Heart rate and weight loss

[Beardy10]

I there anyone that has actually experienced a more pronounced weight loss by switching their cardio exercise from a higher heart rate to a lower one in the "fat burning zone" ?

I've ignored this in the past and have always worked at a higher heart rate and managed to lose weight...I've hit a plateau so am thinking about changing and going with the heart rate zone training. I find working to achieve PB's on the exercises I do very motivating so will really struggle with what I perceive as "going through the motions".

[Tumbler]

My findings have been, working my heart harder increases my fitness at a quicker rate, but working in the fat burning zone is easier and therefore I can work at that rate consistently for a whole session. For me the way forward has been a mixture of interval training and weight training, as I understand it muscle burns more calories when you are doing nothing.

[Beardy10]

musclecarmad said:

a complete sidestep to your question but honestly this is the best advice you will ever have.

Your diet is king.

If you want to lose weight, put on muscle, get fitter or whatever your diet is king.

Yes I've just started using the Livestrong App which is a pretty good way of keeping an eye on it. Started using it last week and cut out a couple of things which surprised me.

[5unny]

My take on the whole heart rate thing:

1 - work for 30 minutes at a low/moderate intensity and you may burn 200-250 calories of which a great proportion will come from fat (60-65%).

2 - work at a high intensity for 30 minutes and you will burn significantly more calories (400-500) so sure a lesser proportion of these will be coming from fat (40-45%) but in both the above examples similar levels of fat are being used overall:

65% of 250 vs 40% of 400


However, working at the higher intensity will be far more beneficial when it comes to your fitness, metabolic rates etc.

[goldblum]

Beardy10 said:

I there anyone that has actually experienced a more pronounced weight loss by switching their cardio exercise from a higher heart rate to a lower one in the "fat burning zone" ?

I've ignored this in the past and have always worked at a higher heart rate and managed to lose weight...I've hit a plateau so am thinking about changing and going with the heart rate zone training. I find working to achieve PB's on the exercises I do very motivating so will really struggle with what I perceive as "going through the motions".

Don't do it! Stick to the higher heart rate to burn more total calories.If,as you say,you've plateaued

then try to 'up' the intensity again with some interval training.You'll burn more calories for longer

after you've finished as well.

[Beardy10]

5unny said:

My take on the whole heart rate thing:

1 - work for 30 minutes at a low/moderate intensity and you may burn 200-250 calories of which a great proportion will come from fat (60-65%).

2 - work at a high intensity for 30 minutes and you will burn significantly more calories (400-500) so sure a lesser proportion of these will be coming from fat (40-45%) but in both the above examples similar levels of fat are being used overall:

65% of 250 vs 40% of 400


However, working at the higher intensity will be far more beneficial when it comes to your fitness, metabolic rates etc.

That makes sense with your numbers but the numbers I get from my Polar HRM don't agree with that.

Here's an example I did an hours cardio today where I was taking it easy. According to my Polar I burnt 529 calories at an average heart rate of 110 with a heart rate maximum of 136....it tells me that of the 529 calories I burnt 30% were fat.

My previous cardio session was much harder...again for an hour. In that I burnt 878 calories of which only 13% were fat. My average heart rate was 139 over the hour with a maximum of 159.

So according to Polar's numbers despite having worked much harder I burnt far fewer fat calories. I'm 42 which gives you an idea of my max heart rate on the 220 minus formula.

Edited by Beardy10 on Tuesday 24th August 22:54

[5unny]

Those figures of 30% and 13% seem a bit on the low side. Most of the reading I've done suggests its far higher than that.

For example:

http://weighttraining.about.com/od/fatlossweighttr...

Given that you've hit a plateau, have you tried any interval training?

Work as hard as you can for a minute (in your case with a 160+ hr) then rest for a 60-90 seconds and repeat this as many times as you can.

You may find doing this for 10 or 15 intervals will be more effective (fitness and weight loss wise) than just doing a 60 minute cardio session all at the same pace (even though the calorie counter will say otherwise).

Beardy10 said:

5unny said:

My take on the whole heart rate thing:

1 - work for 30 minutes at a low/moderate intensity and you may burn 200-250 calories of which a great proportion will come from fat (60-65%).

2 - work at a high intensity for 30 minutes and you will burn significantly more calories (400-500) so sure a lesser proportion of these will be coming from fat (40-45%) but in both the above examples similar levels of fat are being used overall:

65% of 250 vs 40% of 400


However, working at the higher intensity will be far more beneficial when it comes to your fitness, metabolic rates etc.

That makes sense with your numbers but the numbers I get from my Polar HRM don't agree with that.

Here's an example I did an hours cardio today where I was taking it easy. According to my Polar I burnt 529 calories at an average heart rate of 110 with a heart rate maximum of 136....it tells me that of the 529 calories I burnt 30% were fat.

My previous cardio session was much harder...again for an hour. In that I burnt 878 calories of which only 13% were fat. My average heart rate was 139 over the hour with a maximum of 159.

So according to Polar's numbers despite having worked much harder I burnt far fewer fat calories. I'm 42 which gives you an idea of my max heart rate on the 220 minus formula.

Edited by Beardy10 on Tuesday 24th August 22:54

[Tumbler]

Are you wearing your monitor after your gym session? As you need to add in the burn which happens after you stop exercising.

[Beardy10]

Tumbler said:

Are you wearing your monitor after your gym session? As you need to add in the burn which happens after you stop exercising.

No I'm not....given how sweaty I get the chest strap needs a good wash after a session! I could always put it back on though.

I generally do interval training once a week.

Edited by Beardy10 on Wednesday 25th August 08:36

[Harry Flashman]

musclecarmad said:

a complete sidestep to your question but honestly this is the best advice you will ever have.

Your diet is king.

If you want to lose weight, put on muscle, get fitter or whatever your diet is king.

Completely. 80% of it (you have to do some exercise though, or you will lose muscle mass).

4 weeks, wanted a six-pack back (mainly because I am going on holiday and intend to sleep with the kind of young euro club-bimbos who find six-packs important)

I am ectomorphic, so put on both muscle and fat very easily. I was in decent shape but needed to shed enough of fat to get to the body fat % that will allow abdominals to show through.

It has been 4 weeks. No drinking. 30 minutes cardio on an empty stomach, followed by protein/carb shake. Mid morning balanced meal. Lunchtime weights session. Post workout protein/carb shake. small, balanced meal (high index carbs only) at 6pm or so. Protein snack (egg, parma ham etc) at 9pm or so. No booze/sweet drinks.

Weekends I have been admittedly drinking and eating pretty much anything (the latter not in vast quantities though - the four week regime seems to have dealt with my appetite).

Results are frankly spectacular. My body is in the sort of condition that it has never been in before. And the only differences to previous regimes is the extra morning cardio (proper half hour runs have replaced the half hour bike ride into work) and the diet bit - the right foods, little and often. Strictly at 2100-2400 calories per day, all consumed at strict times, with strict proportions of proteins/fats/carbs. Plenty of raw veg for fibre and nutrients.

No way in hell I could keep this up though. I like my food, and my wine, and even though having this sort of definition on one's torso is nice, it in no way compensates for the pleasures of a decent lunch and more pleasurable food. I will be going back to my normal diet as soon as my plane lands on holiday. This was an experiment - and a successful one - but this is no way to live. A bit more podge, but still in shape, with decent diet is a better compromise for me.

Some people (endomorphs) do not have to be so careful about calorie intake/type/timing of food ingested in order to manage body fat. But they will struggle to put on muscle. They tend to look great in their clothes, but a bit skinny out of them; these guys have to eat a lot of protein and do a lot of weights to put muscle on. My best friend is one, and I'm genuinely not sure that I'd want it this way around. He either looks very skinny, or lean with good muscles but needs to be in the gym all the time.

Also, your body seems to have a natural level of fat that it will take IMMENSE effort to shift past. Luckily for me, mine is relatively low, so with a bit of work and diet management (i.e. cut out most (but not all) rubbish, don't eat huge evening meals), I can look trim. But to go the extra mile, to get to the sort of body fat ratio where you can see a six pack, the extra work is not sustainable long term.

Best get to where you are comfortable, and look good in your clothes, than go for the Brad Pitt in Fight Club look. It's a lot of effort if you naturally tend towards a bit of body fat.

As for the OP's question, I know that everyone rates interval training. However, steady state cardio first thing in the morning has worked just as well for me (but I have combined that with weights to prevent loss of muscle mass).

And I HATE interval training; at least steady state allows you to just zone out and drift along, kidding yourself that you're not really doing much exercise...

Edited by Harry Flashman on Thursday 26th August 09:40

[cw42]

I'd found myself in a slump a few months ago, regular sessions of cardio either in the gym or on the bike were not giving me any noticable gains in fitness or weight loss. So I switched to doing sprints everytime I went out on the bike, getting my hr up over 160 at every oppurtunity as well as increasing my intensity in the gym.
Recently I've also started using the Livestrong calorie tracker app, and that, combined with the extra intensity has really boosted my weight loss and fitness. Within 3 weeks of using the app, I'd lost 10 lbs! I've put a bit back on over the summer family holiday, but lost that within the first week back home.
By far the best thing I've done though was training harder each time I go out, and not sticking to my fat burning or aerobic zones.

[samdale]

Beardy10 said:

I there anyone that has actually experienced a more pronounced weight loss by switching their cardio exercise from a higher heart rate to a lower one in the "fat burning zone" ?

my take on it is it depends how fit you are. personally, a higher heart rate say 160 (im 22) i would never be able to maintain for an hour im fat.

my two options are 110-130 for an hour or 160 odd for more like 20-30mins. so in this case yes lower would be better. not sure what to make of the science bit and "fat burning zone though"

[Beardy10]

Well the interesting thing to me is that no one has actually experienced weight loss when reducing their heart rate? At least not anyone who has read this thread. CW42's post has struck a chord with me...as I have got fitter over the last six months or so my heart rate during exercise has obviously gone down....If i was running say 12 km in an hour my heart rate used to get up over 160 for the last 10 to 15 min which it no longer does...it's more like mid 150's. Maybe I should just try upping the intensity to get my heart rate that little bit higher!?

[mcelliott]

Beardy10 said:

Well the interesting thing to me is that no one has actually experienced weight loss when reducing their heart rate? At least not anyone who has read this thread. CW42's post has struck a chord with me...as I have got fitter over the last six months or so my heart rate during exercise has obviously gone down....If i was running say 12 km in an hour my heart rate used to get up over 160 for the last 10 to 15 min which it no longer does...it's more like mid 150's. Maybe I should just try upping the intensity to get my heart rate that little bit higher!?

A bit late to this thread, sorry, but I wouldn't get caught up in the numbers game regarding heart rates. Maximum and minimum heart rates are no indication to someone's fitness levels. You say that your heart rate was higher when you were less fit than it is now, it's probably because (I'm no real expert at this!) your VO2 max capacity was smaller when you were less fit - i.e. you ran out of puff quicker, so your heart was working harder resulting in a higher reading on your monitor. Oh, just one more point, 220 minus your age, is a theory that's no longer used.

[balders118]

Harry Flashman said:

Diet/training advice...

I think you got ecto and endomorphs the wrong way around. Ectomorphs are generally skinny, and endomorhps are podgy with a big belly. mesomorphs being the muscular athletic shape (big shoulders small waist). However, you can be a ecto-mesomorph or an endo-mesomorph. No strict rules really.

Edited to fix quoting

Edited by balders118 on Thursday 26th August 18:04

[LordGrover]

IMO training in a HR zone is most beneficial if you KNOW your BMR, MHR, VO2max, etc. It's quite an intensive procedure but quite enlightening. According to best guess by my age, fitness level, mass, etc my theoretical fat burning is something like 128bpm but it turned out to be 148 - a considerable difference.

[Bill]

Beardy10 said:

Well the interesting thing to me is that no one has actually experienced weight loss when reducing their heart rate?

I'm no physiologist, but AFAIK at lower heart rates your body has a chance to use your fat stores. At higher heart rates your body starts working anaerobically so you use cell glycogen (IIRC - someone correct me if this is nonsense) and easy access energy.

But assuming you're not eating too much your body will later access your fat stores to replace what you've used.

As Grover says it's all a bit one size fits all, particularly as things will change as you get fitter.

[ewenm]

Bill said:

Beardy10 said:

Well the interesting thing to me is that no one has actually experienced weight loss when reducing their heart rate?

I'm no physiologist, but AFAIK at lower heart rates your body has a chance to use your fat stores. At higher heart rates your body starts working anaerobically so you use cell glycogen (IIRC - someone correct me if this is nonsense) and easy access energy.

But assuming you're not eating too much your body will later access your fat stores to replace what you've used.

As Grover says it's all a bit one size fits all, particularly as things will change as you get fitter.

I think you're right Bill, but the key point is you need to do the lower heart rate work for much longer - 30 mins isn't enough. I think cycling is a good way to achieve this as it's easy for everyone to do a couple of hours out on a bike and the heart rate should stay low enough.

[Ordinary_Chap]

I usually find these missing parts in people's training when they just want to lose weight.

1. All guys and girls should do weights, want to burn fat for an hour +/- 1 1/2 hour with CV or do you want to train for the same period of time and burn fat for at least 48hours with weights? I usually do weights then HIIT training tagged on the end.

2. Diet

3. Consistency