Fat Burning Zone Vs Cardio Zone

Options
GinaKB12
GinaKB12 Posts: 12
in Fitness and Exercise
Quick question... My heart rate monitor is suggesting for me to be more in Zone 1 and Zone 2 (fat burning zone) vs Zone 3 (the cardio zone). What's the difference? I thought that you burn fat as long as you're doing cardio? Please help, I'm a bit confused.

Replies

  • adriana_hackney
    adriana_hackney Posts: 232 Member
    Options
    bump :) I'm wondering the same thing.
  • kellybean14
    kellybean14 Posts: 237 Member
    Options
    bumpity bump bump
  • sninny
    sninny Posts: 132 Member
    Options
    I've always wondered the same thing. Hopefully someone on here knows the answer and can help us out!
  • Flissbo
    Flissbo Posts: 302 Member
    Options
    me too! bump
  • Toddrific
    Toddrific Posts: 1,114 Member
    Options
    Supposedly a larger percentage of the calories you burn in the "fat burning zone" comes from fat.

    Thing is you burn more calories overall in the cardio zone.

    http://exercise.about.com/od/weightloss/a/The-Truth-About-The-Fat-Burning-Zone.htm
  • mhotch
    mhotch Posts: 901 Member
    Options
    It goes back to a now debunked theory. In a nutshell, { I am making dinner, can't go into elaborate detail} the theory was a lower, consistent HR burns more fat calories than a higher HR. Its all about percentages. But it is now thought that a higher aerobic burn burns more calories in general. So you want to be in zone 2 &3 than in zone 1.
  • Jesstruhan
    Jesstruhan Posts: 331 Member
    Options
    Hi Guys! I read about this a little while back and decided that no matter what, as long as you are burning, you are good. I'm just an average gal trying to drop some lbs, but this helped!

    http://exercise.about.com/od/weightloss/a/The-Truth-About-The-Fat-Burning-Zone.htm

    This one, too. It really turned me around. #18 and 19 talk about Aerobic vs. Anaerobic exercise. Seriously guys, this article changed my life. I was really frustrated with my weight loss until this article.

    http://www.acaloriecounter.com/weight-loss.php

    Happy exercising!
  • fruitloop2
    fruitloop2 Posts: 437 Member
    Options
    Just peeing on this thread...curious as to what others have to say. :o)
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Quick question... My heart rate monitor is suggesting for me to be more in Zone 1 and Zone 2 (fat burning zone) vs Zone 3 (the cardio zone). What's the difference? I thought that you burn fat as long as you're doing cardio? Please help, I'm a bit confused.

    Couple of things--first, for the guidelines to have any relevance, you have to have your heart rates and zones programmed properly. It's not unusual, esp for females, to have an actual maximum heart rate higher than the age-predicted number your HRM set for you. If the HRM routinely says you are working at 80%-95% of your max heart rate, but you don't feel like you are struggling to maintain the effort., then your max HR is probably set too low.

    Now the zones: Some of the Polar models set up a training program for you based on information and goals you provide during setup. The HRM is going to set up "training goals" for you to work at different intensities--easy, medium, and hard (or Zones 1, 2 and 3). The idea is to set up a balanced program that has you working at different intensities. It is not designed necessarily for fat loss.

    Polar still subscribes (at least in their nomenclature) to the idea of the "fat burning zone". It makes sense, since they have made a gazillion dollars from the concept. But just because they call it the "fat burning zones" doesn't mean it's really a "fat burning zone" (i.e. an intensity that burns body fat better). It's just old terminology.

    Think of it as "easy", "medium" and "hard". It's a good idea--for overall fitness and weight loss--to follow a balanced program that involves working at each intensity level.

    IIRC, at least with the Polar FT60, you can customize some if not all of the parameters. I know you can customize the heart rate ranges for the "zones". I can't remember if you can change the percentages of time spent in each "zone".
  • GinaKB12
    GinaKB12 Posts: 12
    Options
    Thanks for the help!!! I'm def going to the suggested websites to check the information out. And I do have a Polar Heart Rate Monitor so I was a bit confused on why it suggested zone 1 and 2 vs 3. I'm pretty sure I have it set wrong, because I'm not even breathing heavy in zone 2...
  • SteveTries
    SteveTries Posts: 723 Member
    Options
    Just peeing on this thread...curious as to what others have to say. :o)

    Woah, some of splashed onto my keyboard - be careful there!
  • SteveTries
    SteveTries Posts: 723 Member
    Options

    Couple of things--first, for the guidelines to have any relevance, you have to have your heart rates and zones programmed properly. It's not unusual, esp for females, to have an actual maximum heart rate higher than the age-predicted number your HRM set for you. If the HRM routinely says you are working at 80%-95% of your max heart rate, but you don't feel like you are struggling to maintain the effort., then your max HR is probably set too low.
    This is spot on. There are a couple of things you can do to guage this. Firstly if you can hold a conversation or speak fairly easily you probably are NOT in the Anaerobic zone (80%-90%). I personally struggle to spit out a few words coherently when I'm in this zone. Secondly few, if any people would be able to go beyond 60 minutes of exercise in this zone. I find 30 to be a challenge. In the anaerobic zone you are using up oxygen supplies at a faster rate than you are able to intake so it's definately short time limited.
    Now the zones: Some of the Polar models set up a training program for you based on information and goals you provide during setup. The HRM is going to set up "training goals" for you to work at different intensities--easy, medium, and hard (or Zones 1, 2 and 3). The idea is to set up a balanced program that has you working at different intensities. It is not designed necessarily for fat loss.

    Polar still subscribes (at least in their nomenclature) to the idea of the "fat burning zone". It makes sense, since they have made a gazillion dollars from the concept. But just because they call it the "fat burning zones" doesn't mean it's really a "fat burning zone" (i.e. an intensity that burns body fat better). It's just old terminology.

    Think of it as "easy", "medium" and "hard". It's a good idea--for overall fitness and weight loss--to follow a balanced program that involves working at each intensity level.

    IIRC, at least with the Polar FT60, you can customize some if not all of the parameters. I know you can customize the heart rate ranges for the "zones". I can't remember if you can change the percentages of time spent in each "zone".

    With the cheaper Polar HRM's you can't customise so much, but you don't really need to. By changing your age you can alter the max heart rate and then if you switch the display to show heart rate percentage, you can readily keep yourself in your target zone.

    60%-70% for recovery
    70%-80% for aerobic
    80%-90% for anaerobic
    90%+ for intervals

    http://www.running-world.net/heart_rate_training_zones_2.php


    I'm very tempted to launch into a rant about the fitness machine manufacturers and their deliberate misleading sales tactics around the fat-burn zone, but we'll be here all day.........
  • GnaBee12
    GnaBee12 Posts: 3
    Options
    Bump
  • BeautyFromPain
    BeautyFromPain Posts: 4,952 Member
    Options
    cardio zone burns more calories but burns through carbs whereas fat burning burns through the fat if that makes sense... something to do with the oxygen being able to go through your body easier
  • KatieJane83
    KatieJane83 Posts: 2,002 Member
    Options
    I NEVER ONCE paid attention to what zone I was in and managed to lose 66 lbs and get past my goal weight. Pretty sure it's fairly meaningless in terms of fat burning.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options

    Couple of things--first, for the guidelines to have any relevance, you have to have your heart rates and zones programmed properly. It's not unusual, esp for females, to have an actual maximum heart rate higher than the age-predicted number your HRM set for you. If the HRM routinely says you are working at 80%-95% of your max heart rate, but you don't feel like you are struggling to maintain the effort., then your max HR is probably set too low.
    This is spot on. There are a couple of things you can do to guage this. Firstly if you can hold a conversation or speak fairly easily you probably are NOT in the Anaerobic zone (80%-90%). I personally struggle to spit out a few words coherently when I'm in this zone. Secondly few, if any people would be able to go beyond 60 minutes of exercise in this zone. I find 30 to be a challenge. In the anaerobic zone you are using up oxygen supplies at a faster rate than you are able to intake so it's definately short time limited.
    Now the zones: Some of the Polar models set up a training program for you based on information and goals you provide during setup. The HRM is going to set up "training goals" for you to work at different intensities--easy, medium, and hard (or Zones 1, 2 and 3). The idea is to set up a balanced program that has you working at different intensities. It is not designed necessarily for fat loss.

    Polar still subscribes (at least in their nomenclature) to the idea of the "fat burning zone". It makes sense, since they have made a gazillion dollars from the concept. But just because they call it the "fat burning zones" doesn't mean it's really a "fat burning zone" (i.e. an intensity that burns body fat better). It's just old terminology.

    Think of it as "easy", "medium" and "hard". It's a good idea--for overall fitness and weight loss--to follow a balanced program that involves working at each intensity level.

    IIRC, at least with the Polar FT60, you can customize some if not all of the parameters. I know you can customize the heart rate ranges for the "zones". I can't remember if you can change the percentages of time spent in each "zone".

    With the cheaper Polar HRM's you can't customise so much, but you don't really need to. By changing your age you can alter the max heart rate and then if you switch the display to show heart rate percentage, you can readily keep yourself in your target zone.

    60%-70% for recovery
    70%-80% for aerobic
    80%-90% for anaerobic
    90%+ for intervals

    http://www.running-world.net/heart_rate_training_zones_2.php


    I'm very tempted to launch into a rant about the fitness machine manufacturers and their deliberate misleading sales tactics around the fat-burn zone, but we'll be here all day.........

    The top brands are not deliberately misleading, but they don't take the time (or have the time, quite frankly) to keep up with every nuance of research and constantly update the equipment labels. Quite frankly, that's not their job. What they do promote, while inaccurate at times, is not inconsistent with mainstream conventional wisdom. When the idea of the "fat burning zone" was developed, it was considered "state of the art" in terms of mainstream exercise research at the time (early 1990s). Given all the engineering and research it takes to come up with improved mechanics and especially new interactive features, it's not really something they can devote a lot of time and effort to. (And trust me, I have had that discussion with at least one major manufacturer in a very personal way--I don't agree with it at all, but I do understand their perspective).

    So while, technically, I guess, staying with some of the information (e.g. "fat burning zone", "targeted muscle groups" (precor elliptical) might be "negligent" in that it is out of date, it is not entirely accurate to term it "deliberately misleading", as that implies malicious intent.
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    Options
    I've never really worried about 'zones' (like many others here, I think they're old, and inaccurate science). I know through research and experience that if I'm doing any steady state cardio, at any intensity, a significant portion of what's getting burned, isn't FAT. HIIT is better of course, but the only form of exercise that tells your body to maintain lean mass, and to burn fat instead, is strength training.

    You can lose all the weight in the world, but if what you're losing isn't fat, you're very unlikely to be pleased with the results.

Categories