Quick Question??
Lovemehatemebytchez
Posts: 119 Member
So quick question for me to lose body fat I do cardio so does my heart rate have to be between 156 and 173 to lose body fat/weight?
Down below is how I got my target Training heart rate zone.
My age is 30 and you want to figure out your target training heart rate zone. Subtract 30 from 220 to get 190 — this is your maximum heart rate. Next, calculate your HRR by subtracting your resting heart rate of 77 beats per minute from 190. Your HRR is . Multiply 113 by .7 to get 79.1, then add your resting heart rate of 77 to get 156.1. Now multiply 113 by .85 to get 96.05, then add your resting heart rate of 77 to get 173.05. So your target for your training zone heart rate should be between 156.1 and 173.05 beats per minute.
Down below is how I got my target Training heart rate zone.
My age is 30 and you want to figure out your target training heart rate zone. Subtract 30 from 220 to get 190 — this is your maximum heart rate. Next, calculate your HRR by subtracting your resting heart rate of 77 beats per minute from 190. Your HRR is . Multiply 113 by .7 to get 79.1, then add your resting heart rate of 77 to get 156.1. Now multiply 113 by .85 to get 96.05, then add your resting heart rate of 77 to get 173.05. So your target for your training zone heart rate should be between 156.1 and 173.05 beats per minute.
0
Replies
-
To lose body fat, you need to be in a sustained calorie deficit. You don't have to exercise to lose weight.8
-
You could just be losing muscle doing it this way too, so if that's not your intent, be careful!kommodevaran wrote: »To lose body fat, you need to be in a sustained calorie deficit. You don't have to exercise to lose weight.1 -
There is no "fat burning zone" when doing cardio. It all comes down to calories.6
-
You could just be losing muscle doing it this way too, so if that's not your intent, be careful!kommodevaran wrote: »To lose body fat, you need to be in a sustained calorie deficit. You don't have to exercise to lose weight.
What other way is there to lose fat?1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »There is no "fat burning zone" when doing cardio. It all comes down to calories.
I agree, but I also noticed that my treadmill, and those at gyms and hotels, seem to depict the fat burning zone as being the way she mentions. Are they wrong? If so, why do they put that info on the machines?1 -
JustMissTracy wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »There is no "fat burning zone" when doing cardio. It all comes down to calories.
I agree, but I also noticed that my treadmill, and those at gyms and hotels, seem to depict the fat burning zone as being the way she mentions. Are they wrong? If so, why do they put that info on the machines?
It's a marketing gimmick, while it's true that you burn more bodyfat directly at a certain heart rate, you will burn less at other times of the day, whereas if you do HIIT for example you're burning nothing but glycogen during the exercise, but at other times of the day you will burn more bodyfat, so it all comes down to the caloric deficit over a 24 hour/week/month etc period. These are just marketing gimmicks that the diet/exercise industry is built on to sell books/supplements/workout programs etc when the reality is extremely simple - sustained caloric deficit over a prolonged period = weight/fat loss.6 -
nosebag1212 wrote: »JustMissTracy wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »There is no "fat burning zone" when doing cardio. It all comes down to calories.
I agree, but I also noticed that my treadmill, and those at gyms and hotels, seem to depict the fat burning zone as being the way she mentions. Are they wrong? If so, why do they put that info on the machines?
It's a marketing gimmick, while it's true that you burn more bodyfat directly at a certain heart rate, you will burn less at other times of the day, whereas if you do HIIT for example you're burning nothing but glycogen during the exercise, but at other times of the day you will burn more bodyfat, so it all comes down to the caloric deficit over a 24 hour/week/month etc period. These are just marketing gimmicks that the diet/exercise industry is built on to sell books/supplements/workout programs etc when the reality is extremely simple - sustained caloric deficit over a prolonged period = weight/fat loss.
But how is it a marketing gimmick if I already own the treadmill?2 -
JustMissTracy wrote: »nosebag1212 wrote: »JustMissTracy wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »There is no "fat burning zone" when doing cardio. It all comes down to calories.
I agree, but I also noticed that my treadmill, and those at gyms and hotels, seem to depict the fat burning zone as being the way she mentions. Are they wrong? If so, why do they put that info on the machines?
It's a marketing gimmick, while it's true that you burn more bodyfat directly at a certain heart rate, you will burn less at other times of the day, whereas if you do HIIT for example you're burning nothing but glycogen during the exercise, but at other times of the day you will burn more bodyfat, so it all comes down to the caloric deficit over a 24 hour/week/month etc period. These are just marketing gimmicks that the diet/exercise industry is built on to sell books/supplements/workout programs etc when the reality is extremely simple - sustained caloric deficit over a prolonged period = weight/fat loss.
But how is it a marketing gimmick if I already own the treadmill?
Because most people look at a treadmill before they buy one.5 -
You don't need to get that nitty gritty of detail. Be accountable to your food intake and hit appropriate calorie (moderate deficit), macro (protein/carb/fat), and fiber goals. Do that with an intense workout plan that incorporates resistance and cardio training, and you'll do great! The key is to push yourself so you work hard.2
-
kommodevaran wrote: »
You could just be losing muscle doing it this way too, so if that's not your intent, be careful!kommodevaran wrote: »To lose body fat, you need to be in a sustained calorie deficit. You don't have to exercise to lose weight.
What other way is there to lose fat?
I think the point is that just doing a calorie deficit MAY mean you lose muscle as well as fat. By doing some exercising, your body will burn more calories from fat and less from muscle. You will always lose both in a deficit, but you can "help" the ratio by doing some exercising. Not sure how much impact Cardio has though.2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
You could just be losing muscle doing it this way too, so if that's not your intent, be careful!kommodevaran wrote: »To lose body fat, you need to be in a sustained calorie deficit. You don't have to exercise to lose weight.
What other way is there to lose fat?
I think the point is that just doing a calorie deficit MAY mean you lose muscle as well as fat. By doing some exercising, your body will burn more calories from fat and less from muscle. You will always lose both in a deficit, but you can "help" the ratio by doing some exercising. Not sure how much impact Cardio has though.
You WILL lose muscle in a deficit. Resistance training is muscle sparing but "cardio" is not.1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »JustMissTracy wrote: »nosebag1212 wrote: »JustMissTracy wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »There is no "fat burning zone" when doing cardio. It all comes down to calories.
I agree, but I also noticed that my treadmill, and those at gyms and hotels, seem to depict the fat burning zone as being the way she mentions. Are they wrong? If so, why do they put that info on the machines?
It's a marketing gimmick, while it's true that you burn more bodyfat directly at a certain heart rate, you will burn less at other times of the day, whereas if you do HIIT for example you're burning nothing but glycogen during the exercise, but at other times of the day you will burn more bodyfat, so it all comes down to the caloric deficit over a 24 hour/week/month etc period. These are just marketing gimmicks that the diet/exercise industry is built on to sell books/supplements/workout programs etc when the reality is extremely simple - sustained caloric deficit over a prolonged period = weight/fat loss.
But how is it a marketing gimmick if I already own the treadmill?
Because most people look at a treadmill before they buy one.
True Dat
1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
You could just be losing muscle doing it this way too, so if that's not your intent, be careful!kommodevaran wrote: »To lose body fat, you need to be in a sustained calorie deficit. You don't have to exercise to lose weight.
What other way is there to lose fat?
I think the point is that just doing a calorie deficit MAY mean you lose muscle as well as fat. By doing some exercising, your body will burn more calories from fat and less from muscle. You will always lose both in a deficit, but you can "help" the ratio by doing some exercising. Not sure how much impact Cardio has though.
You WILL lose muscle in a deficit. Resistance training is muscle sparing but "cardio" is not.
Got a question on that. Why is cardio not muscle sparing? Maybe not core muscle, but shouldn't it be sparing some leg muscle? I'm definatley using the muscle.1 -
JustMissTracy wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »There is no "fat burning zone" when doing cardio. It all comes down to calories.
I agree, but I also noticed that my treadmill, and those at gyms and hotels, seem to depict the fat burning zone as being the way she mentions. Are they wrong? If so, why do they put that info on the machines?
All it is indicating is that you are using fat as the primary source of fuel for that particular activity, but that doesn't really matter in the bigger picture...we're always replenishing and depleting fat stores throughout any given day...all that really matters is your net position at the end of the day. You could work in the "fat burning" zone all of the time, but if your net position from an energy standpoint is a surplus, it doesn't matter one bit. By the by, sleeping is basically 100% fat burning zone...we use more fat as fuel sleeping than anything else.
Also, this terminology is starting to change within the fitness industry I think for this very reason...I'm often seeing it referred to now as the "recovery zone"
As energy expenditure goes, if that's the primary focus, higher intensity work is going to expend more energy overall.3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »JustMissTracy wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »There is no "fat burning zone" when doing cardio. It all comes down to calories.
I agree, but I also noticed that my treadmill, and those at gyms and hotels, seem to depict the fat burning zone as being the way she mentions. Are they wrong? If so, why do they put that info on the machines?
All it is indicating is that you are using fat as the primary source of fuel for that particular activity, but that doesn't really matter in the bigger picture...we're always replenishing and depleting fat stores throughout any given day...all that really matters is your net position at the end of the day. You could work in the "fat burning" zone all of the time, but if your net position from an energy standpoint is a surplus, it doesn't matter one bit. By the by, sleeping is basically 100% fat burning zone...we use more fat as fuel sleeping than anything else.
Also, this terminology is starting to change within the fitness industry I think for this very reason...I'm often seeing it referred to now as the "recovery zone"
As energy expenditure goes, if that's the primary focus, higher intensity work is going to expend more energy overall.
Excellent response, Thankyou~1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
You could just be losing muscle doing it this way too, so if that's not your intent, be careful!kommodevaran wrote: »To lose body fat, you need to be in a sustained calorie deficit. You don't have to exercise to lose weight.
What other way is there to lose fat?
I think the point is that just doing a calorie deficit MAY mean you lose muscle as well as fat. By doing some exercising, your body will burn more calories from fat and less from muscle. You will always lose both in a deficit, but you can "help" the ratio by doing some exercising. Not sure how much impact Cardio has though.
I have found the best way to make sure mostly fat is lost and the minimum of muscle is lost while in a deficit is:
1) make it a mild deficit not a big deficit, with calories at least above BMR. 300 less than TDEE works well for me but will depend on the person. Or for those using the myfitnesspal defaults then 1/2 or 1 lb per week loss rate (no more).
2) doing strength training exercises. Weight lifting or at least body weight exercises that really utilize the muscles.
3) adequate protein intake. For me that's 100 grams of protein a day, but will be different depending on the person. Between 0.8 grams per pound of lean mass up to 1 gram per pound of goal weight, depending on activity level, age, etc.
And the way to do the opposite and end up burning more muscle than fat and end up "skinny fat" would be... eat very low calories, do a lot of cardio and no strength training, and eat a lot of carbs and not enough protein.
Unfortunately most women end up doing the latter. Trying to eat as few calories as possible, doing a bunch of cardio because they think it burns more fat, and not eating enough protein because they tend to just not like it or even actively avoid foods that are high in protein because they view them as fatty or not clean foods.
I know because I did that too at first and in the past. Getting much better results now that I lift weights and eat enough protein and get enough calories (still in a deficit but not starving myself).1 -
Sorry OP but that's how you really lose body fat. It doesn't really have much to do with your "fat burning zone" during cardio. That's mostly a myth or at best a half truth. I'd prioritize weight lifting over cardio, and try hiit cardio instead of steady state.0
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
You could just be losing muscle doing it this way too, so if that's not your intent, be careful!kommodevaran wrote: »To lose body fat, you need to be in a sustained calorie deficit. You don't have to exercise to lose weight.
What other way is there to lose fat?
I think the point is that just doing a calorie deficit MAY mean you lose muscle as well as fat. By doing some exercising, your body will burn more calories from fat and less from muscle. You will always lose both in a deficit, but you can "help" the ratio by doing some exercising. Not sure how much impact Cardio has though.
You WILL lose muscle in a deficit. Resistance training is muscle sparing but "cardio" is not.
Got a question on that. Why is cardio not muscle sparing? Maybe not core muscle, but shouldn't it be sparing some leg muscle? I'm definatley using the muscle.
You are using the muscle, correct. But to be muscle sparing you have to train it with enough volume/frequency/intensity which cardio does not do. Leg muscles are getting used but not progressively.1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
You could just be losing muscle doing it this way too, so if that's not your intent, be careful!kommodevaran wrote: »To lose body fat, you need to be in a sustained calorie deficit. You don't have to exercise to lose weight.
What other way is there to lose fat?
I think the point is that just doing a calorie deficit MAY mean you lose muscle as well as fat. By doing some exercising, your body will burn more calories from fat and less from muscle. You will always lose both in a deficit, but you can "help" the ratio by doing some exercising. Not sure how much impact Cardio has though.
You WILL lose muscle in a deficit. Resistance training is muscle sparing but "cardio" is not.
Got a question on that. Why is cardio not muscle sparing? Maybe not core muscle, but shouldn't it be sparing some leg muscle? I'm definatley using the muscle.
Any muscle sparing from cardio would be extremely limited...adaptation happens quickly and the stimulus just isn't there. Depending on how you go about it, diet, etc...cardio CAN be catabolic and actually result in loss of muscle.
I have a friend who was a physique competitor who discovered a passion for cycling as it was his primary form of cardio when cutting...he ultimately decided he wanted to become a competitive cyclist and to do so he needed to drop a significant amount of weight...he wasn't/isn't fat so that means he needed to torch lean mass.
The way he went about this was to drop his lifting routine to about once per week, drop his protein, and long hours on the bike pretty much every day...these aren't actual pictures of him, but basically he went from looking like this:
to this:
Either is just fine in my book, but it does illustrate how cardio isn't really muscle sparing...but again, it also depends on what you're really shooting for. I think he's still got a pretty awesome body as he is very lean and has good definition...just doesn't have any size.0 -
I guess at this point I have no desire to look like either of them. Just don't want to look like a blob anymore. I get the retaining muscle, but am having a hard time with weight training. But I've done a beginners 15 minute program twice this week so it's a start. I enjoy the treadmill a lot more, mostly because I can zone out and watch the news or sports in front of my tv. Oh well.1
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »I guess at this point I have no desire to look like either of them. Just don't want to look like a blob anymore. I get the retaining muscle, but am having a hard time with weight training. But I've done a beginners 15 minute program twice this week so it's a start. I enjoy the treadmill a lot more, mostly because I can zone out and watch the news or sports in front of my tv. Oh well.
As you get more comfortable with weight lifting and are no longer in the learning phase it becomes similar in that you can zone out- it's very zen. Just focus on the moves and your form and counting reps... 1, 2, 3...
And then you get the post workout endorphins euphoria which is really nice!
Keep going with the weight lifting, you'll probably learn to love it. 15 minutes isn't very long though, but you're a beginner so it's fine. A minimum of 30 mins and max of 1 hour is what you probably want to work up to though.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »I guess at this point I have no desire to look like either of them. Just don't want to look like a blob anymore. I get the retaining muscle, but am having a hard time with weight training. But I've done a beginners 15 minute program twice this week so it's a start. I enjoy the treadmill a lot more, mostly because I can zone out and watch the news or sports in front of my tv. Oh well.
Which program are you currently doing?0 -
I'll have to look tonight. Don't have it bookmarked here.0
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »I guess at this point I have no desire to look like either of them. Just don't want to look like a blob anymore. I get the retaining muscle, but am having a hard time with weight training. But I've done a beginners 15 minute program twice this week so it's a start. I enjoy the treadmill a lot more, mostly because I can zone out and watch the news or sports in front of my tv. Oh well.
Here is a good list of lifting programs; it does include body weight and dumbbell routines. Also, it should be recognized that goals chance over time. So while your current goal is to not look like a blob, it's possible that more morph into something else. So taking the time and thinking whats next might be beneficial for your long term self.
Some cardio, like HIIT, can help maintain muscle mass, but steady state doesn't provide the progressive overload required to breakdown and force your body to become stronger. Following a program that forces your body to become stronger and continues to break down muscle fibers, is what will cause muscle growth.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/p1
0 -
My understanding about the fat burning zone is that it is mostly relevant to long distance runners. The body can only store so much glycogen. When it runs out, it starts using fat for fuel. However, burning fat is less efficient than burning glycogen. You train your body to get more efficient at burning fat by running more slowly, for longer. At short distances, it's fine to use the glycogen stored in your body. When you are running for more than 90 minutes, you either eat a lot of gels to keep your energy up, or you train your body to use a mixture of stored glycogen and fat. If you run completely out of glycogen, you 'hit the wall'. Training your body with long slow miles can put off the point that you hit the wall.
For someone running for weight loss, it doesn't matter, because you will burn the same calories, whether they come from stored calories or more recently ingested ones.
NB: I'm no scientist, but I've been on running forums for several years.2 -
Fat, glycogen and muscle are like different bank accounts belonging to the same person.
Certain types of exercise are like using different bank cards. Maybe HIIT draws from the current account (glycogen) while cardio in the "fat burning zone" draws from the savings account (fat). Makes no difference in the end, if you empty out the current account you'll have to top it up from the savings anyway - same net result.
Muscle is like the account you keep topped up for emergencies, house repairs, car costs etc, the one with the really good interest rate. You really don't want to be spending that willy-nilly, but if you overdo the deficit, empty the current account and max out the withdrawals on the savings account, you end up having to rob it, and then it takes a lot of work to build it back up again.3 -
kommodevaran wrote: »To lose body fat, you need to be in a sustained calorie deficit. You don't have to exercise to lose weight.
Thanks, I know I need about 1500 to 18000 -
You don't need to get that nitty gritty of detail. Be accountable to your food intake and hit appropriate calorie (moderate deficit), macro (protein/carb/fat), and fiber goals. Do that with an intense workout plan that incorporates resistance and cardio training, and you'll do great! The key is to push yourself so you work hard.[/quote
I work out at least 5 times a week and do intervals 1 minute jog and 1 minute rest and then I lift weights 10-20lbs about 2 set 10reps. I eat about 1500 to 1800 calories and my earrings really not on schedule need to fix that. Thank you. Follow me on instagram at Sully_getsfit0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »I'll have to look tonight. Don't have it bookmarked here.
This one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0bhE67HuDY
Hasfit beginner video. I'm fine on the weights but the second night, I couldn't do the leg lifts. I think I pulled something the first night as it really hurt the second night. So I skipped them. First night was Monday, second was Wed.1 -
It may be considered a pedantic point, but in reality all that matters is your net position over the long term, not just at the end of each day.cwolfman13 wrote: »JustMissTracy wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »There is no "fat burning zone" when doing cardio. It all comes down to calories.
I agree, but I also noticed that my treadmill, and those at gyms and hotels, seem to depict the fat burning zone as being the way she mentions. Are they wrong? If so, why do they put that info on the machines?
All it is indicating is that you are using fat as the primary source of fuel for that particular activity, but that doesn't really matter in the bigger picture...we're always replenishing and depleting fat stores throughout any given day...all that really matters is your net position at the end of the day. You could work in the "fat burning" zone all of the time, but if your net position from an energy standpoint is a surplus, it doesn't matter one bit. By the by, sleeping is basically 100% fat burning zone...we use more fat as fuel sleeping than anything else.
Also, this terminology is starting to change within the fitness industry I think for this very reason...I'm often seeing it referred to now as the "recovery zone"
As energy expenditure goes, if that's the primary focus, higher intensity work is going to expend more energy overall.
We think of it and count calories in terms of days, but our metabolism doesn't have a clock and couldn't care less about one day as opposed to the next. The body doesn't pause at midnight, calculate calories and decide whether to put on or take off weight. You could be in a significant surplus for two days, then be in a significant deficit for the following two or three days and it would all even out in the end. Weight gain/loss/maintenance happens on a continuum, not within the confines of any man-made time constructs.
As far as the original question goes, substrate usage (fat vs. carbs) during exercise is completely irrelevant to weight loss. The "fat burning zone", at least as far as it pertains to weight loss, is a broscience myth which is (mis)used primarily for marketing equipment and workout programs. Just as with your diet, calories are king when it comes to weight loss.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions