In the right zone to burn fat?

I just purchased a Polar FT4 and I've been struggling with this concept too, so I'll be interested in what people say.

I'm 55 yrs old so my max heart rate using the system of 220-age is 165, so I'd been pushing my workouts to a heart rate of about 150-155. But my Polar HRM says my zone is lower and that's what I've been using for the last week. There are probably other factors at work, but last week (my first week of being in the Polar fat-burning zone) I lost about 3 pounds. Up until now I'd been a steady 1-1.5 pounds a week.

I wouldn't be too concerned with "fat burning" zones, it's always seemed a bit hokey to me.

That being said, there's a lot to be said for including some downtime and/or varying paces and intensity to your workouts. If you are running try a variety of training runs- Negative Splits, Tempo Runs, Fartleks, Regular Intervals, as well as short and long runs. A variety in running has always felt good for me personally, and I think that it really gives your muscles a good chance to build and recover.

I'm not sure myself. I had read 60-70% was the "fat burning" zone but then I also heard that it was actually 70-80%. I just aim to stay somewhere in the middle (more towards 70%). I would think as long as you keep moving you'll get where you want to be.

Not sure how true this is either but I've also read that working out 3 times a week is good for maintenance but for losing one should work out 5-6 times a week. Can you add in another day and see if that helps move things along?

Forget you ever heard the term "fat burning zone", in respect to weight loss it is completely meaningless.

While it's true that at very low intensity cardio you do burn a higher proportion of fast as fuel the bottom line is that you burn far fewer calories overall and do not derive as significant cardiovascular workout.

As an aside, the fat burning zone is of interest to endurance athletes. Your body is only capable of storing a limited amount of energy in the form of glycogen in muscle tissue and your liver whereas even the skinniest marathon runner has, for practical purposes, an almost unlimited amount of energy available from fat (even at 10% body fat a 140lb marathoner will have 14lbs of body fat or 49,000cal available vs 3,000 cal of glycogen)

Is that really possible? To me working hard would be better. I feel in Zone 2 I'm going to feel like I'm crawling on the treadmill. lol I'll do whatever it takes to burn fat but I'm surprised by this concept.

Your body uses various fuel sources to power exercise, fat being one of them.

In Zone 2 (the fat burning zone) a greater % of that fuel comes from fat in comparison to Zone 3 (the cardio zone). Now, before you get excited the actual fat utilised in any particular workout is tiny. So, a greater % of a miniscule amount is really not worth worrying about.

In reality you are better off focusing on the exercise which prompts the most amount of calories burned in the time you have available to you. That might be Zone 3 only, Zone 2 only or a mixture of both. I do think doing some training in Zone 2 is important for an overall fitness point of view but you may want to zoom in on that when you have shifted much of your weight.

Finally, if you programme isn't getting you the results you want then the odds are that it is your diet that needs attention, not your training.

The harder you work your body, the greater the release of cortisol. Cortisol will decrease fat burning.

The more regularly you exercise (and your fitness improves hence less of a "stress" reaction) the less cortisol is released and the endorphins released go a long way to mitigate any effect cortisol may have.

I'm inclined to think that cortisol release is a poor excuse to stay low intensity.......(weights or cardio)

The harder you work your body, the greater the release of cortisol. Cortisol will decrease fat burning.

one of the worst things I've ever heard.

Agreed on the sounding of hokey.

Consider the fact that fat is burnt sitting....

My kicker in weight loss remains with ketosis: roughly 50 carbohydrates a day, earlier in the day, for just a few days.
That's when my work outs will switch over to burning fat instead of carbs.

No watch needed.

Agreed on the sounding of hokey.

Consider the fact that fat is burnt sitting....

My kicker in weight loss remains with ketosis: roughly 50 carbohydrates a day, earlier in the day, for just a few days.
That's when my work outs will switch over to burning fat instead of carbs.

No watch needed.

do you excercise in the mornings? If not the 50 carbs would be better to take in during the evenings...........

Isnt it awesome how everyones advice is the complete total opposite of someone elses and they all contradict eachother. I just dont know why people get confused at all... (sarcasm font please)

That's the joy of the internet and internet gurus