Need input from those in the know about heart rate and weigh

ShanRaeC
ShanRaeC Posts: 37
in Fitness and Exercise
Hello. I got a HRM for Christmas and I totally love using it. One thing that confuses me though. The one that I use asks a bunch of questions when you set it up for personal use about obvious things like height and weight and age. But, it also asks what your goals are. I put in that my goal is weight loss, because that's the primary one, though by no means is it the only reason I exercise. Anyway, I get these weekly summaries where the feedback is always "train at a lower heart rate". I do elliptical, walking, walking at inclines, and running for cardio, and sometimes the HR does get up to as high as 160. I am 42 years old.

My question is this: is there ANY truth to that stuff about losing more weight if you exercise at a moderate rate, ie so that your HR doesn't get above a certain rate? For me, the HRM doesn't want me to exercise over about a 143 HR in order to lose weight. My HR gets higher than that after about 10 minutes of running.

I can't help but think if you burn calories, it's all good. Weight loss is largely just a math problem--burn more calories and you will see the number on the scale go down. But, I don't want to be ignorant about doing what's best for weight loss.

Any input would be much appreciated.

Replies

  • frosty73
    frosty73 Posts: 424 Member
    Just started reading a book by a personal trainer which addresses that very issue. "Beat the Gym" by Tom Holland, I highly recommend it. :happy:

    He says he sees people all the time working out at the "fat burning zone", for years, and they never lose any weight. Bottom line, the HARDER you exercise, the more weight you will lose. So go for maximal impulse, or interval, or mix it up! But don't be a sucker for the slow and easy method.
  • meshashesha2012
    meshashesha2012 Posts: 8,329 Member
    my "fat burning zone" isnt too much of a workout and i dont burn too many calories.

    i just go as hard as i can go until i need to catch my breath then i back off, catch my breath and do it all over again.
  • ShanRaeC
    ShanRaeC Posts: 37
    THANK YOU! I will look for that book. That "fat burning zone" stuff just doesn't seem logical to me. For me, I get a lot more satisfaction out of pushing it when I can. The last thing I want to do is feel like I could have worked out harder but I held back because I was trying to stay in some fictional "zone".
  • wylde06
    wylde06 Posts: 2 Member
    I could ride my bike all day long in the "fat burning zone", but it isnt much of a workout. Workout harder and you will burn more calories.
  • xcmtnracer
    xcmtnracer Posts: 426 Member
    Working out in the "fat burning" zone is good if the duration of exercise is over an hour, and as much as three hours, because your body will learn to use stored fat as fuel. Exercising at a higher intensity is better for short duration, say 30 minutes to an hour, which will burn the calories from carbs you are storing from food intake for the last day or so. Higher heart rate exercise will improve your fitness and lower your resting heart rate as well. I recommend mixing up the two zones, go hard, maybe 75-80% of max HR a few times a week, then use the recover days to exercise at maybe 50 percent but for a longer duration. If you find yourself exercising at a high rate and "bonk," it means your body has depleted stored carbs, there is a point at which the body will start to use fat as fuel for high intensity workouts lasting and hour to maybe four hours but that that some time to develop. If your cardio exercise periods are limited to say an hour a day, then try to go at least 6 days a week, mixing hard days with recovery days. When I was a marathon runner, I loved the easy days in the fat burning zone, they were great for recovery.

Categories