Fat Burning HR vs. Cardio HR

slb1008
slb1008 Posts: 3 Member
edited November 23 in Fitness and Exercise
I have been working with my DR in an attempt to lose weight (I have a low thyroid which is why I am working with my DR). I would like to lose about 10-15 lbs going from 128 lbs to about 115 lbs. My calorie intake is well tracked, but my DR suggested that I change my exercise habits. Currently I run 16-20 miles a week with a HR around 160-165. He suggested that I not let me HR get above 130 to stay in the "fat burning" zone. Well this means walking not running and I am not not 100% comfortable with what I feel in a decrease in my energy expenditure. I am just not sure how if I am not losing the weight running, how walking would be any better at all? Maybe I am wrong, but right now I am unwilling to try it for fear of the scale going up and not down. Any advise or suggestions to ease my anxiety about this? I know I could be completely thinking about it the wrong way. I tried to google for information, but everything on the topic seems to be very conflicting. Thank you to anyone in advance!

Replies

  • missg6984
    missg6984 Posts: 12 Member
    I have you thought of trading running for lifting?
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    all that means is that for that specific activity you're burning more fat as fuel...in the end it doesn't really matter.. your body is constantly in flux of burning and storing fat...in the end, if you're consuming less energy than you expend, you burn more fat to make up the difference. fat burning zone, etc doesn't really matter...and there some places that don't even call it that any more...they call it "recovery zone" due to this very issue.
  • BigGuy47
    BigGuy47 Posts: 1,768 Member
    edited August 2015
    slb1008 wrote: »
    He suggested that I not let me HR get above 130 to stay in the "fat burning" zone.
    The notion of the "fat burning" zone was debunked a long time ago.

    http://blog.underarmour.com/fitness/fitness-advice-guides/the-fat-burning-zone-myth-explained/

  • 20yearsyounger
    20yearsyounger Posts: 1,630 Member
    Staying in the fat burning zone makes a difference if there is something medically going on that requires you not to stress your body too much. For me, it is in my best interest not to let my HR go too much above 140. However, if you are just talking about weight loss, then running should be fine.
  • TylerForget
    TylerForget Posts: 38 Member
    High intensity interval training is the best way to burn fat. Sprints, with short rest periods. They also build muscle mass on the legs, where as most forms of cardio burn muscle.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    TylerForget wrote: »
    High intensity interval training is the best way to burn fat. Sprints, with short rest periods. They also build muscle mass on the legs, where as most forms of cardio burn muscle.
    ok, makes you wonder how people survived before HIIT came along.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,992 Member
    edited August 2015
    TylerForget wrote: »
    High intensity interval training is the best way to burn fat. Sprints, with short rest periods. They also build muscle mass on the legs, where as most forms of cardio burn muscle.
    There is no "best" way to burn fat. One could be excellent in HIIT and have a calorie surplus and no fat would be burned. Fat is exclusively burned at rest (unless there's alcohol in the system), and while HIIT does help with some hormonal increases in GH and test, it's still going to come down to calorie deficit. Adequate rest and sleep seem to be where most people may be having issues when they don't seem to be losing much body fat if their deficit and exercise are consistent.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png


  • 7lenny7
    7lenny7 Posts: 3,498 Member
    TylerForget wrote: »
    High intensity interval training is the best way to burn fat. Sprints, with short rest periods. They also build muscle mass on the legs, where as most forms of cardio burn muscle.

    Perhaps for a given amount of time for which you can maintain the HIIT, but overall, I'd have to disagree. I can run for 2 hours straight with a HR around 135, and burn 1750 calories in the process. How much could I burn with HIIT in that same 2 hours?

    I run 30 miles per week now, which is about 6 hours. Could I do enough HIIT in a week to burn the same amount of calories, without additional risk of injury?
  • fjmoricca593
    fjmoricca593 Posts: 1 Member
    On big difference I think I've read about strength training and cardio training is the post workout duration of the matabolism lift. Strength training provides a longer lift and that could result in a greater overall calorie burn. As for HIIT vs steady pace activities, it's about mixing things up so your body cannot adjust to the effort. Running 6 hrs a week every week at the same pace, distance, etc will not give you the same impact as reducing it to 4 hrs and spending 1 hr doing strength training and 1 hr doing HIIT
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    Not really the whole story 593.
    7lenny as usual we agree on this aspect.
  • editorgrrl
    editorgrrl Posts: 7,060 Member
    slb1008 wrote: »
    I have been working with my Dr. in an attempt to lose weight (I have a low thyroid which is why I am working with my Dr.). I would like to lose about 10–15 lbs., going from 128 lbs to about 115 lbs.

    My calorie intake is well tracked, but my Dr. suggested that I change my exercise habits. Currently I run 16–20 miles a week with a HR around 160–165. He suggested that I not let me HR get above 130 to stay in the "fat burning" zone.

    You lose weight by eating fewer calories than you burn—period. If you enjoy your runs, keep doing them! And don't switch to some exercise you don't even like just because your doctor says so.

    I have Hashimoto's (autoimmune thyroid disease), and I'm jealous that you have so much energy. Yay, you!

    Set your goal to .5 lb. for every 25 lbs. you're overweight, be patient, and keep up the great work.
  • KittensMaster
    KittensMaster Posts: 748 Member
    OP

    Two ways to look at your situation

    Run a little slower but do it faster or do it on a low carb diet. Once your glycogen stores are lowered your muscles will become more efficient as your mitochondria gets more adapted to burning a higher mix of fat for fuel. It isn't anything new to do that. You can good endurance training mitochondria and find loads of info

    This is a University of New Mexico paper on the topic of fat loss. Lots of good info on a broad range of topics.

    https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/physiologgfatloss.html

    The other is to ignore that advice. It is based on old school thoughts on calorie burns. You may burn a higher percentage of fat in this mythical fat burning zone, but the net burn is also lower. So you burn a slightly higher percentage of a much smaller number. He gave you bad advice.

    Your exercise volume is great. It sounds like you can eat close to maintenance level calories for not running and let your running create the deficit. That is close to what I do. I eat a small deficit of about 400-700 a day and get lots of exercise.

    I got in 56 miles of riding in the previous two days and will get another 25-30 today once it cools down from 93 degrees.

    I'm in the same weight loss range you are. I have had about 100 carbs all day and what is left of those will be gone in about 5 miles.

    Keep up the good work.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    slb1008 wrote: »
    I have been working with my DR in an attempt to lose weight (I have a low thyroid which is why I am working with my DR). I would like to lose about 10-15 lbs going from 128 lbs to about 115 lbs. My calorie intake is well tracked, but my DR suggested that I change my exercise habits. Currently I run 16-20 miles a week with a HR around 160-165. He suggested that I not let me HR get above 130 to stay in the "fat burning" zone. Well this means walking not running and I am not not 100% comfortable with what I feel in a decrease in my energy expenditure. I am just not sure how if I am not losing the weight running, how walking would be any better at all? Maybe I am wrong, but right now I am unwilling to try it for fear of the scale going up and not down. Any advise or suggestions to ease my anxiety about this? I know I could be completely thinking about it the wrong way. I tried to google for information, but everything on the topic seems to be very conflicting. Thank you to anyone in advance!

    In this case, I'm afraid your doctor is giving you the wrong information. The percentage or amount of fat burned during exercise has ZERO effect on stored body fat. Decreasing your exercise intensity will result in a lower overall calorie burn which will actually make it harder to reach your goal.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    slb1008 wrote: »
    Currently I run 16-20 miles a week with a HR around 160-165. He suggested that I not let me HR get above 130 to stay in the "fat burning" zone.

    I can only assume that he trained a long time ago and hasn't stayed up to date with current thinking.

    Wouldn't worry about it, but as suggested upthread you'd probably find some resistance training useful and, not least for improving your running performance.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    fjmoricca593 wrote: »
    On big difference I think I've read about strength training and cardio training is the post workout duration of the matabolism lift.

    EPOC difference is negligible.

    Whilst EPOC from HIIT and resistance training is about twice that of EPOC for steady state, the relatively low calorie expenditures i HIIT and resistance are dwarved by the expenditure of steady state.

    5% of 300 cals in a 5km/ 25 minute run for me is more than the 10% of 100 cals for 30 minutes of resistance training or 20 minutes of HIIT.

  • piperdown44
    piperdown44 Posts: 958 Member
    999tigger wrote: »
    TylerForget wrote: »
    High intensity interval training is the best way to burn fat. Sprints, with short rest periods. They also build muscle mass on the legs, where as most forms of cardio burn muscle.
    ok, makes you wonder how people survived before HIIT came along.

    They called it other names...

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    piperdown44 wrote: »
    999tigger wrote: »
    TylerForget wrote: »
    High intensity interval training is the best way to burn fat. Sprints, with short rest periods. They also build muscle mass on the legs, where as most forms of cardio burn muscle.
    ok, makes you wonder how people survived before HIIT came along.

    They called it other names...

    Or maybe they just didn't fetishise one mode of training, whilst excluding the others.

    Or perhaps some did. The ill informed HIITsturbation on this board is amusing though
This discussion has been closed.

Categories