Fat burn while cycling.

Options
OldHairy
OldHairy Posts: 14
edited January 17 in Fitness and Exercise
Hi! Pretty sure you've all heard this before, but I'm having trouble understanding how different HR zones affect fat burn.

I've got a HR monitor and tried it on a bike ride yesterday. Lots of fast uphill, pace was 6 min/mile, did 35 minutes and it says I burned 449 calories. Does that sound possible?

The other thing is I'm confused about the fat burning zone. At 60-70% of HRMax am I burning fat, but anything above and I don't? Or am I always burning fat, just more calories come from carbs or...?

Basically my goal is to burn all the fat I can. But I also want to get fitter. I just want to make sure that HIIT is what I want.

Replies

  • susanp57
    susanp57 Posts: 409 Member
    I'm no expert on the fat burning zone business, but it is entirely possible you burned that many calories doing hill work. Esp. if you are a bigger guy.

    You will be burning fat at the higher rate. Or I guess the better way to put it is that you will be burning calories. I know there is this business about what reserves you draw on at different heart rates, but I suspect it will even out.
  • rhall9058
    rhall9058 Posts: 270 Member
    I'm also no expert in the fat burning zones. But given what I do know from my own HR monitor, 449 in 35 mins of hills seems exactly where it should be. I do Les Mills RPM which is a combination of hills, sprints, and mountains, and for an hour, I'll burn around 900, over 1000 if I'm pushing 80-90%. This same belief translates when I'm outside as well, so my HR monitor has been pretty accurate in it's depiction of both indoor and outdoor cycling.

    So for 35 mins of just hills, you seem to be in about the right area.

    My opinion FWIW!
  • OldHairy
    OldHairy Posts: 14
    The ride wasn't entirely uphill, only half of it was, but on all work intervals I was at above 80% HRMax. A few times over 90%.

    So if I continue to eat healthily, all the exercise means is calories burned, and the source is unimportant? Even if I'm at anaerobic level anaerobic level for long periods?
  • susanp57
    susanp57 Posts: 409 Member
    I think what both of us are saying that if your diet is good and your exercise is consistent it will burn fat over time. Your metabolism rate is raised for a period of time continuing after your workout.
  • jmc0806
    jmc0806 Posts: 1,444 Member
    if you stay in level 1 on the HRM you'll burn more calories from fat. The higher your heart rate the less you burn from fat and more you burn from carbs. In the end though its all moot and just got for the most calorie burn. I can never stay in zone 1
  • Cyclink
    Cyclink Posts: 517 Member
    The "fat burning zone" is highly misleading.

    Within that range, the majority of calories that you burn come from fat. That much is true.

    However, when you increase the intensity, your body begins to burn sugar IN ADDITION to the fat. That lowers the proportion of the calories burned are from fat, but the same number from fat are burned. More calories are burned total due to the sugar calories being burned as well.

    If you are training for an event lasting 2 hours or more, the source of the calories will only matter a little. If your goal is weight loss, the source barely matters at all.

    Keep in mind that most heart rate monitors exaggerate calories burned while cycling. They are usually calibrated on runners who are bearing their full body weight and moving their arms. You are doing neither, sitting down and just using your arms to hold on, so the calorie count is probably about 15 to 20% less than what your HRM reads (and MFPs estimate is off be even more).
  • DantheMan2517
    DantheMan2517 Posts: 134 Member
    Hi! Pretty sure you've all heard this before, but I'm having trouble understanding how different HR zones affect fat burn.

    I've got a HR monitor and tried it on a bike ride yesterday. Lots of fast uphill, pace was 6 min/mile, did 35 minutes and it says I burned 449 calories. Does that sound possible?

    The other thing is I'm confused about the fat burning zone. At 60-70% of HRMax am I burning fat, but anything above and I don't? Or am I always burning fat, just more calories come from carbs or...?

    Basically my goal is to burn all the fat I can. But I also want to get fitter. I just want to make sure that HIIT is what I want.

    No, it's not that fat doesn't get burned if you're out of the "fat-burning zone", it's just that the body goes into finding anaerobic sources of energy. It's not terrible, nor is it ideal for you to stay in this anaerobic zone either. Your body gets acidotic. It's really interesting, the nutritional and physiological sides to effective exercise. What kind of bike do you ride? Components? You're lucky to have hills to ride around on, I have to find bridges or go inland a bit.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Here's a good article to read - a bit "wordy" but informative.

    http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/heart-rate-monitor-training-for-cyclists-28838/

    As for fat burn.... You burn a higher PROPORTION of fat in the lower zones and it tails off the higher the intensity.
    You will always be burning some fat to replace the glycogen used.
    So if you are training for an endurance event a lot of your training rides will be in the lower zones to boost your ability to utilise fat stores.

    Your numbers for an intense 35 minutes are entirely feasible, 770 cals/hour.
  • Shock_Wave
    Shock_Wave Posts: 1,573 Member
    This is the last update I know of.

    http://www.thebodygenesis.com/myths-under-the-microscope-part-1-the-low-intensity-fat-burning-zone/

    "• In acute trials, fat oxidation during exercise tends to be higher in low-intensity treatments, but postexercise fat oxidation and/or energy expenditure tends to be higher in high-intensity treatments"

    "• In 24-hr trials, there is no difference in fat oxidation between the 2 types, pointing to a delayed rise in fat oxidation in the high-intensity groups which evens out the field.

    It all pretty much evens out in the end."
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    The "fat burning zone" is highly misleading.

    Within that range, the majority of calories that you burn come from fat. That much is true.

    However, when you increase the intensity, your body begins to burn sugar IN ADDITION to the fat. That lowers the proportion of the calories burned are from fat, but the same number from fat are burned. More calories are burned total due to the sugar calories being burned as well.

    If you are training for an event lasting 2 hours or more, the source of the calories will only matter a little. If your goal is weight loss, the source barely matters at all.

    Keep in mind that most heart rate monitors exaggerate calories burned while cycling. They are usually calibrated on runners who are bearing their full body weight and moving their arms. You are doing neither, sitting down and just using your arms to hold on, so the calorie count is probably about 15 to 20% less than what your HRM reads (and MFPs estimate is off be even more).

    This.


    To overslimply the issue... do you want to burn a smaller number of fat cals or a larger number of total cals? More cals = more deficit which usually = more weight loss.
  • CentralCaliCycling
    CentralCaliCycling Posts: 453 Member
    I imagine that you are correct about calories not being accurate if calibrated for runners. I also suspect that there are differences with body types, bone mass, actual max heart rate rather than an average for the population among other variables. As far as the arms go, I do a lot of hill climbing in the spring and summer and use my arms a lot when climbing steeper sections of the road so that is yet another variable that may not be accounted for. All that said and I believe that cycling is a great way to burn calories and lower your body fat composition... If you just get out and ride.
  • Cyclink
    Cyclink Posts: 517 Member
    I imagine that you are correct about calories not being accurate if calibrated for runners. I also suspect that there are differences with body types, bone mass, actual max heart rate rather than an average for the population among other variables. As far as the arms go, I do a lot of hill climbing in the spring and summer and use my arms a lot when climbing steeper sections of the road so that is yet another variable that may not be accounted for. All that said and I believe that cycling is a great way to burn calories and lower your body fat composition... If you just get out and ride.

    Oh yeah, that's just the start. Calories burned has so many variables that heart rate only tells a tiny sliver of the story: VO2 max, heart stroke volume, venous return rate, and on and on.

    The "arm use in cycling" is not quite small enough to call it an isometric exercise since your arms to move a little, but it's nothing like a pushup or seated row. It's more of a sustained contraction within a few degrees.... which I don't even have a slight guess as to how to calculate that one.

    As long as someone puts the effort into cycling (not just cruising around), it can be a great way to burn calories. That's where all my weight loss came from this time around.
  • OldHairy
    OldHairy Posts: 14
    Nice, thanks all!

    Is there any danger of me losing muscle mass in the anaerobic zone?
  • Cyclink
    Cyclink Posts: 517 Member
    Is there any danger of me losing muscle mass in the anaerobic zone?

    If you are starving yourself, maybe. If you are eating normally, no.
  • OldHairy
    OldHairy Posts: 14
    I'm eating about 2000 calories, 200 more than my bmr. I definitely don't feel starved.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories