Fat burning zone

Options
whitej1234
whitej1234 Posts: 263 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi,
I've been attending the gym for the past month and I don't see much result of it so I'm trying to understand if I'm doing anything wrong.
I'm doing about an 1-1.5 hours which usually consists of about 40-60 min of cardio and 10-20 min of strength (2-3 sets of 8-10 repeats) of low weight (2.5 kg or 11-18 kg on machines) 3-4 times a week. I take a slow pace walk every evening for 40-60 minutes more.

The thing is when I do cardio I almost immediately go to the 160-180 HR range which is way above the fat burning range, but I can't seem to do anything simple to hit lower numbers and I feel just fine. After the workout I'm obviously very tired and brake sweat but it's nice. I see results in tolerance (things that were hard before goes easier now), but zero result on the scale.
I try not to eat back the calories, but sometimes I partially do. But over the past month I didn't loose anything, I even gained some.

This is so frustrating!
Any ideas?

Replies

  • JamesDanek
    JamesDanek Posts: 95 Member
    Options
    Turn it around

    do 10 to 20 minutes of cardio followed by 40 to 60 minutes of FREE WEIGHT lifting. Squats deadlifts bench Overhead (look up stronglifts or starting strength)

    Also if you are already set on a deficit eat your exercise calories back! you are starving yourself otherwise and your body gets defensive when that kind of thing happens

    Everything i have read about the "fat burning zone" suggests that it is not significant to the average individual. If your heart rate is elevated you are burning fat simple.

    Try the lifting though you would be surprised
  • whitej1234
    whitej1234 Posts: 263 Member
    Options
    Hi James,
    Thanks. I'm always afraid of those weight lifting thing. I just feel like it's a waste of time (barely sweating.... besides the hands hurting afterwards I just don't see the difference). To add to my low motivation on heavy lifting I find my self reading these articles :http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/exercise-lose-weight stating it's useless unless you are training for the Olympics. Very demotivating...
    Any of you managed to get good results doing more or less the same as I do?
  • brixtonbanner
    brixtonbanner Posts: 71 Member
    Options
    Any of you managed to get good results doing more or less the same as I do?

    Many people in this forum love weights and recommend it probably for good reason. However I don't like doing weights.
    I do a bike ride of about an hour every day and a small run of 3km every day too.
    During these activities my HR tends to be in the region of 136 BPM which is in the middle of 70% to 80% of my max HR
    I have lost about 19 pounds since early July and am now in the middle of my BMI ideal zone.

    I am the first to admit that the folks here who sing the praises of weight lifting are probably right in what they say but I would submit that if you want to lose weight then lifting weights is not mandatory
  • bunbunzee44
    bunbunzee44 Posts: 592 Member
    Options
    Turn it around

    do 10 to 20 minutes of cardio followed by 40 to 60 minutes of FREE WEIGHT lifting. Squats deadlifts bench Overhead (look up stronglifts or starting strength)

    Try this. :) Have someone instruct you so you don't hurt yourself. More muscle burns more fat..
  • pyrowill
    pyrowill Posts: 1,163 Member
    Options
    Try going for a fast paced walk, ideally in the morning before breakfast. That'll get you in your fat burning zone probably.
  • Marks281172
    Marks281172 Posts: 127 Member
    Options
    Hasn't the whole fat burning zone thing been called out as myth? Or did I dream that? :)

    Agree that weight lifting isn't mandatory to lose weight, but then nor is any kind of exercise... it all depends what you want the end result to look like.

    One thing I never really see mentioned much on here are barbell complexes. Great way to combine cardio and weights without going super heavy.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    Forget you even heard the term "fat burning"....(at least in the context of weight loss)

    The so-called fat burning zone is low intensity steady state cardio at which you do burn proportionately more calories from fat (which has nothing to do with weight loss..) as fuel but, overall, burns far fewer calories than exercising at a higher intensity (and you're still burning fat for fuel)

    http://www.builtlean.com/2013/04/01/fat-burning-zone-myth/

    http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=1740622b-d130-486c-a4d3-f05d14878ff9

    Training your body to burn fat is important if you're an endurance athlete, not for weight loss.

    If you're not losing weight the most likely reason is that you're probably not actually eating at the deficit you think you are. If you are basing your calorie burns on cardio machines keep in mind that most of them overstate the expenditure (and are reporting gross calories rather than net) and try to be as accurate as possible recording food consumed, many of us "eyeball" portions and it is human nature to underestimate portion sizes.

    The fact that your endurance is improving is a good sign (there's much more to health and fitness than the number on a scale)
  • pyrowill
    pyrowill Posts: 1,163 Member
    Options
    Also try getting your own Heart Rate monitor. Much more accurate.

    But as others have said, most important is a calorie deficit for weight loss.
  • whitej1234
    whitej1234 Posts: 263 Member
    Options
    Thanks all for your replies.
    I understand that whole burn more then you are getting in physics kind of thing.

    It just seem to be too easy to be true (not to do, this is a hard part, but just to simple as a process).
    I mean if certain type of activity get your BMR higher and certain eating habits gets your BMR lower than it's not just be as accurate as you can while logging food/activity, it's also a daily change based on what you do.
    So at times this fight seems useless, because the less you eat the less your BMR is so the diflict reduces.
    On the other hand, running and sweating through might not be the answer because doing weights increases the BMR without being so hard etc.

    I guess what I'm trying to ask is how did you find what works for you? Weights or not, or nutrition or not, how did you find your way to loose weight relatively steady?
  • Evelyn2050
    Evelyn2050 Posts: 111 Member
    Options
    "I guess what I'm trying to ask is how did you find what works for you? Weights or not, or nutrition or not, how did you find your way to loose weight relatively steady?"

    I found what works for me by experimenting and keeping at it. I've lost 35-40lbs and have stayed here now for close to 2 years. The bottom line is this ... use more energy than you take in and your will loose weight. Do this with an activity that you enjoy or else you won't stick to for the long haul because this is not only about loosing weight, it's about maintaining weight once you reach your goal.

    If you can loose weight without exercising than all the power to you. If you want to run a 5k every day as part of your success than awesome. If become lean and mean is important to you than lift weights. If you try something and it bores you, try something else! :) It's your journey to make it fit you, my friend.

    Now it sounds to me like weight lifting is boring to you. So, for me, i'd only do enough to get the leanness I want and no more. :) I love to get hot and sweaty so I run. That's how I burn my cals. If you don't eat enough your body will "get defensive" as someone mentioned and then you hit these plateaus. Be sure to net at least your minimum amount of calories back. :)

    You'll get this! Keep trying and keep connecting with people. Stay encouraged. :)
  • jetlag
    jetlag Posts: 800 Member
    Options
    Hasn't the whole fat burning zone thing been called out as myth? Or did I dream that? :)



    No, it's not a myth, it's just used improperly. The fat burning (or, more accurately, aerobic) zone is the heart rate zone at which you are not overly taxing your system, thus it can burn more fat than glycogen (your body always uses a mix of both). Your anaerobic zone is an elevated heart rate at which you cannot take in enough oxygen to burn fat (to oxidize it) quickly enough, thus you must burn more glycogen than fat. I believe this is because fat does not have it's own oxygen supply, but carbs/glycogen do, or something like that.

    Anyway, you do not store enough glycogen to keep up any kind of sustained level of anaerobic exercise. Also, it hurts like hell due to the lactic acid it produces as a side effect.

    Where the "myth" part comes in is the idea that working out in the "fat burning zone"/aerobic zone will burn more fat than working out anaerobically. The truth is that they both burn fat (and even anaerobically, you will eventually, e.g. after a period of some minutes if you can keep it up that long, you will start burning more fat than in the aerobic zone because you're working harder), and the longer you can work out, the more fat you will burn.

    However:

    There is a concept called "base training" and this is that you work out in the aerobic (fat burning) zone for as long as you can in order to build a base level of fitness. This gradually conditions you to be able to do more for longer in this zone so that you have to rely much less on glycogen, so that ultimately you can work out longer.

    Google "Joe Friel Base Training" for more information.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    Hasn't the whole fat burning zone thing been called out as myth? Or did I dream that? :)



    No, it's not a myth, it's just used improperly. The fat burning (or, more accurately, aerobic) zone is the heart rate zone at which you are not overly taxing your system, thus it can burn more fat than glycogen (your body always uses a mix of both). Your anaerobic zone is an elevated heart rate at which you cannot take in enough oxygen to burn fat (to oxidize it) quickly enough, thus you must burn more glycogen than fat. I believe this is because fat does not have it's own oxygen supply, but carbs/glycogen do, or something like that.

    Anyway, you do not store enough glycogen to keep up any kind of sustained level of anaerobic exercise. Also, it hurts like hell due to the lactic acid it produces as a side effect.

    Where the "myth" part comes in is the idea that working out in the "fat burning zone"/aerobic zone will burn more fat than working out anaerobically. The truth is that they both burn fat (and even anaerobically, you will eventually, e.g. after a period of some minutes if you can keep it up that long, you will start burning more fat than in the aerobic zone because you're working harder), and the longer you can work out, the more fat you will burn.

    However:

    There is a concept called "base training" and this is that you work out in the aerobic (fat burning) zone for as long as you can in order to build a base level of fitness. This gradually conditions you to be able to do more for longer in this zone so that you have to rely much less on glycogen, so that ultimately you can work out longer.

    Google "Joe Friel Base Training" for more information.

    fat burning zone - 60% to 70% Max HR.....burning about 50% of calories from fat
    aerobic zone - 70% to 80% of MaxHR
    training zone - 80% to 90% of MaxHR.........still burning about 40% of calories from fat

    http://exercise.about.com/od/weightloss/a/The-Truth-About-The-Fat-Burning-Zone.htm
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Hi James,
    Thanks. I'm always afraid of those weight lifting thing. I just feel like it's a waste of time (barely sweating.... besides the hands hurting afterwards I just don't see the difference).

    From the article you linked...
    "The only successful studies to show a significant calorie burn following a weight-lifting workout (afterburn) were done with serious lifters, working out for 60 to 90 minutes at a time and lifting as much as they could on every set."

    That's exactly what you are supposed to do in the weight room. Low reps, heavy weights, and long recovery periods between sets. "60 minutes" is basically only 4 exercises/lifts, with 5 sets of each.
  • whitej1234
    whitej1234 Posts: 263 Member
    Options
    Alright, thank you guys for your answers, I think I understand things a bit better now.
    What an awesome community!
  • james6998
    james6998 Posts: 743 Member
    Options
    Hi James,
    Thanks. I'm always afraid of those weight lifting thing. I just feel like it's a waste of time (barely sweating.... besides the hands hurting afterwards I just don't see the difference).

    From the article you linked...
    "The only successful studies to show a significant calorie burn following a weight-lifting workout (afterburn) were done with serious lifters, working out for 60 to 90 minutes at a time and lifting as much as they could on every set."

    That's exactly what you are supposed to do in the weight room. Low reps, heavy weights, and long recovery periods between sets. "60 minutes" is basically only 4 exercises/lifts, with 5 sets of each.

    Its what you want for results not what you are suppose to do. Low reps, heavy weight is strength training, anywhere from 3-6 reps. long recovery time up to 3mins. The so called bodybuilding type of workout. Mass, bulking up muscle is more of a 8-12 rep no more then 15max. with 30-60 seconds rest time in between sets. Anything past this 20+reps is for endurance type of training. Keep in mind the legs are exempt of this, needing TUT. Time under tension, considering you are on them all the time they will only grow with reps around 20+. Also keep in mind that 1LB of muscle weighs more then 1LB of fat so the scale is not going to give you a true weight ratio. If just becoming leaner is your goal then you are right on track with the low reps and heavy weight. Leaner and strength is the path you choose.

Categories