Heart Rate

You'll burn fat whenever you are doing an activity that elevates the heart rate (you'll lose that fat without replacing it if you're in a caloric deficit - so you can't outrun your diet....). That's why walking, even at a moderate pace, will elevate your metabolism. As you go up in intensity, you'll enter the 'cardio' phase, and then after that, the peak levels. I can't tell you what those levels are for you specifically, but if you've entered your data into Fitbit, it'll let you know what levels you've been in for each workout.

Only you can know what level you can handle regularly. If you compare your tracked workouts, walks, etc., you'll get a good idea of calorie difference between the average heart rates. For me, as a 54yo male, my calorie burns tend to be relative to 1) time engaged, and 2) intensity. To give an idea, I did a 3 mile hilly brisk walk that took 54 minutes, burned 715 calories, where I averaged 128 bpm (this was high because of some pretty steep hills). The next day I ran (jogged really) for 40 minutes, burned 687 calories averaging 141 bpm. For a much more tame walk (the type I do at work when I take the long way to get somewhere) resulted in the following: 25 minutes, 195 calories, 85 bpm.

Your Fitbit account can tell you how much time you spent in each of the zones. For example, on the last walk I mentioned, I spent only 16 minutes in the fat burn zone. In the running example, I spent 25 minutes in peak, 12 minutes in cardio and 2 in fat burn.



There's a lot more the experts around here can add to this, but it's a start.

Generally, the higher your heart rate the more calories you are burning.

Silentpadna wrote: »

You'll burn fat whenever you are doing an activity that elevates the heart rate (you'll lose that fat without replacing it if you're in a caloric deficit - so you can't outrun your diet....). That's why walking, even at a moderate pace, will elevate your metabolism. As you go up in intensity, you'll enter the 'cardio' phase, and then after that, the peak levels. I can't tell you what those levels are for you specifically, but if you've entered your data into Fitbit, it'll let you know what levels you've been in for each workout.

Only you can know what level you can handle regularly. If you compare your tracked workouts, walks, etc., you'll get a good idea of calorie difference between the average heart rates. For me, as a 54yo male, my calorie burns tend to be relative to 1) time engaged, and 2) intensity. To give an idea, I did a 3 mile hilly brisk walk that took 54 minutes, burned 715 calories, where I averaged 128 bpm (this was high because of some pretty steep hills). The next day I ran (jogged really) for 40 minutes, burned 687 calories averaging 141 bpm. For a much more tame walk (the type I do at work when I take the long way to get somewhere) resulted in the following: 25 minutes, 195 calories, 85 bpm.

Your Fitbit account can tell you how much time you spent in each of the zones. For example, on the last walk I mentioned, I spent only 16 minutes in the fat burn zone. In the running example, I spent 25 minutes in peak, 12 minutes in cardio and 2 in fat burn.



There's a lot more the experts around here can add to this, but it's a start.

You do not need to elevate your heart rate to burn fat - a calorie deficit is all that is required. Otherwise, people who don't exercise would not be able to lose fat, yet they do.

OP, your heart rate is not related to how much body fat you burn in the way you are thinking. If you burn 100 cals in the 'fat burning zone' vs 100 cals in the 'aerobic zone' (or any other zone) it does not change the amount of body fat that you lose presuming equal deficits.

That said, different heart rate zones do have different training effects on the body and that is when they are important. The fat burning zone is useful if you're training for long endurance events because fat lasts longer as fuel than stored carbohydrate. It's also useful for increasing aerobic capacity, but higher and still aerobic zones will have a more significant (and somewhat different) effect.

For what you are asking about, which is burning the most calories, aim for the highest intensity you can maintain for the amount of time you're willing to spend. I can burn many more calories running at an easy pace than doing sprints, but I have to spend a lot more time doing it. I enjoy running, but not so much the gasping and collapsing at the end of a max effort workout, so long runs are my preference. You need to find the sweet spot where intensity and time spent work for you and let the calorie burn shake out where it will.

stealthq wrote: »

Silentpadna wrote: »

You'll burn fat whenever you are doing an activity that elevates the heart rate (you'll lose that fat without replacing it if you're in a caloric deficit - so you can't outrun your diet....). That's why walking, even at a moderate pace, will elevate your metabolism. As you go up in intensity, you'll enter the 'cardio' phase, and then after that, the peak levels. I can't tell you what those levels are for you specifically, but if you've entered your data into Fitbit, it'll let you know what levels you've been in for each workout.

Only you can know what level you can handle regularly. If you compare your tracked workouts, walks, etc., you'll get a good idea of calorie difference between the average heart rates. For me, as a 54yo male, my calorie burns tend to be relative to 1) time engaged, and 2) intensity. To give an idea, I did a 3 mile hilly brisk walk that took 54 minutes, burned 715 calories, where I averaged 128 bpm (this was high because of some pretty steep hills). The next day I ran (jogged really) for 40 minutes, burned 687 calories averaging 141 bpm. For a much more tame walk (the type I do at work when I take the long way to get somewhere) resulted in the following: 25 minutes, 195 calories, 85 bpm.

Your Fitbit account can tell you how much time you spent in each of the zones. For example, on the last walk I mentioned, I spent only 16 minutes in the fat burn zone. In the running example, I spent 25 minutes in peak, 12 minutes in cardio and 2 in fat burn.

There's a lot more the experts around here can add to this, but it's a start.

You do not need to elevate your heart rate to burn fat - a calorie deficit is all that is required. Otherwise, people who don't exercise would not be able to lose fat, yet they do.

OP, your heart rate is not related to how much body fat you burn in the way you are thinking. If you burn 100 cals in the 'fat burning zone' vs 100 cals in the 'aerobic zone' (or any other zone) it does not change the amount of body fat that you lose presuming equal deficits.

That said, different heart rate zones do have different training effects on the body and that is when they are important. The fat burning zone is useful if you're training for long endurance events because fat lasts longer as fuel than stored carbohydrate. It's also useful for increasing aerobic capacity, but higher and still aerobic zones will have a more significant (and somewhat different) effect.

For what you are asking about, which is burning the most calories, aim for the highest intensity you can maintain for the amount of time you're willing to spend. I can burn many more calories running at an easy pace than doing sprints, but I have to spend a lot more time doing it. I enjoy running, but not so much the gasping and collapsing at the end of a max effort workout, so long runs are my preference. You need to find the sweet spot where intensity and time spent work for you and let the calorie burn shake out where it will.

^^^ Endorsed: Accords with what I've learned as an athlete doing heart-rate training, during coaching certification, and while losing weight.

The only thing I'd add is that doing short max-effort exercise every single day isn't the most beneficial approach for most athletic-training purposes, and that high-intensity wouldn't be my first suggestion for someone new to exercise (until they've built up some endurance/stamina/fitness at lower intensity, done longer).

All of it burns more calories than sitting on the couch, and you'll lose weight as long as you burn more calories than you eat, regardless of how they're burned.

OP, your current routine sounds fine, as long as it makes you feel a bit challenged as you do it, but leaves you feeling good overall.

spumroy wrote: »

I started my weight loss program 4 weeks ago. I'm down 7/12 lbs. I have a question about my heart rate. I have a fit bit. I'm 57 years old. What should my heart rate be at to burn fat. My resting heart rate is about 76. I get confused with what the fit bit reads. On my normal day of cadio I'm at a heart rate of 130. I do HIIt once a week. I alternate walk full run one minute on one minute off for 30 minutes. My heart rate is at about 160.

If your heart rate is 130 during cardio at age 57, that's great!

Your resting heart rate is fairly good too. Athlete level is 60.

Congrats on your weight loss!

Agree with others that heart rate per se doesn't matter too much for fat burning, but cardio certainly helps you burn more calories so you get to eat more while losing weight. (This means eating back 50-75% of your fitbit calories earned.)