Calorie Burn

silvestrea
silvestrea Posts: 33 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hi, MFP Community!

I have been using my Fitbit now for a little over a year. Over the past 3 months, I've noticed that my calorie burn has gone from mostly "cardio" to "fat burn." Does anyone know what that means? Is one better than the other for weight loss purposes?

Thank you for your help in advance!

-Alex

Replies

  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Just guessing I would say it indicates that you aren't exercising with enough intensity to get your heart rate up.
  • gophermatt
    gophermatt Posts: 129 Member
    Or could be the same intensity you've been using is easier for your body after a year of exercise.

    I'm led to believe the fat burn label is a bit of a misnomer. Your body is getting energy from fat stores in addition to the stuff that is about to become fat. The ratio of the sources changes with intensity, but the end result still comes down to calories burned for weight loss. More intensity will burn more calories in the same length of time.

    Also, there is the whole cardiovascular benefit to think about as well. But lower intensity exercise you do is better than high intensity exercise you avoid (I know something about that portion from my experience).

    Good luck!
  • Mini_Medic
    Mini_Medic Posts: 343 Member
    Both will burn calories, which if you are in a deficit will cause weight loss. It's all about the heart rate zone for those parameters. Fat burn zone is a lower percentage of your maximum heart rate. Cardio is a much higher percentage. The fat burn zone is what people used to think was optimal for losing weight due to it being a setting on gym equipment and it was the goal heart rate for steady state cardio like elliptical work outs, a stationary bike or jogging on the treadmill. Cardio in the higher heart rates was thought of more for training purposes and athletic conditioning that would increase the workload on your heart and circulatory system and enable you to perform better with less work due to better stamina and efficiency. Cardio is more the HIIT of today's world of fitness goals where fat burn was the ye' old days of women doing steady state endless hours on a bike trying to get rid of their love handles.

    The point? Both heart rate zones have their place in training. I think with the Fitbit it's reading a lower heart rate while you are working out so it's putting yours into the lower category. But this is a good thing for you if your still doing the same exercises because it means your body is adapting to the work you are doing and becoming more efficient! Unless you have started doing less of course but I'm assuming you haven't and this is just a result of getting better and improving at whatever exercise you do. If you want you can increase and or change up your activity to give your body a new challenge.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    The "zones" are used by endurance athletes to determine the best heart rate to maintain.

    For weight loss, these zones mean nothing. It all comes down to calorie deficit.
  • silvestrea
    silvestrea Posts: 33 Member
    Thanks for your responses, everyone!
  • rsclause
    rsclause Posts: 3,103 Member
    I always thought the fat burn zone was created to make people feel better about moderate exercise.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Best guess is that you have become fitter and now have a lower exercise heart rate.
    You could of course exercise at a higher intensity to get your HR back up to previous levels.
    Tracking your resting HR and seeing that fall over weeks/months would tend to confirm that.

    Is one better than the other for weight loss purposes? Best just to think of exercise as burning calories - the fuel you predominately use during exercise has no bearing on weight loss - that's a function of your calorie deficit over an extended period of time.

    In terms of weight loss you would have not to be eating back exercise calories and then the exercise that burns the most calories would have the greater influence on your calorie balance. That's a function of intensity and duration.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    rsclause wrote: »
    I always thought the fat burn zone was created to make people feel better about moderate exercise.
    gophermatt wrote: »
    I'm led to believe the fat burn label is a bit of a misnomer.

    "The fat burning zone" is a real thing, and it's well named. A lot of people don't understand it, but that doesn't mean anything.

    As everybody knows, exercise burns calories. Calories are energy. Exercise uses energy. That energy comes from a combination of fats and sugars (glycogen). You probably have enough stored glycogen for about 20 minutes of hard exercise, and an essentially unlimited supply of fat. If you're going to do a century ride (that's 100 miles) or a marathon, you won't be able to do it on glycogen, you'll have to stay at a lower intensity and burn mostly fat, or you'll hit the wall and be unable to continue. That's what the fat burning zone is about.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    edited May 2017
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    rsclause wrote: »
    I always thought the fat burn zone was created to make people feel better about moderate exercise.
    gophermatt wrote: »
    I'm led to believe the fat burn label is a bit of a misnomer.

    "The fat burning zone" is a real thing, and it's well named. A lot of people don't understand it, but that doesn't mean anything.

    As everybody knows, exercise burns calories. Calories are energy. Exercise uses energy. That energy comes from a combination of fats and sugars (glycogen). You probably have enough stored glycogen for about 20 minutes of hard exercise, and an essentially unlimited supply of fat. If you're going to do a century ride (that's 100 miles) or a marathon, you won't be able to do it on glycogen, you'll have to stay at a lower intensity and burn mostly fat, or you'll hit the wall and be unable to continue. That's what the fat burning zone is about.

    Which, again (reinforcing, not arguing with you), has to do with athletic performance - not weight loss.

    As far as weight loss goes, substrate utilization (whether you're burning fat or glycogen, or what percentage of each/either) is irrelevant.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Yes, this is absolutely about fitness and has almost nothing to do with weight. 500 calories of sugar "are the same as" 500 calories of fat in terms of weight gain, loss, and maintenance. (Just like a mile of pavement is as long as a mile of rocky trail.)

    The takeaway point I'm making is just that "the fat burning zone" is a misunderstood thing, but not a myth.

Categories