could this matter?

clewliss
clewliss Posts: 640 Member
edited September 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
I know that we have a heart rate "zone" we are suppose to be in during exercise and mine is just 137-144, but I work out with a heart rate of 159-172! Could this possibly be why I'm not getting anywhere? I just can't seem to shake the lbs and I'm searching for solutions now. Also, what is the difference in "Weightloss zone" and "cardiovascular zone"?

Replies

  • clewliss
    clewliss Posts: 640 Member
    I know that we have a heart rate "zone" we are suppose to be in during exercise and mine is just 137-144, but I work out with a heart rate of 159-172! Could this possibly be why I'm not getting anywhere? I just can't seem to shake the lbs and I'm searching for solutions now. Also, what is the difference in "Weightloss zone" and "cardiovascular zone"?
  • sarabear
    sarabear Posts: 864
    Sounds lika a good question for Banks.
  • lessertess
    lessertess Posts: 855 Member
    Weight loss zone is where your heart rate is increased and you are burning a higher percentage of fat. Cardio zone is the zone recommended for heart health. In this zone you burn more calories but a lower percentage of fat. In cardio zone, even though you are burning a lower percentage of fat, you burn more calories, so you'll lose more weight in the cardio zone.

    You can either work out for a longer period of time in the fat loss zone or for a shorter amount of time in the cardio zone and you'll, essentially, net the same in terms of weight loss.

    I sincerely doubt that working in the cardio zone is negatively impacting your weight loss. In fact, it should be helping.
  • clewliss
    clewliss Posts: 640 Member
    Weight loss zone is where your heart rate is increased and you are burning a higher percentage of fat. Cardio zone is the zone recommended for heart health. In this zone you burn more calories but a lower percentage of fat. In cardio zone, even though you are burning a lower percentage of fat, you burn more calories, so you'll lose more weight in the cardio zone.

    You can either work out for a longer period of time in the fat loss zone or for a shorter amount of time in the cardio zone and you'll, essentially, net the same in terms of weight loss.

    I sincerely doubt that working in the cardio zone is negatively impacting your weight loss. In fact, it should be helping.

    Thank you! Makes perfect sense to me...maybe I should up my exercise a little then! I usually burn between 3-400/day and I also eat those back, so it should start working soon....surely :)
  • yellow_pepper
    yellow_pepper Posts: 708 Member
    I find it hard to believe that you really burn a lower percentage of fat when you work harder. My guess is that most people with a fair amount of fat to lose can't sustain "cardio zone" as long as "weight loss zone." It's a matter of time (and calories) before you burn ANY fat when you exercise, as you use up your glycogen stores before you burn fat.

    Banks is no longer with us, but maybe Songbyrd can give us her view on this.
  • hmo4
    hmo4 Posts: 1,673 Member
    Yes he is! He's just undercover I thought. It all has to do with where you're energy source is taken from. When you're HR is in 60-80%-fat burning zone, you initially burn carb and then over to fat for energy. When you're >80%, in you're cardio zone, the energy is taken from the Glycogen (stored carbs) for your energy. But as the person said before, they both burn calories, the latter in shorter time for more burn and it is improving your cardio endurance.:huh:
  • Phoenix_Rising
    Phoenix_Rising Posts: 11,417 Member
    Banks is no longer with us, but maybe Songbyrd can give us her view on this.

    Heh heh, he's back :wink: SHBanks... or something like that.
    Your comment sounded like you were talking about a death in the family. :laugh:
  • sarabear
    sarabear Posts: 864
    LOL he is no longer with us, it did sound like a funeral:laugh:
  • yellow_pepper
    yellow_pepper Posts: 708 Member
    Oh right, SHBoss. Another MFP reincarnation. Wonder what's prompting those.
  • lessertess
    lessertess Posts: 855 Member
    Weight loss zone is where your heart rate is increased and you are burning a higher percentage of fat. Cardio zone is the zone recommended for heart health. In this zone you burn more calories but a lower percentage of fat. In cardio zone, even though you are burning a lower percentage of fat, you burn more calories, so you'll lose more weight in the cardio zone.

    You can either work out for a longer period of time in the fat loss zone or for a shorter amount of time in the cardio zone and you'll, essentially, net the same in terms of weight loss.

    I sincerely doubt that working in the cardio zone is negatively impacting your weight loss. In fact, it should be helping.

    Thank you! Makes perfect sense to me...maybe I should up my exercise a little then! I usually burn between 3-400/day and I also eat those back, so it should start working soon....surely :)

    I'm certain that will help. The other potential is the estimate of calories burned. The gym machines tend to overestimate calories burned by anywhere from 10% to 30%. As a matter of habit, I subtract 20% from what the machine tells me. So, if the machine is telling you that you burned 400 calories, it is highly likely that you really burned about 320 calories. That can make a difference if you're trying to eat back all your exercise calories.
  • clewliss
    clewliss Posts: 640 Member
    Weight loss zone is where your heart rate is increased and you are burning a higher percentage of fat. Cardio zone is the zone recommended for heart health. In this zone you burn more calories but a lower percentage of fat. In cardio zone, even though you are burning a lower percentage of fat, you burn more calories, so you'll lose more weight in the cardio zone.

    You can either work out for a longer period of time in the fat loss zone or for a shorter amount of time in the cardio zone and you'll, essentially, net the same in terms of weight loss.

    I sincerely doubt that working in the cardio zone is negatively impacting your weight loss. In fact, it should be helping.

    Thank you! Makes perfect sense to me...maybe I should up my exercise a little then! I usually burn between 3-400/day and I also eat those back, so it should start working soon....surely :)

    I'm certain that will help. The other potential is the estimate of calories burned. The gym machines tend to overestimate calories burned by anywhere from 10% to 30%. As a matter of habit, I subtract 20% from what the machine tells me. So, if the machine is telling you that you burned 400 calories, it is highly likely that you really burned about 320 calories. That can make a difference if you're trying to eat back all your exercise calories.

    I know those machines can be wrong! I used them for 8 months before buying a HRM and boy was I shocked!! The HRM is the way to go!!
  • songbyrdsweet
    songbyrdsweet Posts: 5,691 Member
    I find it hard to believe that you really burn a lower percentage of fat when you work harder. My guess is that most people with a fair amount of fat to lose can't sustain "cardio zone" as long as "weight loss zone." It's a matter of time (and calories) before you burn ANY fat when you exercise, as you use up your glycogen stores before you burn fat.

    Banks is no longer with us, but maybe Songbyrd can give us her view on this.

    I agree with this.
    It's not really about a 'zone'. It's about a combination of duration, intensity, and glycogen depletion. We burn most of our fat when we're just sitting around doing nothing because there's no rush for ATP and there's plenty of oxygen available. The calories we use during exercise are just being wasted to help build our caloric deficit, and come largely from glycogen unless the exercise lasts longer than 60-90 minutes. Barring the first couple seconds of physical activity, we never use JUST glycogen or JUST fat...but for the first long while it's mostly glycogen (about a 70/30 split).

    You burn more calories at a higher intensity, and since this is about calories in versus calories out, it really is better to exercise with intensity (unless there is a medical contraindication). You will use fat for energy throughout the day.

    I agree with lessertess as well. Gym machines are notoriously inaccurate.
  • sarabear
    sarabear Posts: 864
    I sent a message to Banks, he has GREAT advice and this is what he got back to me with...

    See, exercise isn't suppose to be the way to lose weight, healthy diet is supposed to be how you lose weight, exercise is supposed to do 2 things, it provides a small amount of extra "kick" to your calories, and it also improves the condition of your heat, respitory system, blood network, and muscles. This makes you somewhat more efficient. But it's all about eating the right amount and nutritional types of food. I.E. eating 1200 calories a day is great, but it's still a bad process if you eat nothing but cup cakes. Also eating 1200 calories is great but if you eat it all at once (even if it's the right nutrition), you're going to be unable to absorb everything correctly, and your body's going to store the extra carbs as fat, because at any one time the body can store only so much. Hopefully this clears it up a bit for you.
  • yellow_pepper
    yellow_pepper Posts: 708 Member
    What do you think of that, Songbyrd? I have to call BS on one part. If you eat 1200 calories all at once, you're probably not even going to digest a good part of it, let alone convert it to fat.

    Some studies show that eating like a snake - i.e. one big meal each day, or even an enormous meal every other day - might actually lead to the MOST EFFICIENT use of body fat for energy. Think about it. That's how our prehistoric ancestors ate. When they hunted large game, they gorged themselves on it, since they knew the next one might not come for a few days. In between, they essentially fasted.

    The trouble with eating that way today is that your next meal is not uncertain. You know it can come whenever you feel like it. Whether or not you eat 1200 calories in one meal, you're still going to get hungry a few hours later, and unless you're asleep you'll probably eat more. So at the end of the day you might eat more than 2000 calories.
  • songbyrdsweet
    songbyrdsweet Posts: 5,691 Member
    You're right, YP. In most cases, eating 1200 calories in one meal will result in poor digestion, assuming it's a large bolus of food. If it's 1200 calories of lard...well, that won't take up as much space as 1200 calories of rice. The issue arises not from the number of calories in the food bolus, but how large and dense it is. We absorb nutrients when our intestinal wall presses down on the food, separating it into smaller chunks and squishing the food from the middle outward. But if it's really thick, that mixing won't be able to bring all of the food from the inside of the bolus, and we lose out on those calories.

    However, saying that this same problem will lead to fat gain from excess carbohydrates is incorrect and in fact contradictory. If we can't absorb the nutrients, we don't get the calories. They can't be stored as fat. There's not a 'correct' or 'incorrect' absorption, just absorption or no absorption. In the case of no absorption, you will pass that foodstuff, sometimes even in its full form (like a grain of rice that might sneak past, not a whole chicken breast).
  • LuckyLeprechaun
    LuckyLeprechaun Posts: 6,296 Member
    I love reading song byrd's posts. I always learn something. Be careful Songbyrd, or you'll be the next Banks! :laugh:

    (what I understand is he changed his name b/c so many people had come to regard him as "the expert" that they didn't bother searching the threads for answers, and he was spending all his time answering the same questions again and again)

    but now that everyone knows he is back, and using another name, it sorta defeated the purpose of being "under cover" :huh:
  • nickybr38
    nickybr38 Posts: 674 Member
    Honestly there are so many different opinions about this issue in health magazines that a person just doesn't know what to believe exactly.

    I know personally that I tire out after my workout if I work in the cardiovascular zone so I stay within the weight loss zone instead. It's a matter of building my heart up (which is a muscle like any other and not used to so much activity). When I can hit the cardiovascular zone and not feel like sleeping for two hours after my workout I'll hit it but for now the weight loss 'zone' heart rate works better for me.

    The bottom line is do what feels comfortable for you. Of course with exercise you have to push outside your comfort zone a bit but at the same time your body will tell you when you're pushing too hard. Just listen.

    I would suggest sticking to the lower heart rates if this is your first time exercising, at least for the first few weeks. If you push too hard, too fast, you run the risk of burning yourself out.
  • songbyrdsweet
    songbyrdsweet Posts: 5,691 Member
    I love reading song byrd's posts. I always learn something. Be careful Songbyrd, or you'll be the next Banks! :laugh:

    (what I understand is he changed his name b/c so many people had come to regard him as "the expert" that they didn't bother searching the threads for answers, and he was spending all his time answering the same questions again and again)

    but now that everyone knows he is back, and using another name, it sorta defeated the purpose of being "under cover" :huh:

    LOL I donno if I could ever fill Banks's shoes, he has like a record for the most stickied and in-depth posts! :happy:
    I can understand his frustration though. If I have to tell another person not to take Colon Blow...well I don't know, it's just silly. :laugh:
  • lessertess
    lessertess Posts: 855 Member
    I sent a message to Banks, he has GREAT advice and this is what he got back to me with...

    See, exercise isn't suppose to be the way to lose weight, healthy diet is supposed to be how you lose weight, exercise is supposed to do 2 things, it provides a small amount of extra "kick" to your calories, and it also improves the condition of your heat, respitory system, blood network, and muscles. This makes you somewhat more efficient. But it's all about eating the right amount and nutritional types of food. I.E. eating 1200 calories a day is great, but it's still a bad process if you eat nothing but cup cakes. Also eating 1200 calories is great but if you eat it all at once (even if it's the right nutrition), you're going to be unable to absorb everything correctly, and your body's going to store the extra carbs as fat, because at any one time the body can store only so much. Hopefully this clears it up a bit for you.

    Although this may be true from a physiological point of view, I can't agree with it in practical application. The overall means of losing weight is to have a calorie deficit. You can do this strictly through diet but, in my opinion, it's highly ineffective. Exercise burns calories. Regardless of where those calories come from, it contributes to a calorie deficit. In a society that is primarily sedentary and where food is so plentiful, it is very difficult to maintain a large enough deficit to lose and maintain that loss unless you add in exercise. Additionally, studies have shown that people who lose weight and keep it off, adopt a regular habit of daily exercise.

    I'm not saying you can't lose weight through diet alone...you can, but it is more difficult and current evidence would indicate that it's not likely to stay off.

    Additionally, although eating right is an important factor in overall health, you can lose weight eating 1200 calories of "crap". I know people who have done it and are doing it. Again, I don't beleive it's sustainable but it can be done. For general weight loss, a calorie is a calorie, is a calorie.

    I'm not an expert but that's my opinion based on my own research, my own experiences and the experiences of others I know.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories