Heart rate

the "fat burn range" is just a myth based on bad science. Recent science shows that HIIT has many benefits and a superior form of cardio which get's your heart rate elevated above both of those ranges.

galgenstrick wrote: »

the "fat burn range" is just a myth based on bad science. Recent science shows that HIIT has many benefits and a superior form of cardio which get's your heart rate elevated above both of those ranges.

Technically, the science is good, just woefully misapplied. The science (correctly) shows that exercise in this heart rate range tends to directly metabolize the greatest ratio of fat to carbohydrate during the exercise itself.

However, that's unimportant for fat loss, because all calories burned - even those burned from carbohydrates - result in greater fat loss over time, which is really what we care about, not the instantaneous ratio of fat to carbohydrate metabolism during the exercise itself.

The science is true, but in virtually all cases absolutely irrelevant to weight loss.

aimeelee76 wrote: »

So basically for the best/quickest results I need to just workout as intensely as I can and not focus on keeping my HR within a certain range?

Well, not so fast. Yes, burning the most calories based on highest intensity will yield the quickest results, but might not be the best results.
That's a much longer discussion about goals and means and methods.
And that discounts and heart issues.

I like how I feel when I do high intensity interval training. I do a modified cross fit (designed for my 60+ body and knee issues) -- I feel energized, like my metabolism is boosted all day. I also find when I do longer endurance activities I am actually better able to hold an 80% heart rate throughout them (cross country running or biking) even though I don't do that much long distance endurance training.

galgenstrick wrote: »

aimeelee76 wrote: »

My goal is weight loss and slim down.

High intensity exercise will be more efficient since you'll burn more calories. but for weight loss, cardio is not necessary, you just need to eat in a calorie deficit.

WHILE: All that is Great HIIT, Calorie Defeceit and all, you need to figure out what work best for your body type. The more MUSCLE you have, the More Calories you burn. Simple rule, eat as clean as possible, drink a gallon of water every day and go from there. I have lost 50lb and 43.5 inches off my body so far. Google you questions and gather as much knowledge (proven, not junk science) and apply it a little at a time. Making small changes, makes large ripples through your life. You need to find the Calorie range that you safely lose weight at using an online calculator. I use a fitbit and lift heavy weights. REMEMBER: The scale is the devil. Tape and Caliper once a week and do it the same every time. If your numbers aren't moving, reevaluate your Nutrition, Exercise. The key to success is Honesty with yourself. This is a life change not a momentary thing! You got this! Feel free to add me as a friend and use me as a resource. www.bodybuilding.com has a great fitness social media app, mybodyspace. Gather like minded people around you and you will succeed! Good Luck!

aimeelee76 wrote: »

My goal is weight loss and slim down.

weight loss is largely about consumption. exercise can help make it easier in that you can create a larger deficit than simply dieting alone (not always a good thing) or you eat more and accomplish the same goals because exercise is going to increase your overall energy (calorie) requirements.

think of your body as a machine...like any machine, your body requires energy to perform...a calorie is a unit of this energy. when you consume more energy than your body requires, that excess is stored in your backup generator for later use...your fat stores. when you consume less energy than you require, your backup generator kicks on and you burn fat. you can do whatever and as much exercise in any heart rate zone as you like, but if your diet isn't in check it doesn't matter...

just to illustrate, I generally cycle around 80 - 100 miles per week. I also do some weight lifting 2-3x per week and walk my dog regularly, do some hiking and skiing and swimming and in general I'm pretty active outside of my office. I have lost weight, maintained weight, and gained weight doing all of that, with the difference being how much I was eating, not my exercise.

sandykaunisto wrote: »

So just to throw a wrench into this theory about muscle burns more calories than fat. Here is an interesting true example. I am about 19-20% body fat and I am benching 40 lb Dumbbells. I decided to train in the water as I need a hip replacement. I have a Polar A300 and another woman in this class had the same heart monitor. The other woman was about 35 years younger than I am and about 80 lbs more. I trained 3 times harder than she did. Her calorie count usually doubled mine for many classes. When I called polar thinking my monitor was out of sync. They said because of her poor condition her body had to work harder to do the same thing that was easier for me. Her heart rate was maxing at 185 and mine was 120. If I would have tried you 180 bpm people around me would have drowned. Lol. Needless to say I am back on the elliptical doing 25 minutes of training that took me one hour in the pool. So figure that!

Heart rate does not determine calorie burn which is why HRMs don't accurately determine calorie burns except under certain conditions. Work done does. The other woman weighs 80 more than you. Even in the water she is heavier, and a larger body means more water resistance as well. For her, the same movement would have been a great deal more work. If she were not in shape, her heart rate would have jumped higher for the same level of work than if she were in shape because she does not as efficiently use oxygen or clear lactic acid. Yet the calories burned would have been no different. Her HRM would be reporting higher calorie burn than if she were fit. And if either of your HRMs were not correctly calibrated to the individual's max HR and preferably VO2 max, the readings would be even more screwy.

When it is said muscle burns more then fat, it isn't meant to compare two people with drastically different weights. You could compare one woman weighing 130 at 15% BF to another of the same weight at 30% BF and there'd be a difference. It's not much of one, though. Not enough to want to put in the effort to get to a particularly low %BF unless you like the look or need it for performance reasons.