Heart Rate Conundrum

Options
HeyJudii
HeyJudii Posts: 264 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
When I am running for an hour, my heat rate seldom goes into the fat burning zone, no matter how slowly I run. For the past couple of days, due to health reasons, I have been walking for an hour instead, and I am in the fat burning zone almost the entire time. I don't get it.
My resting heart rate is usually around 54 BPM (I wear a Fitbit) and goes into the 140+ BPM range when running. I don't have any known health issues besides the recent one that has me currently walking.

Replies

  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,754 Member
    Options
    The fat burning zone is a myth. You burn more calories with more intense exercise.
  • Charlene____
    Charlene____ Posts: 110 Member
    Options
    If you mean you're trying to stay in the Fat Burning Zone to ensure your run is easy enough, don't worry. Mine is usually in the cardio zone, (or even Peak Zone in high heat and humidity) while running slow and able to carry on a conversation. Like you, my resting heart rate is about 48-52. Only walking will keep my heart rate in the Fat Burning Zone. I race around 7:30-8:00 per mile depending on distance. Even if I ran 9:30-9:45 easy miles, heart rate is still in the 150s.
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,754 Member
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    L1zardQueen wrote: »
    The fat burning zone is a myth. You burn more calories with more intense exercise.

    The fat burning zone is completely real. It's just that people on MFP insist on using it wrong. But people being wrong about something doesn't make it fake.

    Agreed. My reply was poorly written. :'(

    OP needs to us what she thinks she will accomplish by being in the “fat burning zone”.
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,754 Member
    Options
    https://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=79
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,931 Member
    Options
    Fat burning mode makes no sense. To lose weight the quickest, burn the most calories. You burn less in the "fat burning mode" for time spent, so who cares if the ratio of fat burnt is slightly higher. Overall it will still be less than if you just exercise at a higher intensity.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,058 Member
    Options
    The more intensely you exercise for X amount of time, the more calories you burn. If your goal is weight loss, that's what you care about.

    Your best cardio strategy for weight loss is to figure out how much time you want to devote to cardio exercise. Then, divide the time into a short warm-up, the main part of the workout, and a short cool-down. The main part of the workout should be at the maximum intensity you can sustain for that duration, while still feeling energetic for the rest of your day (not exhausted/fatigued), other than maybe a few minutes' "whew!" feeling right after the workout. That tends to be the maximum calorie burn for your time investment.

    As others have said, the fat burning zone is about fueling strategies for endurance athletes, and heart rate zones can also matter to competitive athletes for training reasons.

    Another question no one has asked: Do you know your actual, measured maximum heart rate? Different fitness devices estimate maximum in different ways. Many of them use an age-based estimating formula (of which there are several); these tend to be inaccurate for quite a large number of people. So, on top of not necessarily needing to be in a particular zone in order to lose the most fat you can, you may actually not have an accurate reading of what zone you're actually in. ;) If your goal is weight loss, that, too, doesn't really matter. ;););)
  • dewd2
    dewd2 Posts: 2,449 Member
    edited October 2018
    Options
    To know your actual zones your device must first know your actual min and max heart rates. It seems you have the min measured but have you ever measured your max HR?

    Also, the zones my differ depending on how you are using them. For running, you can set them up a few different ways (I use % based on lactate threshold for when I pay attention to HR).

    The only reason to pay attention to zones is for training. If you are a long distance runner, doing most of your runs in zone 2 will help your body adapt and make your training more efficient. This is the mythical 'fat burning' that confuses people. All it really does is increases (slightly) the percentage of energy your body gets from fat. It does not make you 'skinny' (as the marketing folks at the zombie fitness machine company want to make you believe).

    Edited to add your device may not be as accurate when running because of the movement of your arm and wrist. Make sure it is snug. And no matter how you do it, it won't be as accurate as a chest strap. So don't take the numbers it gives you as if they are 100% accurate.
  • oyou812
    oyou812 Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    I’m not a fan at all of any of the Wrist based HR Monitors. I have used 2 different types ( Garmin and Polar) to date and neither seem to work as well as my Polar Chest strap HR Monitor. I know the technology will improve for wrist based monitors and I will continue to buy and use them but for now, a strap Monitor and watch is the best way to go to help you get to your fitness goals.

    Polar pioneered consumer type HR monitors. They are always improving their products and Polar has a great support group to help you get the most out of your training tool.
  • HeyJudii
    HeyJudii Posts: 264 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    The more intensely you exercise for X amount of time, the more calories you burn. If your goal is weight loss, that's what you care about.

    Your best cardio strategy for weight loss is to figure out how much time you want to devote to cardio exercise. Then, divide the time into a short warm-up, the main part of the workout, and a short cool-down. The main part of the workout should be at the maximum intensity you can sustain for that duration, while still feeling energetic for the rest of your day (not exhausted/fatigued), other than maybe a few minutes' "whew!" feeling right after the workout. That tends to be the maximum calorie burn for your time investment.

    As others have said, the fat burning zone is about fueling strategies for endurance athletes, and heart rate zones can also matter to competitive athletes for training reasons.

    Another question no one has asked: Do you know your actual, measured maximum heart rate? Different fitness devices estimate maximum in different ways. Many of them use an age-based estimating formula (of which there are several); these tend to be inaccurate for quite a large number of people. So, on top of not necessarily needing to be in a particular zone in order to lose the most fat you can, you may actually not have an accurate reading of what zone you're actually in. ;) If your goal is weight loss, that, too, doesn't really matter. ;););)

    While I was in the weight loss phase, I discounted the fat burning zone figuring CICO was enough to do the trick.

    Now that I am in maintenance (except for trying to replace a few stubborn remaining pockets of fat with lean muscle tissue), I have been paying more attention to form and training. I hope to do my first 10k soon.
    At the rec center where I work out, they have all of these posters that show what I should hope to accomplish. Thus the concern about my heart rate.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,058 Member
    Options
    HeyJudii wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    The more intensely you exercise for X amount of time, the more calories you burn. If your goal is weight loss, that's what you care about.

    Your best cardio strategy for weight loss is to figure out how much time you want to devote to cardio exercise. Then, divide the time into a short warm-up, the main part of the workout, and a short cool-down. The main part of the workout should be at the maximum intensity you can sustain for that duration, while still feeling energetic for the rest of your day (not exhausted/fatigued), other than maybe a few minutes' "whew!" feeling right after the workout. That tends to be the maximum calorie burn for your time investment.

    As others have said, the fat burning zone is about fueling strategies for endurance athletes, and heart rate zones can also matter to competitive athletes for training reasons.

    Another question no one has asked: Do you know your actual, measured maximum heart rate? Different fitness devices estimate maximum in different ways. Many of them use an age-based estimating formula (of which there are several); these tend to be inaccurate for quite a large number of people. So, on top of not necessarily needing to be in a particular zone in order to lose the most fat you can, you may actually not have an accurate reading of what zone you're actually in. ;) If your goal is weight loss, that, too, doesn't really matter. ;););)

    While I was in the weight loss phase, I discounted the fat burning zone figuring CICO was enough to do the trick.

    Now that I am in maintenance (except for trying to replace a few stubborn remaining pockets of fat with lean muscle tissue), I have been paying more attention to form and training. I hope to do my first 10k soon.
    At the rec center where I work out, they have all of these posters that show what I should hope to accomplish. Thus the concern about my heart rate.

    There's nothing wrong with working above the "fat burning zone" for athletic training purposes. In fact, after you've built some base aerobic capacity and endurance via lower intensity steady state work for a decent length of time, you want to start including some higher intensity intervals/speed work, if athletic improvement is a goal. Those should be above the "fat burning zone".

    I won't try to give you specifics for running training - I'm a rower, not a runner - but the over-arching principles are the same.

    Also, for heart rate training purposes, it really, really matters what your true (not age estimated) max heart rate is. If your max heart rate is materially higher than the age estimates, using age-based zones will result in under-training. You might want to take a look at RPE (rather of perceived exertion) scales and see if your perceived exertion lines up with your estimated heart rate zones. Lacking reasonably accurate HRmax, RPE is possibly a better guide toward fitness/performance goals, if you sense that your true max could be higher than the age estimates.

    As a PP said, true resting heart rate also matters when estimating zones, but that's easier to get with a HRM or fitness device than true max is. A fitness device's VO2max test or submaximal test for HRmax is better than nothing, but I'd still give RPE some thought as a comparison.

    For me, the basic (220 - age = HRmax) formula would put me at my supposed max (158) when I'm just nicely into anaerobic threshold, and claim I'm aerobic when I'm hardly even moving. Not helpful. ;)

    BTW: HRmax is in large measure genetic, not fitness driven. It may decline slower with aging among athletes than among inactive people, but that's about it. You can drop RHR with exercise, but there's not a material increase in MHR from exercise; what changes is the intensity you can work in any given range. (As a fitter runner, you get faster at the same heart rate.)
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    HeyJudii wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    The more intensely you exercise for X amount of time, the more calories you burn. If your goal is weight loss, that's what you care about.

    Your best cardio strategy for weight loss is to figure out how much time you want to devote to cardio exercise. Then, divide the time into a short warm-up, the main part of the workout, and a short cool-down. The main part of the workout should be at the maximum intensity you can sustain for that duration, while still feeling energetic for the rest of your day (not exhausted/fatigued), other than maybe a few minutes' "whew!" feeling right after the workout. That tends to be the maximum calorie burn for your time investment.

    As others have said, the fat burning zone is about fueling strategies for endurance athletes, and heart rate zones can also matter to competitive athletes for training reasons.

    Another question no one has asked: Do you know your actual, measured maximum heart rate? Different fitness devices estimate maximum in different ways. Many of them use an age-based estimating formula (of which there are several); these tend to be inaccurate for quite a large number of people. So, on top of not necessarily needing to be in a particular zone in order to lose the most fat you can, you may actually not have an accurate reading of what zone you're actually in. ;) If your goal is weight loss, that, too, doesn't really matter. ;););)

    While I was in the weight loss phase, I discounted the fat burning zone figuring CICO was enough to do the trick.

    Now that I am in maintenance (except for trying to replace a few stubborn remaining pockets of fat with lean muscle tissue), I have been paying more attention to form and training. I hope to do my first 10k soon.
    At the rec center where I work out, they have all of these posters that show what I should hope to accomplish. Thus the concern about my heart rate.

    You should still be discounting the fat burning zone - it simply doesn't do what you believe it does. It isn't targeting your "remaining fat pockets". Most fat burned during exercise is intra-muscular and not the subcutaneous fat you want to lose.
    You either need to be in a calorie deficit to use up your body fat reserves or if you want to maintain weight and reduce fat you need to be adding adding muscle (recomp).

    Burning a slightly higher proportion of fat during your workout (not necessarily even more total fat compared to a more intense workout) is simply irrelevant. Your body regulates your fat and carb (glycogen) reserves very cleverly - your next meal replaces what you have burned off, burn more fat/store more fat, burn more carbs/store more carbs.

    Working on your endurance for your 10k is a valid reason to control your HR but if you can run for an hour already I'm not seeing any point in deliberately running slower unless that is to help you run further.

Categories