Fat Burning Zone

[jeffaus]

I was talking to my PT and he said to me unless you are seriously Body Building or cutting, then just keep things as simple as you can. As an example he said that we all have a Fat Burning Zone where we will get the most benefit from. There are many different ways to measure this, some complicated and some simple. Heres the one he gave me which seems very simple.

Equation is like this:

220 - your age = max HR
Max HR x 65% or 0.65 = Min bpm you need to have HR at to be in your Fat Burning zone for the time you are exercising.

So for me

220 - 48 = 172 max HR
172 x 0.65 = 111.8 or rounded out to 112 bpm minimum.

So for me, to be in my best Fat burning zone I need to not let my BPM fall below 112 for the time I am exercising (usually 1hr per day) either weights, cardio or combination of both.

I would intersted in hearing from some of the more experienced guys and girls on this site as I am a novice with this stuff, but I have no reason not to trust my PT as he has been helping me see good results so far. I might add that he stressed that this equation is a simple method for novices / beginners to keep their eye on what they should be aiming for.

[Tanulean]

I find it funny that he specifically says: "unless you are seriously body building or cutting" then you post on bodybuilding.com.

You know nothing good is going to come from this.

Just to simplify things tell him you want to get into bodybuilding and you want to cut.

[adwilk]

Eh, there are people here that aren't bodybuilders and have no intention of it.. We just wanna improve ourselves...

Your trainer is spot on... regardless of your purpose, if you just wanna lose weight that seems like a great plan... Keeping things TOO simple will result in mediocrity at best. Tell your trainer that you would like to explore some basic resistance training and then you'll be headed down a better path... Of course, none of that means squat if you aint eatin right.

FTR, the term "bodybuild" is pretty generic... there are lots of objective definitions.. I, consider myself to be more of a body composer... We are all different...

[UltraDuke]

i think that is pretty sound advice. it will put you in the ball park anyways. if you keep that up for an hour a day. you will drop weight in no time.

i will go keep my heart rate low for one day (122 bpm min) and the next have it ramped up (150- 160 bpm) i do this so i wont get bored and i try to not let my body get adjusted to the same routine. good luck bro.

[adwilk]

i think that is pretty sound advice. it will put you in the ball park anyways. if you keep that up for an hour a day. you will drop weight in no time.

i will go keep my heart rate low for one day (122 bpm min) and the next have it ramped up (150- 160 bpm) i do this so i wont get bored and i try to not let my body get adjusted to the same routine. good luck bro.

Thats good advice there, sir...

[Tanulean]

Cario sux!

[thefast]

Yup I'm cutting for summer right now and Monday/Wednesday/Friday I do 16 minutes of HIIT and Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday I walk on an incline for an hour. Switch it up so your body doesn't get used to it.

Forgot to mention that Monday/Wednesday/Friday I lift heavy and do the HIIT after. I don't believe in lowering weights and upping reps for cutting I lift the same as when I was bulking

[snorkelman]

There is a difference between the fat loss that takes place during exercise and the fat loss that takes place in the post exercise period. Too many people only look at the time during the exercising period.

Fat loss during exercise is higher for the low-intensity stuff, but the fat loss that takes place post exercise is higher for the high intensity exercise.

What you are talking about (65% VO2 max) is neither high nor low intensity. It is moderate.

If you want to maximize your fat loss, you should consider incorporating HIIT.

Also, many people don't realize it but weight training can result in even more afterburn (EPOC) than HIIT.

[SocratesTX]

Or your PT could just test your VO2M for 15 minutes and give you precise numbers and zones. Just FYI, those calculations can be off by quite a bit...mine were off by 20bpms at one point and it will shift every few months based on progress or lack thereof.

[thefast]

There is a difference between the fat loss that takes place during exercise and the fat loss that takes place in the post exercise period. Too many people only look at the time during the exercising period.

Fat loss during exercise is higher for the low-intensity stuff, but the fat loss that takes place post exercise is higher for the high intensity exercise.

What you are talking about (65% VO2 max) is neither high nor low intensity. It is moderate.

If you want to maximize your fat loss, you should consider incorporating HIIT.

Also, many people don't realize it but weight training can result in even more afterburn (EPOC) than HIIT.

I agree with you that's why I switch it up I also forgot to mention that Monday/Wednesday/Friday I lift heavy and do the HIIT after. I don't believe in lowering weights and upping reps for cutting I lift the same as when I was bulking

[ZidaneValor]

As long as your PT is only recommending a minimum, it's alright. The maximum "fat loss" zone is a myth though. It may be true that once you reach a certain bmp, your percentage of fat/total calories may go down, but your total number of calories burned will continue to increase.

2) The fat-burning zone. Yes, it exists, but it has been misinterpreted. The fat-burning zone is a concept that the body burns a greater amount of fat at lower-intensity aerobic exercise than it does at higher intensities. Actually, the body burns a greater percentage of fat at lower intensities than at higher intensities. At lower intensities the body may burn 50 percent of the calories from fat, while at higher intensities it may only burn 35 percent. But at higher intensities you burn way more total calories?and more fat calories overall?than you do at lower intensities.

http://www.active.com/triathlon/Arti...rning-Zone.htm

Myth #3 - Low intensity exercise puts you in the "fat burning zone" and is ideal for weight loss.

FACT - The "fat burning zone" doesn't matter. Here's how it got started. Your body is always "burning" a mixture of carbohydrates and fat for fuel. This mixture tends to contain a little more fat during lower intensity exercise. Somebody took this to mean that a lower intensity workout was best for losing weight.. not so!

It all comes from the same "pot". It doesn't matter if you're burning a little more fat or a little more carbohydrate at any particular time in your fuel mix. It all comes from the same calorie pool. The bottom line is, how many calories are you burning.

http://www.humanhealing.com/articles...loss-myths.php

Think of it this way (I'm just making up numbers). Let's say at 140 bpm you burn 400 total calories and 50% from fat. Let's say at 170 bpm you burn 700 total calories and 33.3% from fat. At the higher bpm, not only are you burning more total calories (700 to 400), but you are also burning more fat calories (233 to 200).

[thefast]

Yes but that will obviusly only be true if both are doing the same or similar amount of time. If both high and low intensities are done for an hour than I agree that the high intensity will burn more overall calories and fat%. BUT if someone jogs for 35 minutes and someone walks for an hour the one walking could burn just as many calories as the jogger but more calories from fat.

[MrEeee]

IMO HI and LO intesity have there place.

if you do low you need to spend the time doing it , HI tends to leave me more wore down and needs more recovery.

Lo has worked better for me , i spend more time at the gym but i am losing more and not as weak the next day.

[G I JoE]

i thought there was already an article about this liss and HIIT stuff...

people keep saying different things its confusing me now and my training, so what to burn more bodyfat you do LISS because it burns more calories from the fat stored in your body? whats the most effective way to burn stored bodyfat rather than whats in your stomach? i always thought doing HIIT was the best way for this?

[ZidaneValor]

Yes but that will obviusly only be true if both are doing the same or similar amount of time. If both high and low intensities are done for an hour than I agree that the high intensity will burn more overall calories and fat%. BUT if someone jogs for 35 minutes and someone walks for an hour the one walking could burn just as many calories as the jogger but more calories from fat.

That's not a fair comparison I believe. Of course someone who does activity at a low enough intensity for long enough will burn more fat calories than someone who works at a high intensity for a short period of time.

If someone does 10 minutes of HIIT and I sit at my computer for 12 hours, I will probably burn more fat calories than the HIIT person.

I think in the argument of high vs low intensity, the amount of time must be constant when doing comparisons.

[Tanulean]

Yes but that will obviusly only be true if both are doing the same or similar amount of time. If both high and low intensities are done for an hour than I agree that the high intensity will burn more overall calories and fat%. BUT if someone jogs for 35 minutes and someone walks for an hour the one walking could burn just as many calories as the jogger but more calories from fat.

I disagree with this completely. Once you are done walking your metabolism isn't elevated. As with jogging your metabolism will be higher for the entire day and burn more calories over a 24 time frame. This also depends on how in shape the person is.

Example: I'm not in the best cardiovascular shape since I've never really got into it before. I just ran my first mile at 5.0 mph without stopping (first time since... I don't know when tbh). My heart rate was 188 when I finished. That could be considered HIT cardio in my book. Now if an uber in shape person did 1 mile at 5.0 mph it might be the equivalent to me walking in terms of heart rate. So that voids my first point. I guess the real question here is about heart rates and individual dependent. Not rather you "walk or jog".

[Tanulean]

That's not a fair comparison I believe. Of course someone who does activity at a low enough intensity for long enough will burn more fat calories than someone who works at a high intensity for a short period of time.

If someone does 10 minutes of HIIT and I sit at my computer for 12 hours, I will probably burn more fat calories than the HIIT person.

I think in the argument of high vs low intensity, the amount of time must be constant when doing comparisons.

I agree and disagree with this. 35 minutes to 1 hour is a much more realistic time frame then 10 minutes vs 12 hours. Dealing with extremes isn't the good way to get points across.

Example: Would it be easier for someone to walk for 1 hour vs jogging for 35 minutes for their "cardio session". For someone that isn't in great shape or has bad knees, etc... would opt for the walk instead of jog.

I agree with this though because a lot of people would rather spend 20 minutes doing HIT cardio then spend 1 hour doing some low intensity boredom. Not to mention walking doesn't improve your cardiovascular system nearly as much as HIT cardio does.

[fitopia]

I was talking to my PT and he said to me unless you are seriously Body Building or cutting, then just keep things as simple as you can. As an example he said that we all have a Fat Burning Zone where we will get the most benefit from. There are many different ways to measure this, some complicated and some simple. Heres the one he gave me which seems very simple.

Equation is like this:

220 - your age = max HR
Max HR x 65% or 0.65 = Min bpm you need to have HR at to be in your Fat Burning zone for the time you are exercising.

So for me

220 - 48 = 172 max HR
172 x 0.65 = 111.8 or rounded out to 112 bpm minimum.

So for me, to be in my best Fat burning zone I need to not let my BPM fall below 112 for the time I am exercising (usually 1hr per day) either weights, cardio or combination of both.

I would intersted in hearing from some of the more experienced guys and girls on this site as I am a novice with this stuff, but I have no reason not to trust my PT as he has been helping me see good results so far. I might add that he stressed that this equation is a simple method for novices / beginners to keep their eye on what they should be aiming for.

This is backwards. If you're not cutting, why do you want to be in a fat burning zone? Wouldn't you want to be in a cardio zone for heart health?

[rdemarce]

There is a difference between the fat loss that takes place during exercise and the fat loss that takes place in the post exercise period. Too many people only look at the time during the exercising period.

Fat loss during exercise is higher for the low-intensity stuff, but the fat loss that takes place post exercise is higher for the high intensity exercise.

What you are talking about (65% VO2 max) is neither high nor low intensity. It is moderate.

If you want to maximize your fat loss, you should consider incorporating HIIT.

Also, many people don't realize it but weight training can result in even more afterburn (EPOC) than HIIT.

This is true, if you do cardio at moderate levels for any extended time, you actually start to break down your muscles for energy rather than the fat. You have to "trick" your body into thinking that it's going to be needing the energy throughout the day which causes it to break down the fat into "usable" energy for when you do your HIIT. I have recently started doing 2 minutes worth of 90% MHR and 1 minute of walking (or resting) and I do this 5 times for a total of about 20 to thirty minutes. I have noticed the most improvement from this, and it actually helps improve my 2 mile run.

[brianrick111]

Fat Burning Zone = myth

[Tanulean]

This is backwards. If you're not cutting, why do you want to be in a fat burning zone? Wouldn't you want to be in a cardio zone for heart health?

At 223, I imagine he's trying to lose fat.

FWIW for those people that call jogging LISS it isn't for 90% of the population. Just because you guys are in uber shape don't think everyone is. Jogging for the rest of us would be moderate to high intensity cardio! LISS for me and OP would be walking at like 3.0 mph on a 2.0 incline. Very boring and won't help your cardiovascular system at all. Just something to think about.

[ZidaneValor]

I agree and disagree with this. 35 minutes to 1 hour is a much more realistic time frame then 10 minutes vs 12 hours. Dealing with extremes isn't the good way to get points across.

That's true, but we are also trying to get two different points across. I was trying to explain why the function of time must be constant when comparing intensities. You explained why someone like me (6'0", 346) may burn more calories than someone 6'0" 185 who is in much better physical condition. I do agree with your point though, I hadn't even thought about it.

[Tanulean]

@ OP.

You shouldn't be trying to make things complicated. Not saying you are but from all these posts I'm sure you are thinking it. If I were in your position I would just run as much as you can on a treadmill then walk then run then walk until you get to 30 minutes and try to increase your endurance.

Diet is priority #1. Weight training is priority #2.

At 223 and being a novice: I'm sure the last thing you want to be doing is sprints.

KISS - Keep it simple stupid.

Good Luck.

[ZidaneValor]

This is true, if you do cardio at moderate levels for any extended time, you actually start to break down your muscles for energy rather than the fat. You have to "trick" your body into thinking that it's going to be needing the energy throughout the day which causes it to break down the fat into "usable" energy for when you do your HIIT. I have recently started doing 2 minutes worth of 90% MHR and 1 minute of walking (or resting) and I do this 5 times for a total of about 20 to thirty minutes. I have noticed the most improvement from this, and it actually helps improve my 2 mile run.

I do agree that the benefits of HIIT can be substantial, but I believe "tricking" your body as well as "shocking" your muscles are myths as well.

[Tanulean]

That's true, but we are also trying to get two different points across. I was trying to explain why the function of time must be constant when comparing intensities. You explained why someone like me (6'0", 346) may burn more calories than someone 6'0" 185 who is in much better physical condition. I do agree with your point though, I hadn't even thought about it.

I'm in Johnstown, NY. Rochester isn't far from here. Do you know how far? I just moved up here.

[rdemarce]

I do agree that the benefits of HIIT can be substantial, but I believe "tricking" your body as well as "shocking" your muscles are myths as well.

When i say "tricking" I don't mean actually tricking your body. Your body will get used to doing the HIIT and prepare itself for it. It's a science, in the fact that your body will run out of energy and try to make as much energy as it can in order to be ready for that level of exercise.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "Tricking".

[ZidaneValor]

I'm in Johnstown, NY. Rochester isn't far from here. Do you know how far? I just moved up here.

http://www.geobytes.com/citydistancetool.htm

163 miles according to this.

[rdemarce]

At 223, I imagine he's trying to lose fat.

FWIW for those people that call jogging LISS it isn't for 90% of the population. Just because you guys are in uber shape don't think everyone is. Jogging for the rest of us would be moderate to high intensity cardio! LISS for me and OP would be walking at like 3.0 mph on a 2.0 incline. Very boring and won't help your cardiovascular system at all. Just something to think about.

There's a funny thing about reaching your MHR. It doesn't matter what kind of shape you're in because you're going to reach it whenever you reach it. I have to run at a 6 min/mile pace to reach 90% of my heart rate, whereas my soldier only has to run at a 7:30 min/mile pace to reach 90% of his heart rate. I'm not telling you to sprint, I'm telling you to reach 90% MHR for two minutes, and rest for one minute.

[Tanulean]

There's a funny thing about reaching your MHR. It doesn't matter what kind of shape you're in because you're going to reach it whenever you reach it. I have to run at a 6 min/mile pace to reach 90% of my heart rate, whereas my soldier only has to run at a 7:30 min/mile pace to reach 90% of his heart rate. I'm not telling you to sprint, I'm telling you to reach 90% MHR for two minutes, and rest for one minute.

You said the exact same thing I did and just reworded it.

[rdemarce]

haha, I know I just like posting stuff!