Heart rate and fat burn

dougpconnell219
dougpconnell219 Posts: 566 Member
edited November 10 in Fitness and Exercise
So I'm seeing things online that the optimal heart rate for fat loss is in 140s, and higher heart rates are more cardio, stamina ranges.

I find it very difficult to keep my heart rate that low while working out. while on the eliptical, my heart rate tends to stay in the high 150s to low 170s.

Do I need to try to keep it lower? Frankly, the best way I've found to make it enjoyable is to put on aggressive music and just go as hard as I can until the timer stops. I don't really want to worry about slowing down.

I'm 6'4" 285 male if it matters.

Replies

  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    I think the point is the lower heart rate means you can work out longer. But I think the higher the rate the better the calorie burn. May be some one else will chime in with a better explanation then me.
  • klmab9
    klmab9 Posts: 15 Member
    My "zone" for working out is 130-170.. I tend to linger around 150-165 during cardio. I agree with @queenliz99, maybe they say 140 is good because you can endure a longer work out? I'm not sure, I would like to know the answer as well.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    At lower HRs there is some evidence to suggest a greater proportion of the energy used comes from fat stores, but the net effect is negligible.

    Just work harder and the gross energy consumption is higher anyway.
  • Phoebeg1723
    Phoebeg1723 Posts: 88 Member
    http://fitnesshealth.co/blogs/fitness/14112669-best-heart-rate-to-burn-fat

    Was just reading about this actually and found this interesting x
  • dougpconnell219
    dougpconnell219 Posts: 566 Member
    Phoebeg1723 wrote: »
    http://fitnesshealth.co/blogs/fitness/14112669-best-heart-rate-to-burn-fat

    Was just reading about this actually and found this interesting x

    Good article, thanks. I actually like doing intervals, so I think I'll stick with that, and screw heart rate.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Banish the term "fat burning zone" from your vocabulary. In terms of weight loss it's meaningless. Yes, you burn a higher proportion of calories from fat but you burn far fewer calorie overall and, in respect to weight loss, it's energy balance that you're interested in (a secondary benefit of exercising at higher intensities is vastly improved aerobic capacity)

  • 47Jacqueline
    47Jacqueline Posts: 6,993 Member
    At 67, the range I've calculated from another link is 78–132, 50-85% with a 153 Max % . I'm usually around 138-141 over an hour workout.

    I'm in good health, so I don't pay attention to the "recommendations." The worst place is Planet Fitness - if you enter your age on their treadmill, it will slow you down when you get to your "supposed to" number no matter what your fitness level is.



  • Koukla_Theo
    Koukla_Theo Posts: 2 Member
    dougpconnell219 - From what I have come to understand during 40 years of exercise is that the answer to your question depends on a number of things, the first two of which are your age and your overall conditioning to begin with. The most important thing is to not overtax your heart. There is a formula which helps people calculate their safe heart range. For most people this goes down with age. So make sure you do not go over the maximum rate that is safe for you. There is a difference between fat burn and calorie burn. I saw an interesting article on it last week. The conclusion as I understood it was that the more calories you burn, the more weight you lose and that if someone works out at say HR 150, they will lose more weight faster than someone who works out at HR 115. Here is a similar article from everydayhealth.com: http://www.jillianmichaels.com/fit/lose-weight/the-fat-burning-zone-myth
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Koukla_Theo wrote: »
    The most important thing is to not overtax your heart.

    Wouldn't want to go getting fitter...
  • dougpconnell219
    dougpconnell219 Posts: 566 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    Koukla_Theo wrote: »
    The most important thing is to not overtax your heart.

    Wouldn't want to go getting fitter...

    He didn't say don't tax your heart... He said don't overtax.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    dougpconnell219 wrote: »
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    Koukla_Theo wrote: »
    The most important thing is to not overtax your heart.

    Wouldn't want to go getting fitter...

    He didn't say don't tax your heart... He said don't overtax.

    So if you're doing HIIT you're working in the 95% MHR range consistently. Assuming that you actually know your MHR (and 220 minus age isn't meaningful) then there isn't much further to go.

    fwiw my theoretical MHR is 176bpm. I'll routinely train in the 170bpm range for an hour or more, and if I'm doing fast intervals I'll get up to 195-200.

    Each range has different effects, for me around 170 is lactate threshold, 195-200 is about improving VO2Max. Down in the lower exertion ranges, 130-150 it's about endurance.

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    dougpconnell219 wrote: »
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    Koukla_Theo wrote: »
    The most important thing is to not overtax your heart.

    Wouldn't want to go getting fitter...

    He didn't say don't tax your heart... He said don't overtax.

    So if you're doing HIIT you're working in the 95% MHR range consistently. Assuming that you actually know your MHR (and 220 minus age isn't meaningful) then there isn't much further to go.

    fwiw my theoretical MHR is 176bpm. I'll routinely train in the 170bpm range for an hour or more, and if I'm doing fast intervals I'll get up to 195-200.

    Each range has different effects, for me around 170 is lactate threshold, 195-200 is about improving VO2Max. Down in the lower exertion ranges, 130-150 it's about endurance.

    It would be more accurate to say that if you're doing HIIT, your heart is beating at 95% consistently. But you're not actually doing work at that rate during the non-HI intervals. This is why HRMs are so notorious at over-estimating burns for HIIT - they can't tell the difference between a resting interval and actual work.

  • spartan_d
    spartan_d Posts: 727 Member
    47Jacqueline wrote: »
    I'm in good health, so I don't pay attention to the "recommendations." The worst place is Planet Fitness - if you enter your age on their treadmill, it will slow you down when you get to your "supposed to" number no matter what your fitness level is.

    That's because they want people to work out at a non-threatening level... which is, of course, nonsense. If anything, it simply feeds and fosters the fear that some people have of being around the more physically fit.

    Heck, this philosophy is even shown on their website, which says they try to create "an environment where you can RELAX, go at your own pace and just do your own thing" (emphasis added). There's nothing with going at your own pace, of course, but this shouldn't mean the same as taking it easy and relaxing.

    So yeah, don't trust their equipment when it comes to matters like this. They'll hold you back for no good reason.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories