Heart rate zone for fat loss. So confused!

Options
rach__b
rach__b Posts: 34 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hello Guys!
I've just worked out my heart rate zones which are as follows
My resting heart rate - 88 (my general fitness is quite good, but my heart rate is high and it has never fluctuated)
Aerobic heart rate range for fat loss - 140 to 166bpm
For fitness - 166 - 177
Aerobic anaerobic - 177 - 182. My understanding that exercising in this zone won't burn fat but becomes a carb burning exercise (muscle/glycogen).

What really confuses me is that when I did the insanity workout my heart rate would always lie within the aerobic and anaerobic heart rate range (heart rate would be 180bpm) and I lost 2 stone and really toned up. How did I burn fat in this range of its. It recommended for fat loss?

My average heart rate during workouts tend to be 178. I do push myself because I feel a tremendous amount of satisfaction afterwards. However my primary goal is fat loss.

What I'm getting at here is, should I try and stay within the fat loss range of 140-166 even though I barely break a sweat? Or to continue to hit between 175-180

Thanks guys!

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    No. The "fat burning" range is a misleading name and really the only people that need to pay attention to it are people who are doing specialized training. As your results show, you can incorporate any type of exercise into a weight loss plan and lose fat, providing you are eating at a deficit. Feel free to work at the heart range that you enjoy.

    Anaerobic exercise won't use fat *for fuel during the workout* but it can still contribute to fat loss if one is in a deficit (and your results show that you were doing that).
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    Options
    Nope - work out as hard as you can in order to maximize calorie loss (as long as you recognize your body's limits). I forget the source but while aerobic exercise might burn a higher proportion of fat to your total calorie expenditure, anaerobic exercise actually burns more calories overall. Plus you'll get the benefit of building muscle (burns more calories at rest) and the 'afterburn' effect that comes from intense HIIT workouts.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,952 Member
    Options
    You lost weight while doing Insanity because your Calories Out were more than your Calories In. (CO > CI). You looked toned because you'd lost fat from on top of your muscles. Here's a great article about toning: http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/muscle-tone/

    For people without heart conditions, it's more useful to think of heart rate zones as a guide to get in between "not working hard enough" and "working too hard" than a precise indicator of fat burning ability. You will lose weight if you create a calorie deficit, whether you do that with no exercise, moderate exercise, or intense exercise.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    The "fat burning zone" just means that for that particular activity you're primarily using fat as fuel...at the end of the day your calorie deficit is going to determine net fat loss, not the zone you work in. Your body is constantly cycling between storage and oxidation of fat...storage and burning of glycogen, etc. When you're sitting around and doing nothing or you're sleeping, you're in the "fat burning zone"

    Many trainers/coaches, etc have just started calling this the "recovery zone".
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    No. The "fat burning" range is a misleading name and really the only people that need to pay attention to it are people who are doing specialized training.

    Well it's really not a misleading name because it's when you're burning fat instead of glycogen. It's nothing to do with weight loss and everything to do with pacing during endurance events, because weight loss comes from a calorie deficit.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    Your heart rate during training is irrelevant for fat loss, as is substrate utilization during exercise.
  • rach__b
    rach__b Posts: 34 Member
    Options
    This is what i thought haha! Thanks guys. I love this forum. Only joined yesterday and everyone has been super helpful :)
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    No. The "fat burning" range is a misleading name and really the only people that need to pay attention to it are people who are doing specialized training.

    Well it's really not a misleading name because it's when you're burning fat instead of glycogen. It's nothing to do with weight loss and everything to do with pacing during endurance events, because weight loss comes from a calorie deficit.

    A more accurate phrasing: the name misleads some people into thinking that fat can only be lost if one is exercising in this range.

  • Horsejumper1
    Horsejumper1 Posts: 25 Member
    Options
    You heart rate determines which fuel your body will burn - by working out at intensity, your heart beats faster and you expend calories faster. Your body can't burn fat and keep up with that so it uses your limited glycogen stores instead. This is why the intensity can't be sustained once the glycogen stores deplete. By working out at a lower intensity level, the heart rate is lower, the body can keep up by fat, and you can go longer. This is why we focus so heavily on heart rate in endurance training.
    At the end of the day, I can run 30min at 185bpm, burn 350 calories, and be exhausted at the end. Or I can slow down, run 90min at ~155bpm, burn 800, and finish feeling fine.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    No. The "fat burning" range is a misleading name and really the only people that need to pay attention to it are people who are doing specialized training.

    Well it's really not a misleading name because it's when you're burning fat instead of glycogen. It's nothing to do with weight loss and everything to do with pacing during endurance events, because weight loss comes from a calorie deficit.

    A more accurate phrasing: the name misleads some people into thinking that fat can only be lost if one is exercising in this range.

    What name should athletes use to keep dieters from making bad assumptions and getting confused?

    It's a hugely important concept, we're not going to just forget it because other people don't always take the time to understand what it means.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    No. The "fat burning" range is a misleading name and really the only people that need to pay attention to it are people who are doing specialized training.

    Well it's really not a misleading name because it's when you're burning fat instead of glycogen. It's nothing to do with weight loss and everything to do with pacing during endurance events, because weight loss comes from a calorie deficit.

    A more accurate phrasing: the name misleads some people into thinking that fat can only be lost if one is exercising in this range.

    What name should athletes use to keep dieters from making bad assumptions and getting confused?

    It's a hugely important concept, we're not going to just forget it because other people don't always take the time to understand what it means.

    I'm not asking anyone to forget anything, but do you agree that the name can sometimes lead people to draw an incorrect conclusion?

    If I say that a name is potentially misleading, that's not a value-judgement on the people using the term. It's me just making the observation that someone has used the name to come to an incorrect conclusion.

Categories