Heart Rate for Max Fat Burn?

Options
2»

Replies

  • iplayoutside19
    iplayoutside19 Posts: 2,304 Member
    Options
    I've been exercising every single day for 7 days straight now. I've lost 4 pounds so I'm pretty happy with that for the first week.

    I have been doing the elliptical, the AMT machine or swimming each day. My heart rate is usually about 140-143 at Max during most of the workout.

    My husband went to a personal trainer this morning and was told for HIS personal max fat burn he shouldn't go over 110-115 max heart rate and to do something like a light treadmill work out with a pretty decent incline. He told my husband that anything over that consistently and you'll be burning tissue....and said that's why cyclists and runners are so lean looking because they get their heart rate going so high.

    So if that's true, then should I not be working so hard on the cardio listed above?

    I want to burn a lot of fat off this body. Advice?

    Your husband's "trainer" is a fraud whose "certification" is the only "tissue" you should be burning.

    Thank you.

    As I read all these posts the only thing going through my mind is...if you're messing around with all this math, when do you acutally excersise? I have a HRM, but I've never messed with a "Fat Burning Zone". Listen to your body, you'll know weather or not you did yourself any good.
  • karmasBFF
    karmasBFF Posts: 699 Member
    Options
    What your trainer told you is a myth.

    Moderately high heart rates will burn more fat in proportion to lean tissue, but the total number of calories burned will be low.

    High intensity activity (around 80-85% of your max heart rate) will burn a lower fraction of its calories from fat, but this will be a smaller portion of a bigger pie (so to speak).

    The best heart rate target is the one that leaves you exhausted at the end of your workout. If you only have 30 mins, doing a light jog isn't going to get the job done. If you've got 2 hours, maybe a light jog is better, because you need to last the distance!

    ding ding ding

    Glad to see this post.

    The "fat burning zone" is a myth of epic proportions.

    Can someone further explain this idea? I'm very interested in this but still very confused!
  • tattoodfreek
    tattoodfreek Posts: 520 Member
    Options
    Say in two different scenarios....

    #1 you are working out at your "maximum fat burning rate" of 55-65% of MHR.

    #2 you are working out at an 85% rate.

    In scenario number one, more of the calories that you burn will be from fat. In scenario #2, you will burn a higher number of calories, but a smaller percentage (of your total burn) will be from fat.

    The numbers would look like this (and please, I am just randomly pulling these numbers out of the air for the point of an example, this was not a calculated example)

    In scenario #1, you run at 65% of your MHR for a half hour. You burn 400 calories total. Let's say that 100 calories are fat calories, burned from your body's fat reserve. So, you burned 25% of your calories from fat.

    In scenario number two, you are running at 85% of your max heart rate for a half hour. This time, you burn 600 calories total. However, now you only burn 125 calories from fat stores. In this scenario, only 20.8% of your calories are from fat.

    So, when you look at the two side by side, in scenario #1, yes, a greater percentage of your calories are being burned from fat. But when you are working out at the higher heart rate in scenario #2, while the percentage of fat burned is lower than scenario one, your OVERALL calories burned are higher, and even your TOTAL fat calories burned are higher. This is why working out at a higher exertion level is still your best bet.

    Hope that helps.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Say in two different scenarios....

    #1 you are working out at your "maximum fat burning rate" of 55-65% of MHR.

    #2 you are working out at an 85% rate.

    In scenario number one, more of the calories that you burn will be from fat. In scenario #2, you will burn a higher number of calories, but a smaller percentage (of your total burn) will be from fat.

    The numbers would look like this (and please, I am just randomly pulling these numbers out of the air for the point of an example, this was not a calculated example)

    In scenario #1, you run at 65% of your MHR for a half hour. You burn 400 calories total. Let's say that 100 calories are fat calories, burned from your body's fat reserve. So, you burned 25% of your calories from fat.

    In scenario number two, you are running at 85% of your max heart rate for a half hour. This time, you burn 600 calories total. However, now you only burn 125 calories from fat stores. In this scenario, only 20.8% of your calories are from fat.

    So, when you look at the two side by side, in scenario #1, yes, a greater percentage of your calories are being burned from fat. But when you are working out at the higher heart rate in scenario #2, while the percentage of fat burned is lower than scenario one, your OVERALL calories burned are higher, and even your TOTAL fat calories burned are higher. This is why working out at a higher exertion level is still your best bet.

    Hope that helps.

    I don't disagree with this scenario--I've used the same description myself-- but from a practical standpoint, I'm still not sure how relevant it is. I say that because we all often make the mistake of looking at an exercise session as some type of discrete event, when in fact it is only one small part of an ongoing continuum. Our bodies keep track of energy usage 24/7/365/lifetime.

    There is some research that suggests that if you look at the 24 hour picture, there is no difference in "fat burning" between lower intensity and higher intensity exercise. One burns more during the event, but less afterwards, the other might burn less during the event, but has a longer "afterburn. There are studies that have looked at 24 hr fat oxidation and found no difference --in other words, it all evens out over time. (Keep in mind this refers solely to fat oxidation, not necessary permanent fat loss).

    Bottom line--and here I would think we are in agreement--is that it is not productive, IMO, to design any workout program solely in terms of fat burning or even fat loss. I believe that a primary objective also should be to improve overall fitness--which requires all types of workouts--interval, endurance, etc.
  • mpdpratima
    mpdpratima Posts: 42 Member
    Options
    The Body Bug or GoWearFit is a great tool, however, be careful. I had a reaction to the nickel and can't use it without my skin breaking open. So, if you have allergies, this is not for you.
  • balance9
    balance9 Posts: 160
    Options
    I don't disagree with this scenario--I've used the same description myself-- but from a practical standpoint, I'm still not sure how relevant it is. I say that because we all often make the mistake of looking at an exercise session as some type of discrete event, when in fact it is only one small part of an ongoing continuum. Our bodies keep track of energy usage 24/7/365/lifetime.

    There is some research that suggests that if you look at the 24 hour picture, there is no difference in "fat burning" between lower intensity and higher intensity exercise. One burns more during the event, but less afterwards, the other might burn less during the event, but has a longer "afterburn. There are studies that have looked at 24 hr fat oxidation and found no difference --in other words, it all evens out over time. (Keep in mind this refers solely to fat oxidation, not necessary permanent fat loss).

    Bottom line--and here I would think we are in agreement--is that it is not productive, IMO, to design any workout program solely in terms of fat burning or even fat loss. I believe that a primary objective also should be to improve overall fitness--which requires all types of workouts--interval, endurance, etc.

    Absolutely spot on....great post!!

    Heart rate training is a tool that many athletes use, as there are different effects from different 'zones'...training, recovery, etc. Intervals are one of the bets ways to increase CV fitness.

    For fat loss, it's the aggregate activity/calorie in vs. calories out that counts. **But if you're experiencing 'binge' type hunger, sugar cravings, tired in the middle of the day, colds/flu etc. you may be working out too hard -- or too often -- in the higher zones. If the scales not moving, you may not need to 'work out harder', but instead, increase your overall general activity level throughout the day in addition to your workout (I"m a big fan of pedometers BTW)

    Lots of research on this subject -- won't go into it here, but for MOST people (non-competitive athletes) who have more than 20 pounds to lose, moderate daily exercise is best for awhile, then mixing in some higher intensity days after the first month or so. If you're going to hit it hard (say, you're training for a 5K)-- great -- but try to take a day off in between, perhaps alternating high-intensity cardio days with strength, recovery cardio, or moderate intensity days. High intensity cardio day after day is a fast track to injury and burn-out, which will -- in the end-- undermine your overall fitness goals.
  • balance9
    balance9 Posts: 160
    Options
    So if my heart rate has been around 140-143 during my 30 or 60 minute cardio sessions, then I'm working out at 60-65% intensity.

    Therefore, isn't that perfect for fat burning?

    Without doing a maximal heart rate test (either administered by Dr. or field-tested by a fitness professional) we never really know what our "MAX" heart rate is, so all of these calculations may be a little off...or way off. The old 220 - your age thing has been shown to have a wide margin of error.

    BUT...in general, depending on your weight, age, level of training, etc. 140-143 sounds about right for moderate intensity exercise for you. You should be breathing hard, sweating, and find it difficult to carry on a conversation, but not gasping for breath.

    Google Sally Edwards and heart rate training. She is one of the original triathalon pioneers, and has published some great work on heart rate training.

Categories