "zones" are derived as a percentage of maximum heart rate (HRmax). Yet, determining HRmax is not that easy. Every equation that purports to estimate HRmax has a substantial standard of error that renders it problematic at best. And if one tries to do a "max" exercise test to determine actual HR max, they often are unable to work at a level high enough to actually achieve that level--so, again, you have an estimate.

So, determining the "base" number from which to derive your "zones" is tough to do all by itself.

Then you have the issue of "cardiovascular drift". As your workout proceeds, heart rate will gradually increase, even with no increase in workload. I can do a lower-level "endurance" run in which I do not change the speed for 60 min and my heart rate at minute 55 will be at least 20 beats higher than it was at minute 5. Breathing and overall effort does not change, so I am not working any harder--there is just a heart rate increase. So someone who didn't know about this and was trying to maintain a "zone" heart rate (or use a heart rate interactive cardio program) would have to constantly LOWER the workload throughout the workout--thus burning fewer calories and weakening the training stimulus. Does that sound like a good idea?

Some experienced or elite athletes have learned their HR response so thoroughly, they can use "zone training" with a lot more effectiveness. Cycling seems to lend itself especially well to this approach. However, I always say that average exercisers should keep the idea of "zone" training a lot simpler:

Keep the number of "zones" to 3 -- easy, medium, hard
Give yourself a fairly wide range for each "zone"
Keep in mind that if you are doing an extended, steady-state workout, the HR response in the first 5-10 minutes should be considered the "real" heart rate to determine which "zone" you are in. After that pay more attention to breathing as a gauge of intensity and, if you don't feel you are working harder, don't reduce the workload just because HR drifts upward.

The reason why the "zone training" is so ubiquitous is that most web sites--even those for reputable places such as Mayo--are not managed by the actual experts. They are designed and managed by IT and marketing departments that just "borrow" and copy the same information they see everywhere else.

Thank you very much for this. Answers like these I can use.

Dad_of_3

Love that songified video!