HRM and fitness vs fat burn

TRAINING ZONES

Healthy Heart Zone (Warm up) --- 50 - 60% of maximum heart rate: The easiest zone and probably the best zone for people just starting a fitness program. It can also be used as a warm up for more serious walkers. This zone has been shown to help decrease body fat, blood pressure and cholesterol. It also decreases the risk of degenerative diseases and has a low risk of injury. 85% of calories burned in this zone are fats!

Fitness Zone (Fat Burning) --- 60 - 70% of maximum heart rate: This zone provides the same benefits as the healthy heart zone, but is more intense and burns more total calories. The percent of fat calories is still 85%.

Aerobic Zone (Endurance Training) --- 70 - 80% of maximum heart rate: The aerobic zone will improve your cardiovascular and respiratory system AND increase the size and strength of your heart. This is the preferred zone if you are training for an endurance event. More calories are burned with 50% from fat.

Anaerobic Zone (Performance Training) --- 80 - 90% of maximum heart rate: Benefits of this zone include an improved VO2 maximum (the highest amount of oxygen one can consume during exercise) and thus an improved cardiorespiratory system, and a higher lactate tolerance ability which means your endurance will improve and you'll be able to fight fatigue better. This is a high intensity zone burning more calories, 15 % from fat.

Red Line (Maximum Effort) --- 90 - 100% of maximum heart rate: Although this zone burns the highest number of calories, it is very intense. Most people can only stay in this zone for short periods. You should only train in this zone if you are in very good shape and have been cleared by a physician to do so.

quoted from: http://www.thewalkingsite.com/thr.html

I'm not sighing at you OP, but at the fitness industry that puts this confusing and worthless information out there. Ignore all zones.

I essentially agree with everything else you said, but in the quoted section above, how about proving it? There seems to be endless information counter to what you are saying here. Why or how is it that you know better?

my advice:
you want to gradually & safely build your endurance levels so that you can burn more calories during exercise.
I personally don't get too concerned with where those calories are being burned from (ie which fitness zone) -- I think it really only matters once you're at a amateur/professional athlete level and need to really fine tune stuff.

Mix in increased walk speeds or inclines. So if you can walk for 30 min at 3.5, try 30 min at 3.6 next time. If you can do that, try 3.7, etc. Or try increasing the incline by 1%

Or if you want to make it a bit mindless -- try the couch to 5k program / app.

take that crap back to the story and get your money back. total waste of money those monitors are for a certain type of athlete

take that crap back to the story and get your money back. total waste of money those monitors are for a certain type of athlete

I'm taking this crap comment to the toilet as my HRM tells me calories burned so I can track them.
Crap comments like yours are for a certain type of idiot.

Gloriously well said

take that crap back to the story and get your money back. total waste of money those monitors are for a certain type of athlete

I'm taking this crap comment to the toilet as my HRM tells me calories burned so I can track them.
Crap comments like yours are for a certain type of idiot.

knowing how many calories you burn isnt going to make you progress any faster. the only way you are going to get where you want to be is by eating right and working out hard. and no monitor is going to delivery those things to you.

but whatever makes you feel good about yourself i guess...

take that crap back to the story and get your money back. total waste of money those monitors are for a certain type of athlete

I'm taking this crap comment to the toilet as my HRM tells me calories burned so I can track them.
Crap comments like yours are for a certain type of idiot.

knowing how many calories you burn isnt going to make you progress any faster. the only way you are going to get where you want to be is by eating right and working out hard. and no monitor is going to delivery those things to you.

but whatever makes you feel good about yourself i guess...

There is absolutely zero harm in knowing how many calories you are burning during a workout...it is a great tool to help any individual.
Yes, it's about eating right and working out hard but the HR monitor lets you know if your working out as hard as you could and keeping track of calories lets you know if your eating the proper foods. Using a HR monitor is no different than tracking those calories that have been consumed since they both are great tools to help someone reach all their fitness and health goals.
I personally love using my HR monitor. Before I was using one I was relying on the cardio machines which overestimated greatly and then I never knew how much i was burning during my strength exercise.

It's not harming you at all when someone else wears a heart rate monitor : )

take that crap back to the story and get your money back. total waste of money those monitors are for a certain type of athlete

I'm taking this crap comment to the toilet as my HRM tells me calories burned so I can track them.
Crap comments like yours are for a certain type of idiot.

knowing how many calories you burn isnt going to make you progress any faster. the only way you are going to get where you want to be is by eating right and working out hard. and no monitor is going to delivery those things to you.

but whatever makes you feel good about yourself i guess...

It's called tracking.
I want to track to make sure I do not go over my calories for the day.
I want to track my heart rate to make sure I do not over or underwork.
I want to track my calories burned see how many additional calories I can make a deficit of and burn off my weight faster.
Tracking does not replace eating right. I never said it it did.

I am now done with trying to teach a pig to sing.

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.

What does burning more glycogen do?

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.

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.

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.