Fat burn v. cardio burn - someone please explain why it's su

slieber · January 2009

I know this has been discussed but I've not seen a definitive answer. Can someone PLEASE explain how one allegedly loses more FAT by going slower on the heartrate?

A reason I ask is that I have belly fat that still needs shifting. I have done major cardio for the past several months to almost no avail (e.g. I have shaped sideways but not the front part of the pear, if you get my drift).

I do weights about 2 times a week. I do abs (although not as consistently as I probably should, at least 3 times a week if not more depending on where I am). My cardio is at minimum 4 times a week - usually try to get in 5 if I can make the time. I just about break a sweat at 80-90% heartrate. I have a very good resting heart rate, as well.

I take 7 hours of ballet classes a week at varying levels (from a slow beginner to advanced - I take what's available, in other words). I'm, ahem, of a certain age at this point, so I know I would have a slower metabolism if I did nothing anyway.

So, if I'm supposed to be working at about 65-70% of capacity for fat burn, how come? Why does the fat NOT come off if one is working at 80% or better?

Please, please, please explain the theory/research behind this, someone? Pretty please???

Thanks!
S.

slieber · January 2009

I know this has been discussed but I've not seen a definitive answer. Can someone PLEASE explain how one allegedly loses more FAT by going slower on the heartrate?

A reason I ask is that I have belly fat that still needs shifting. I have done major cardio for the past several months to almost no avail (e.g. I have shaped sideways but not the front part of the pear, if you get my drift).

I do weights about 2 times a week. I do abs (although not as consistently as I probably should, at least 3 times a week if not more depending on where I am). My cardio is at minimum 4 times a week - usually try to get in 5 if I can make the time. I just about break a sweat at 80-90% heartrate. I have a very good resting heart rate, as well.

I take 7 hours of ballet classes a week at varying levels (from a slow beginner to advanced - I take what's available, in other words). I'm, ahem, of a certain age at this point, so I know I would have a slower metabolism if I did nothing anyway.

So, if I'm supposed to be working at about 65-70% of capacity for fat burn, how come? Why does the fat NOT come off if one is working at 80% or better?

Please, please, please explain the theory/research behind this, someone? Pretty please???

Thanks!
S.

trillionaire · January 2009

When at a lower heart rate, you are burning fat and sugar. The longer you go the more indurance you have as well. When at a higher heart rate, you are burning more muscle but building up strength cardiovascularlly; you also bunern more calories. If you find out your heart rate threshold, it will help you maximize on both. Does that help? If not will will do more research and get you a better answer.

melissa91971 · January 2009

don't know the answer:ohwell:
but Ibet songbyrdsweet does!

hope you get your answer soon!

teresamc · January 2009

The harder you work the more calories you burn and increase in cardiovascular endurance. Have you tried interval training sometimes changing things up a bit can help push past plateus????

slieber · January 2009

I'm doing all my training via interval, yes.

teresamc · January 2009

Your body adjusts to your workouts so variation is key! If one day is an interval day try switching up the next day with a lower intenstiy longer duration workout. Or try something new for you like spinning or swimming if its possible. Weight training is wonderful as well as it keeps your metabolic rate higher after the workout so you actually keep burning more calories after the workout even!

connieq288 · January 2009

I would suggest if there is one around you to take a Bosu class. I have only taken it a couple of times but it really does work out your core. And I prefer to do the crunches on taht because they are so much easier but I feel it in my tummy so much more after doing it on them. I would love to have one here at the house but they cost around a hundred bucks.

Connie

Bobbie145 · January 2009

I've asked this question of various people and have read info supporting both sides. So, I'm bumping this to see if we can get more answers.

teresamc · January 2009

Ok.. So what happens when you exercise is you use your better "energy source" which is your carbohydrate stores... eventually you will tap into fat stores. So the machine company put these programs at a lower percentage rate to keep ppl working out longer "therefore" fat burning zone.....

Ultimately weight loss is how many calories burned whether by intensity or duration....

Hope this helps.....??

hmo4 · January 2009

Fat Burning Target Zone, uses the fat stores as energy 60-80% zone, higher HR zones 80- uses glycogen for energy which comes from muscles broken down storing it by the liver. It's for Cardio endurance as someone else has said. "The Krebs Cycle" is a very confusing way the muscles break down to ATP, lactate-hense sore muscles with the acid build up, etc. yada yada. As I nurse, I always found it all amazingly confusing, and always semi understood the whole process cause it's so complicated. :huh: :yawn: You'll burn more calories given 'er with a high heart rate, but you'll also be breaking down the muscle. Depends what your fitness goals are. Clear as mud?

hmo4 · January 2009

Although having muscle burns calories longer, increases your bones densities, increases your metabolism, etc. That's why they say you should always eat complex carbs (for energy) and protein(for muscle building) before and after your workouts, and stay in the f b zone, so your not using up your glycogen which will cause muscle breakdown for the energy.:noway:

Dave198lbs · January 2009

if you have been stuck for several months with no additional weight loss, then the only answer is you are not in a negative calorie situation. You are eating the same amount of calories you are burning. I can't see any other reason if it has been "months".

hmo4 · January 2009

Time to switch exercises around too. Should be done every 4-6 weeks. Interval is great for breaking the plateau. Try to increase protein and cut back on carbs also. Too many carbs gets stored as fat. Then you have to work even HARDER to use up your carb energy and get to the fat stores. Protein will help muscles.

slieber · January 2009

STill confused, but not as bad as before.

I did a bit of reading that says that it really makes no difference if you work out beyond about 20 mins. Eventually, you do use the fat stores, according to the article, and you burn more calories overall with a more intense workout. I think it evens out in the end, from what I've read. I'm responding before reading the rest of the posts, though.

This is the article I got THAT info from: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/busting-the-great-myths-of-fat-burning.html

Okay, so higher intensity breaks down MUSCLE? Nothing I read suggests that. I certainly don't want THAT to happen, though. I broke through a plateau weight-wise this week, thank goodness, but the fat is what I want to shift. I'm really not concerned by the scale; rather, I would prefer to lose the inches.

I toyed with the idea of using Hydroxycut. Does anyone have any experience with this? It's really only about 20 pounds in weight and about 2-3 inches (from the waist!!) that need to go.

jaybroave · January 2009

i'm pretty new to this stuff. so if i understand correctly, for calorie burning purposes it is better to have a more intense workout but for fat-burning a lower intensity, longer workout? which is better for losing weight or a mixture of both?

slieber · January 2009

That's where I'm having the issues. A lot of what I read said that the lower v. higher intensity in the long run makes no difference; that if you exercise long enough, you'll start on the fat stores after the carbs have been depleted.

On that theory, I did 40 mins cardio at high intensity tonight. I'm going to test this and see what happens at the end of the week. I'm not in dance classes this week owing to a dance-related injury, so the cardio will replace it (along with maintaining stretch, etc.).

I'm also doing 2x per week weight training in the upper body, so hopefully that will make another difference. In any case, we shall see....

dloosbrock · January 2009

This is an awesome discussion and one that definitely interests me. I'm most interested in burning fat while at the same time NOT building muscle. I have a lot of muscle underneath all this flab, though the muscles need a bit of working out.

So, for fat burning, I should really stick to what the octane elliptical machines suggest? low intensity, slow pace longer workout? I feel like I could go a long time on those machines and feel like such a slacker for going at such a slow pace. I often find that the machine tells me to slow down that I'm going too fast and not achieving my target heart rate.

jaybroave · January 2009

I completely agree...who knew exercise could be so complex and interesting...lol. I am pretty new to this exercise stuff....sad but true. Maybe you could help me. I do my cardio on a Gazelle and have found a site that calculates calories for light, moderate, vigorous, and very vigorous. The gazelle tells you your speed but what is considered light, moderate, vigorous, etc? I am trying to vary my workouts so I get a mixture of high and low intensity but what's what? On the days I do a lower intensity, longer workout I catch myself doing 2.5-3.0 mph and I feel like if I go any slower it's not worth it. I would appreciate it if you have any insight.

songbyrdsweet · January 2009

I'll try to condense this a lot...sometimes I get wordy. :blushing:

Slow/low-intensity cardio burns a higher percentage of fat for energy, but fewer overall calories.
Fast/high-intensity cardio burns a lower percentage of fat, but more overall calories.

So if you have less time, work more intensely. If you have more time, you can work less intensely.

All types of cardio will use the following in the given order for energy:

0-15 sec- Creatine
15 sec-2 min- Glucose
2< min - Fatty acids (fat) and Glucose

More glucose than fat will be used in exercise lasting less than 60 minutes. Around that point, glycogen begins to run lower and more fats are used because there's time to use them (their energy system takes a while).

Loss of muscle mass from high-intensity exercise is a myth based on misinterpreted physiology. Yes, you will use muscle mass if you run out of glycogen, but it takes a LONG TIME to totally run out of glycogen. We store a couple days' worth in our muscles and liver, so an hour on the elliptical is barely going to scratch the surface, even if it is intense. You'd have to combine a no-carbohydrate diet, caloric deficit, and a couple hours of high-intensity cardio without carbohydrate supplementation to begin to deplete your entire glycogen store. Once you've ridden your body of glycogen, you will begin to break down some muscle mass to convert it to glucose if you're taking in too little dietary protein.
In other words, don't worry about it. You're using those muscles, which will promote their maintenance, not destruction.

Interestingly though, steady-state cardio can promote the atrophy of fast-twitch muscle fibers that go pretty much unused as their slow-twitch counterparts are relied on for that. So it's actually important to do both high and low intensity cardio to maintain a balance.

songbyrdsweet · January 2009

Oh yea, and the WHOLE point hehe :laugh: :

It's all about calories in vs. calories out.
You will lose fat with low intensity. You will lose fat with high intensity. You will lose fat with no cardio at all (although your heart may not be as healthy unless you do some killer resistance workouts like I do b/c I hate all cardio but running LOL). It's not as complicated as people make it. Most of this is just hypothesis anyway.

slieber · January 2009

Okay, as I'm rather thick in the skull, I will put this in my own words and relate it to my own workouts and, please, would you tell me if I'm on the right track (pun intended).

Schedule over the past 3 weeks has been:
Cardio 6 days a week - high intensity about 30 mins (two days this week so far at 40 mins just to see what happens at the end of week weigh-in)
Weights about 20 mins upper body 2 times each week
Abs - about 3-4 times a week (depends on how my tummy feels INSIDE - I have tummy issues that are unrelated to the ab muscles)
Stretching - intense about 30 mins (I have certain goals)
One day out of the week of normal activity - no gym work at all

Starting Saturday, I'm back to my regular schedule so it'll be:
Cardio - about 30 mins high intensity 3-4 times a week
Weights 2 times a week (as above) time allowing
Ballet classes - 7 hours a week scattered over the whole week
One day of rest (as above - usually with physio-therapy, actually).

I am on WW and aim to lose about 20lbs by about June-ish. I lost 2.6 pounds last week staying on my points and doing the first lot of exercise. The only real fat place I actually have left is my waistline (the last to lose, I know!!).

Am I on the right track to get rid of this last of the fat????? Please let me know!
S.

Fat burn v. cardio burn - someone please explain why it's su

Replies

Categories