Fat burning training vs aerobic fit training

Mamatano
Mamatano Posts: 24 Member
edited November 13 in Fitness and Exercise
So yesterday I started using my Polar A300. My main interest is to burn fat and lose weight but I discovered that 95% of my training was in the aerobic fitness zone. I've been training like this for a long time. Should I reduce my intensity to stay within the fat burning zone? What is the difference anyway?
I have 5kg to reach my weight goal.

Replies

  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    What @MissusMoon said. Don't concern yourself too much with training zones for fat burning. They can be useful for training, like being in the cardio zone more often to improve cardio endurance or using fat burning zone for recovery, but beyond that it's all about total calories.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    The "fat burning zone" is a myth. Creating a caloric deficit burns fat.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Train for your fitness goals - the fuel you use during exercise is irrelevant compared to your calorie deficit over the course of the entire day.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    The "fat burning zone" is a myth.

    Wrong, sorry.

    In the "fat burning" zones (Z1 through Z3) most of the energy you're using comes from fat. Of which we all have a basically unlimited supply. In the anaerobic zones (Z4 and Z5) your energy comes mostly from glycogen, which is limited. A trained male athlete has something like 2,500 kCal of glycogen stored in his liver and muscles, and when this runs out, it can take as much as a couple days to replenish. This is why runners "hit the wall" and cyclists "bonk" during long exercise sessions; they deplete their glycogen and run out of energy. Been there, done that, it sucks.

    It's also why more intense exercise (like HIIT) can't last as long as moderate intensity exercise.

    Now you burn calories exercising at all intensities, but that doesn't mean you don't have to pace yourself when you're running a marathon!
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Don't worry about the fat burning zone if your goal is to reduce your body fat. It's true that lower intensity exercise burns a higher proportion of fat as fuel but burns a lot fewer calories overall (the one notable exception is steady state running where typically a runner burns a comparable number of calories irrespective of pace)

    The fat burning zone is more of interest to endurance athletes who want to be able to tap into a virtually unlimited fuel source. A 140lb marathon runner with 10% BF still has over 40,000 cal available. Compared to stored glycogen that's an incredible energy resource.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Don't worry about what fuel is being used for a specific activity...I mean, you burn more fat as fuel sleeping than you do with any other activity...but I would recommend sleeping for most of the day.

    You're constantly cycling through fat storage and burning fat...what matters is that at the end of the day you have an energy deficit you will burn fat...you can do all of the fat burn zone exercise you want, but if you consumed a balance of energy (maintenance) you would just maintain.

    Don't overthink it...train to achieve your fitness goals.
  • Tgmcmonigle
    Tgmcmonigle Posts: 7 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    The "fat burning zone" is a myth.

    Wrong, sorry.

    In the "fat burning" zones (Z1 through Z3) most of the energy you're using comes from fat. Of which we all have a basically unlimited supply. In the anaerobic zones (Z4 and Z5) your energy comes mostly from glycogen, which is limited. A trained male athlete has something like 2,500 kCal of glycogen stored in his liver and muscles, and when this runs out, it can take as much as a couple days to replenish. This is why runners "hit the wall" and cyclists "bonk" during long exercise sessions; they deplete their glycogen and run out of energy. Been there, done that, it sucks.

    It's also why more intense exercise (like HIIT) can't last as long as moderate intensity exercise.

    Now you burn calories exercising at all intensities, but that doesn't mean you don't have to pace yourself when you're running a marathon!

    Correct. Simplified, as long as you're not going anaerobic, you're in the fat burning zone. Carry on.
  • Mamatano
    Mamatano Posts: 24 Member
    Thank you all
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,428 MFP Moderator
    edited November 2016
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    The "fat burning zone" is a myth.

    Wrong, sorry.

    In the "fat burning" zones (Z1 through Z3) most of the energy you're using comes from fat. Of which we all have a basically unlimited supply. In the anaerobic zones (Z4 and Z5) your energy comes mostly from glycogen, which is limited. A trained male athlete has something like 2,500 kCal of glycogen stored in his liver and muscles, and when this runs out, it can take as much as a couple days to replenish. This is why runners "hit the wall" and cyclists "bonk" during long exercise sessions; they deplete their glycogen and run out of energy. Been there, done that, it sucks.

    It's also why more intense exercise (like HIIT) can't last as long as moderate intensity exercise.

    Now you burn calories exercising at all intensities, but that doesn't mean you don't have to pace yourself when you're running a marathon!

    It's a myth because at the end of the day, even if you spent most of your time in the fat burning zone, it won't increase fat loss over the day since it will be replenished post exercise. Burn more glycogen, more gets replenished first. Burn less glycogen, more fat stores are replenished. At the end of the day, calories being equal, fat loss will be equal. The amount of fat/glycogen burnt intra-exercise is pertty irrelevant when it comes to fat loss.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    @psulemon That's like saying "running elevates your heart rate" is a myth because cars are faster than buses.

    The "fat burning zone" is where most of the energy you use for your exercise comes from stored fat instead of glycogen. That's not a myth, it's the truth. If people want to confuse themselves over what that means, it doesn't stop being true that you burn more fat than glycogen in the fat burning zone.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    edited November 2016
    No. "Fat burning zone" is for pacing during endurance events like marathons, centuries, and gran fondos.

    Edit for clarity: It's not about fat loss. Athletes use this knowledge of energy source to avoid "hitting the wall" or "bonking."
  • 7lenny7
    7lenny7 Posts: 3,498 Member
    If you want to lose weight, burn more calories than you consume. The "fat burning zone" is where your body burns more fat than glycogen, but overall it burns less calories per minute than in the "aerobic fitness zone", so for a given amount of time, you'll burn more calories at the higher intensity.

    The fat burning zone does come into play for endurance but unless you are exercising more than 90 minutes at a time, you're better off at a higher intensity workout if burning calories is your main goal.

    One scenario where reducing intensity would be of benefit is when by doing so you are able to workout for a longer period of time. You burn more calories per minute sprinting than walking, but you can continuously walk far longer than continuously sprint.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    I think the discussion has moved on from the OP's question four days ago. It's morphed into a debate about whether there exists an intensity of exercise where you burn more fat than glycogen, or if that's a myth.

    You can probably figure out what my answer is to your question by reading my previous few posts in this thread. :wink: But a quick summary: the fat burning zone is real, even if people have goofy and unfounded ideas about it, just like "you should lift heavy to build muscles" isn't a myth even if there's somebody out there who wants to lift medium weights for a different reason.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    I think the discussion has moved on from the OP's question four days ago. It's morphed into a debate about whether there exists an intensity of exercise where you burn more fat than glycogen, or if that's a myth.

    You can probably figure out what my answer is to your question by reading my previous few posts in this thread. :wink: But a quick summary: the fat burning zone is real, even if people have goofy and unfounded ideas about it, just like "you should lift heavy to build muscles" isn't a myth even if there's somebody out there who wants to lift medium weights for a different reason.

    It's "real" in the sense that you do burn a higher percentage of fat at lower intensities; but it's completely irrelevant to weight/fat loss as substrate utilization doesn't affect body composition. You burn the highest percentage of fat when you're asleep, but I don't often see sleeping all day recommended as an effective method of losing fat/weight or improving body composition.

    The OP said that their "main interest is to burn fat and lose weight". In that context, it's irrelevant what zone they're training in. If they had mentioned that they were specifically interested in improving their aerobic or anaerobic performance, the answers would have been quite different.
  • CattOfTheGarage
    CattOfTheGarage Posts: 2,745 Member
    Interesting discussion.

    So what I'm getting from this is that in the high intensity exercise, you deplete your glycogen stores, and then the replenishing of those stores over the next several days uses energy which is taken from the fat stores (or from available energy from food which might otherwise be stored as fat), meaning that the total fat loss is the same as if that energy had been taken from fat stores in the first place. Would that be a reasonable way to state it?
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    No. "Fat burning zone" is for pacing during endurance events like marathons, centuries, and gran fondos.

    Edit for clarity: It's not about fat loss. Athletes use this knowledge of energy source to avoid "hitting the wall" or "bonking."

    If the OP's goal is fat loss why would an endurance event pacing "phrase" be useful for them. Fat loss comes from a calorie deficit.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,428 MFP Moderator
    CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
    Interesting discussion.

    So what I'm getting from this is that in the high intensity exercise, you deplete your glycogen stores, and then the replenishing of those stores over the next several days uses energy which is taken from the fat stores (or from available energy from food which might otherwise be stored as fat), meaning that the total fat loss is the same as if that energy had been taken from fat stores in the first place. Would that be a reasonable way to state it?

    If you do HIIT, your body will utilize fat stores while in the aerobic zone and then move towards glycogen once you hit anaerobic thresholds (often, you will utilize both throughout a workout). If it was low intensity, it would mainly be aerobic and largely be from fat stores. Once you eat, your body will either replenish fat stores, glycogen or both. When it comes to training, especially if you are endurance training, the zone can matter. For fat loss, like actually body fat loss over time, it literally has ZERO impact on which zone you workout in.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,428 MFP Moderator
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    I think the discussion has moved on from the OP's question four days ago. It's morphed into a debate about whether there exists an intensity of exercise where you burn more fat than glycogen, or if that's a myth.

    You can probably figure out what my answer is to your question by reading my previous few posts in this thread. :wink: But a quick summary: the fat burning zone is real, even if people have goofy and unfounded ideas about it, just like "you should lift heavy to build muscles" isn't a myth even if there's somebody out there who wants to lift medium weights for a different reason.

    It's "real" in the sense that you do burn a higher percentage of fat at lower intensities; but it's completely irrelevant to weight/fat loss as substrate utilization doesn't affect body composition. You burn the highest percentage of fat when you're asleep, but I don't often see sleeping all day recommended as an effective method of losing fat/weight or improving body composition.

    The OP said that their "main interest is to burn fat and lose weight". In that context, it's irrelevant what zone they're training in. If they had mentioned that they were specifically interested in improving their aerobic or anaerobic performance, the answers would have been quite different.

    That is probably because your metabolic functions decrease while sleeping; IIRC it's something like 15-25%, :o
  • Chieflrg
    Chieflrg Posts: 9,097 Member
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    No. "Fat burning zone" is for pacing during endurance events like marathons, centuries, and gran fondos.

    Edit for clarity: It's not about fat loss. Athletes use this knowledge of energy source to avoid "hitting the wall" or "bonking."

    If the OP's goal is fat loss why would an endurance event pacing "phrase" be useful for them. Fat loss comes from a calorie deficit.

    Exactly. No need to confuse people that are looking for simply answers and not a debate over something that is on another tangent.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories