Fat Burning ???

[WildAlaskaG'ma]

Here is my dilemma: According to the training zone chart I am reading, the calories one burns in the “fat burning” zone (60-70% of maximum heart rate) are 85% from FAT. When you step it up to the aerobic zone (70-80% of maximum heart rate), like nearly everybody seems to recommend, you do burn more calories, but only 50% of them are from fat. To me, that is a real significant drop. Therefore, it seems that a person will burn more fat with less exertion by staying in the fat burning zone. Sure, you need to be getting in the aerobic zone in order to improve your cardiovascular and respiratory systems ,,, but I think I’d just as soon get the max fat off first, and then worry about the other. Am I just dense here, or what?

[Want_2_B_Free]

I am with you Judy. I was once told that regular non pro athletes (or people who are training for marathons, long rides, etc) do not need to be in the higher zone.

[MoOrLess]

I agree too Judy --- remember when Kathy was going through all of that research? She was taught that it was better to exercise more slowly, for a "longer" amount of time, rather than jogging and running for a shorter amount of time -- I think that's what you're talking about here?

[Jachut]

No no no. That is the biggest exercise myth going and its been pretty much debunked now. Its just not correct.

Whilst its true that where all other things being equal (say you're going to exercise for 40 minutes) that in the lower zone, more of your fuel comes from fat, if you exercise harder in the higher zone you burn MORE calories and overall much MORE fat, even though the proportions of your fuel mix is different. If you walk for half an hour, whoop de do, you might burn 250 calories. If a fit person runs for half an hour they might burn 600. Who do you think burned more fat? Not the walker.

Now, of course, not everyone CAN go out and work at an intensity high enough to burn 600 calories in half an hour but one thing is sure, if you never work any harder than 65% of your max heart rate, you'll never be able to do it. If you push yourself beyond those limits you get fitter and fitter. Nowadays I can run for an HOUR, burn about 1000 calories AND stay in a "fat burning zone". That's because I pushed early on.

I could stay right here, but I like the benefits to my body of working harder than that, I tend to run shorter and harder and only allow myself the luxury of a long slow run once or twice a week - because the shorter harder work is what torches the fat, boosts my metabolism for HOURS afterwards (low heart rate work doesnt achieve that) and gives me an insane runners high.

Sorry to say it but like anything in life, you get out of it what you put in. Amble along at a low heart rate and you'll get pretty mediocre results. Push it hard several times a week and space it out with easier sessions and you'll fast track yourself to goal.

However, we all have to work within our limits and take our time to improve. A few interval sessions a week -where you go really hard at 85% or more of max heart rate for periods of a minute to five minutes and then recover at lower intensity over a session.

I can thing of about forty people in my life who all believe this theory and diligently do their daily walk, never ever losing any weight. They all still carry heaps of belly fat and are not at all what I'd call fit. Of course though, this is not about running versus walking - walking is GREAT - just go hard and find some hills. Runner that I am, I can still get a GREAT walking workout when I go with Doug (whose longer legs push me to walk as fast as I can) and we choose a hilly course.

Really, the only reason I took up running is because with walking I find it hard to maintain a really high intensity, I tend to slow down if I stop concentrating. If you're running, then you're always above a certain intensity. But walking done right is EVERY bit as good for general fitness purposes.

One thing is true though - going all out and falling in a heap at 5 minutes doesnt achieve much, walking for 40 minutes is a better idea. But add some intensity to it. You wont be sorry.

[MoOrLess]

No no no. That is the biggest exercise myth going and its been pretty much debunked now. Its just not correct.

Whilst its true that where all other things being equal (say you're going to exercise for 40 minutes) that in the lower zone, more of your fuel comes from fat, if you exercise harder in the higher zone you burn MORE calories and overall much MORE fat, even though the proportions of your fuel mix is different. If you walk for half an hour, whoop de do, you might burn 250 calories. If a fit person runs for half an hour they might burn 600. Who do you think burned more fat? Not the walker.

Now, of course, not everyone CAN go out and work at an intensity high enough to burn 600 calories in half an hour but one thing is sure, if you never work any harder than 65% of your max heart rate, you'll never be able to do it. If you push yourself beyond those limits you get fitter and fitter. Nowadays I can run for an HOUR, burn about 1000 calories AND stay in a "fat burning zone". That's because I pushed early on.

I could stay right here, but I like the benefits to my body of working harder than that, I tend to run shorter and harder and only allow myself the luxury of a long slow run once or twice a week - because the shorter harder work is what torches the fat, boosts my metabolism for HOURS afterwards (low heart rate work doesnt achieve that) and gives me an insane runners high.

Sorry to say it but like anything in life, you get out of it what you put in. Amble along at a low heart rate and you'll get pretty mediocre results. Push it hard several times a week and space it out with easier sessions and you'll fast track yourself to goal.

However, we all have to work within our limits and take our time to improve. A few interval sessions a week -where you go really hard at 85% or more of max heart rate for periods of a minute to five minutes and then recover at lower intensity over a session.

One thing is true though - going all out and falling in a heap at 5 minutes doesnt achieve much, walking for 40 minutes is a better idea. But add some intensity to it. You wont be sorry.

I found what you are saying to be true for ME when I was walking briskly AND jogging on the treadmill for 30+ minutes....I was just trying to recall what Kathy's nutritionist told her - and I know for a fact that someone she was working with kept saying that long and slower vs short and faster walking was better for her - it leaves us not knowing what to believe sometimes...

[WildAlaskaG'ma]

Thanks for your input, Jacquie. I know you know what you are talking about. Unfortunately I will never find myself up at the 1000 calories an hour rate because my poor old knees are doing good to get me down the path at an aerobic paced walk. I'm afraid to ask them to take the pounding that running would give them. Sounds like if I bounce between the high end of fat burning and hitting the high end of aerobic now and again, I will average out okay. That's what I'll shoot for anyway. Heaven knows, I sure don't need another thing to obsess about, so I better not give a darned old number that much power in the overall scheme of things. I know I gotta get going on resistance traing again too, but until my torn rotator cuff is better healed, I'm not planning on going back to the weight room for any arm/upper body work.

[Jachut]

Nutritionists dont need an awful lot of qualification - dont forget that. Anybody can call themselves one and hang out their shingle. And they are not exercise and sports professionals. I doubt you'd find many personal trainers (who also dont need a lot of qualification) these days advising you to avoid any high intensity work because you wont be burning fat.

So......... I think you have to look at the trend. I mean if the long/slow fad has passed and we're onto intervals, who says THAT wont be dubunked too? But like you say, I found it works for me, and there's no arguing the basic distinction between burning a few calories with a higher proportion of fat in the fuel or burning mega calories with a different fuel mix but more calories overall - that's just logic, plain and simple. The contentious stuff is whether high intensity training really does lift your metabolism for hours and whether it creates an environment in the body that makes it hard to hang onto your muscle.

One thing is for sure, if somone hates exercise and wont do the hard stuff, but can make themselves walk for an hour a day then there's your answer. Walk! Anything is good.

Myself, I get all het up in this you shouldnt do loads of cardio, you should focus on weights stuff. There's loads of credible evidence that this is so and that I really am one of those 1980's dinosaurs pointlessly pounding the pavement. But you know what? I hate doing weights. The only way I can tolerate it is to mix it with running, you know, stop, drop do 30 pushups, keep running kind of thing. I've been trying to do more traditional strength training lately and all I've achieved is to do no exercise at all, lol. So I've decided I dont care, I'm just going to do what I enjoy, and that's running and not listen to the crapola about it wasting muscle or aging you faster because of oxidative stress etc. All I know is it got me thin, I like the kind of body I have, and I like doing it.

So really, unless you're desperately unhappy with your weight loss/plateau or you need olympic standard fitness for some reason, who the frig cares anyway? Just do what you enjoy and that will ensure you do it

It really only matters if you're deliberately holding yourself back to that sort of heart rate when you want to achieve more but are afraid of sabotaging weight loss.

You know I always talk in extremes too - nobody really NEEDS to burn 1000 calories in every session, me included. It just highlights the point. Its very handy to be able to run off some of the things that have found their way down my throat recently, lol.

[MoOrLess]

lol Jacquie...we are very much on the same page....whatever works for each person is what they should do! I couldn't imagine "jogging" when I was first banded, and now I miss it! So I accepted that walking briskly was better than nothing...thanks so much for your input! I always appreciate your point of view because you talk about balance and what works for each individual.

[dolchanmom]

I was just talking to my husband about this last night. He was telling me the same thing about trying to keep my heart rate a little lower during my work outs. The thing is I just started working out again after about 2 years and I am carring about 100 lbs extra weight. Dont you think at first my heart rate is just going to be a bit high until I have been working out for a while? Im doing Curves so I want to get the most out of my 30 min workout. I will know if Im pushing myself too hard.
Thanks Jachut. You have great advise and I take it seriously because you look great! Do you have a before picture that your willing to post?
Brandy

[Jachut]

I've found it. The definitive answer to the low intensity/high intensity debate, an end to the confusion caused by all these conflicting exercise theories.

Take a gander:

http://www.crankyfitness.com/2008/08/high-intensity-intervals-for-rest-of-us.html

*giggle*

[kat]

Hey. Jachut, thanks for the great advice. I have to agree with your running advice - not from my own experience, but from my husband's. He has always been a faithful runner. A couple of years back, it was discovered he had 2 90% closed arteries (genetic - his dad died of heart disease at age 40). The cardiologist told him that running saved his life, because he had such strong corollary (alternate) arteries that he didn't have a heart attack or heart disease. He's fine now after some surgery, and back to running 5-8 miles a day. He and 2 of my 3 kids are running together in a 10 mile race in May. I'm so proud of them!

Since you seem to know a lot, would you take a stab at this question? The trainers at my gym (like you said, not necessarily well trained) give conflicting advice. I've had 7 surgeries in the last 6 years resulting from a fall. 2 broken legs, wheelchair, walker, crutches, cane. You get the idea. Anyway, all is well now except I can't do much weight bearing. I can swim well, and do it regularly (3-5 times/week). I can also do the stationery bike, which I try to do a couple of times a week.

I keep reading that its necessary to do weights, etc. for bone strength. I could add lifting weights if necessary, but if what I'm doing now achieves that, I'd rather not. One trainer told me swimming - because there is resistance - accomplishes that.

Any advice? Thanks!

[Jachut]

This is one I struggle with too Kat - if I run regularly and throw in some regular pushups and tricep dips and a few planks for core strength, do I *really* need to lift weights? I see plenty of muscle me now - will this routine keep my muscle and bone strength as I age?

I cant give you a qualified medical answer since my training is very rudimentary (did 3/4 of a physio degree and have always had an interest in this sort of thing) - but I suspect its adequate and that swimming would be also. My feeling on it is that concentrating on the cardio activity does give you a certain degree of muscle tone and protection against muscle loss and that you can really achieve a lot with a few compound body weight moves - some pushups, tricep dips, some squats and a little abdominal work. You've just targeted just about every muscle in your body with those four moves. You can do it in fifteen minutes a couple of times a week. I'm partial to using live children as weights when I squat, lol, Eliza is 50lb, perfect! But I dont have leg problems.

That's my average joe routine. I dont want to look like Jillian off Biggest Loser who in my opinion does not look feminine at all. I dont want to be super strong. I just want to be healthy.

I think we take this proliferation of information that is really meant for olympic/competitive athletes - you know the stuff like 50 protein shakes a day - and we get bamboozled with it and think we ought to be doing it all, when really, just being ACTIVE and using your body is what will keep you healthy, fit and of acceptable weight. If you want more than that you need to get scientific about it, but otherwise, do what you can and what you enjoy!