How do we Dispell the "Fat Burn Zone" in cardio??

After discussion on the pink dumbell weight lifting theory for women I thought it was time for us to switch gears for a bit and go visit this "Fat Burning Zone" heart rate trash that has been jammed down our throats just as much.

I'm all for doing cardio but I don't much care for the "fat burning zone" 

Doing a quick google search I found these articles that I hope will help educate and inform and cause some folks to re evaluate their cardio workout routines based on what they want -- do you want to just burn "fat" or do you want to burn calories and lose weight?

Here are some of those articles to get you started.

http://www.myfooddiary.com/resources/ask_the_ expert/fat-burning_zone_myth.asp

http://www.active.com/triathlon/Articles/The- Myth-of-the-Fat-burning-Zone.htm

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php? t=747976

http://livingthefitlife.blogspot.com/2008/02/ fat-burning-zone-myth.html

http://weighttraining.about.com/od/fatlosswei ghttraining/a/fat_burn.htm

So get off those treadmills ellipticals and bikes doing 90 minutes at barely a sweat and start working them hard and fast -- HIIT of course being more desirable but if you are like me just try interval training a couple days a week and enjoy the results.

i thought this might be useful to know how hard you have to work to burn fat.

http://www.healthgoods.com/Shopping/images/Ac umen_Target_Heart_Rate_Zone.gif

Original Post by louised1991:

i thought this might be useful to know how hard you have to work to burn fat.

http://www.healthgoods.com/Shopping/images/Ac umen_Target_Heart_Rate_Zone.gif

Louise, that's exactly the myth that dbacker is trying to dispell - you don't have to keep your heart rate below a certain zone to burn fat, which is what people think when they look at that chart. Take a read of some of the sites db listed.

hi. 

physiology question: 

in the second to last paragraph of the myfooddiary article (above), 

it says:

"It should also be noted that higher intensity exercise training results in greater training adaptations as compared to those seen with lower intensity workouts.  For instance, higher intensity workouts result in greater changes in muscle structure and function, as well as cardiovascular system structure and function.  " 

can someone explain what "changes in muscle strutcutre and function" means? 

what structures? how so? 

Original Post by amethystgirl:

Louise, that's exactly the myth that dbacker is trying to dispell - you don't have to keep your heart rate below a certain zone to burn fat, which is what people think when they look at that chart. Take a read of some of the sites db listed.

Well this is gonna be a huge uphill battle since every treadmill and eliptical machine at my gym has that FAT BURNING ZONE sticker on it

Original Post by spirochete:

Original Post by amethystgirl:

Louise, that's exactly the myth that dbacker is trying to dispell - you don't have to keep your heart rate below a certain zone to burn fat, which is what people think when they look at that chart. Take a read of some of the sites db listed.

Well this is gonna be a huge uphill battle since every treadmill and eliptical machine at my gym has that FAT BURNING ZONE sticker on it

Yeah, and my issue of Shape has a picture of a woman with fushia 2lb dumbbells. Who said this would be an easy fight?

ps. I don't actually have, nor have I ever had, a copy of Shape.

Original Post by bubbles556:

can someone explain what "changes in muscle strutcutre and function" means? 

what structures? how so? 

When you exercise (cardio) you improve your cardiovascular system, which includes growing more capillaries to carry more blood to your muscules and more efficient at carrying the fuel to your muscles. Also, your muscles can be trained to hold more and more glucose in the muscle itself for fuel.

This is why those stickers on the treadmills are ridiculous - it is completely dependant on the person and one can train to improve your lactate threashold and your anerobic threshold (VO2 max).

oh! fuel and blood flow. very good. 

fuel, given the article i've read so far, is both fat and carbohydrate, and the ratio's change given my cardio level, but thats not actually the point.  

 the point is, if i understand correctly, its not about "how much fat" or "how much carb" burn i get from a given activity level. The ratio may change with more intensity, but so does the burn rate, creating larger calorie deficits. 

meaning it's not a one pony show. healthy functioning has more complexity than just fat burning. 

can you recommend a good HIIT program for the treadmill?

Original Post by chelslaw1984:

can you recommend a good HIIT program for the treadmill?

It's hard because the treadmill doesn't ramp up or down very fast. What some people do is jump to the sides and grab your breath while the treadmill slows back down, then get back on the belt. It's really not the safest thing, probably but it works.

There's some good resources around google: start with 30 seconds sprint, 60 seconds  jog. I do minute fast, minute recover but I do HIIT with a jump rope which is evil enough for me

okay, I totally get this but I do have a beef with the assertion, "cardio does nothing for your metabolism when you are at rest".  I don't fully believe it.  Your calorie burn is dependant on your heart rate and cardio exercise can raise your heart rate for several hours.   So, you are burning calories for longer than the duration of your "workout". 

For example, I walk a mile to warm up, that's raising my HR from 70 bpm to  130bpm for a good 15 minutes.  I get my HR up from 130 bpm to 155 during my workout with a good 6 minutes when I peak at 165-170 bpm.  These workouts range from 25-45 minutes.  My cool down ranges from 15-30 minutes where I maintain 130 bpm.  My HR stays between 80-100 bpm for a while afterwards. 

I'm not comparing this exercise to anything else.  Only asserting that during these blocks of time, I have burned a crapload of calories.  I also have the capability of walking very fast at any given time which then gives me the capability of busting a sweat during my  daytime activities.  I have checked my calorie burn during regular errands and it's very high. 

This is probably a different topic.  Sorry. 

It seems that there is a lot going around about the wonders of HIIT over long duration steady state cardio. While this is undoubtedly true to maximize efficiency in fat loss, what if you just plain enjoy spending an hour running around your block? The fresh air, sunshine and runners high are all part of the high point in my day. I would take enjoyment of exercise over the most efficient fat burning cardio any day. Also, please don't forget that...60 mins of running at a steady state burns a lot of calories! For me, being 200 lbs, it burns about 1000 calories. AND I enjoy it. Let's not knock steady state too much =) But I understand where you guys are coming from.

Oh, and I hate treadmills. I can't stand them for more than two minutes. I have to run outside.

Original Post by mrsdagle:

okay, I totally get this but I do have a beef with the assertion, "cardio does nothing for your metabolism when you are at rest".  I don't fully believe it.  Your calorie burn is dependant on your heart rate and cardio exercise can raise your heart rate for several hours.   So, you are burning calories for longer than the duration of your "workout". 

For example, I walk a mile to warm up, that's raising my HR from 70 bpm to  130bpm for a good 15 minutes.  I get my HR up from 130 bpm to 155 during my workout with a good 6 minutes when I peak at 165-170 bpm.  These workouts range from 25-45 minutes.  My cool down ranges from 15-30 minutes where I maintain 130 bpm.  My HR stays between 80-100 bpm for a while afterwards. 

I'm not comparing this exercise to anything else.  Only asserting that during these blocks of time, I have burned a crapload of calories.  I also have the capability of walking very fast at any given time which then gives me the capability of busting a sweat during my  daytime activities.  I have checked my calorie burn during regular errands and it's very high. 

This is probably a different topic.  Sorry. 

After you do cardio for a while your recovery rate is going to be quicker - meaning your "afterburn" will decrease somewhat.  Yes it is true you will burn calories after a good workout - but studies show that the afterburn from weight lifting is actually higher than just walking- also the afterburn is better after HIIT.  I'm sure others will be able to point to these articles. 

I used to have a high resting heart rate - I also used to take little time to get it into the moderate zone but after losing weight doing cardio and stuff I now really have to work hard to get my heart rate into a respectable zone - and as soon as I start cooling down and stretching its right back down to 60 in less than a minute.  This recovery time being so quick means my heart is in good shape and is able to recover quickly.

The point is - if you work "hard" and use different intensities of workouts for your heart you will burn lots of calories and although the "percentage" of calories burned my come from fat you will be burning more calories and therefore more fat!!!

Original Post by mds86:

It seems that there is a lot going around about the wonders of HIIT over long duration steady state cardio. While this is undoubtedly true to maximize efficiency in fat loss, what if you just plain enjoy spending an hour running around your block? The fresh air, sunshine and runners high are all part of the high point in my day. I would take enjoyment of exercise over the most efficient fat burning cardio any day. Also, please don't forget that...60 mins of running at a steady state burns a lot of calories! For me, being 200 lbs, it burns about 1000 calories. AND I enjoy it. Let's not knock steady state too much =) But I understand where you guys are coming from.

Oh, and I hate treadmills. I can't stand them for more than two minutes. I have to run outside.

I don't do HIIT and I'm with you on I'd much rather walk ( or in your case run) around outside than on a treadmill any day!!  I think what you are doing is wonderful.  You are outhere working hard - it doesn't have to be HIIT  and since you are running it would seem to me that your heart rate is probably higher than the so called "fat burning zone"  You are working out and burning calories and having fun and that is what its all about.    I think if people don't have time to workout for an hour or even 30 minutes then HIIT is a good way to burn those calories quickly and get the cardio benefits of a nice steady run. 

 As you get into better cardio shape you've got to work harder or longer to get in a similar burn. Same thing as with lifting, as you get stronger you need to put more weight on the bar to have a training effect.

 We call that "getting into shape", and the better shape you're in the more you need to push yourself to improve on where you are. Which isn't a bad thing - if you like running, having to run longer to get the same calorie burn means being able to run longer - and doing more of what you love is called "fun" where I'm from.

 If you're only doing it for the fat loss there's better ways to train, but if the cardio you're doing is a goal in itself and not just a means to an end, I don't see the problem in getting to do more of it.

 It's also a question of budgeting your time. If you only have 20-30 minutes to work out, strength training or HIIT wins out in terms of calories burned. Around 30-45 minutes it comes out about even, and for longer than that cardio wins out simply because you can't possibly sustain the HIIT/lifting for longer than about 30 min/(45-60) at a reasonable intensity.

 If you don't have a lot of time going with the more time-efficient training methods makes sense. If you do have the time, going with the ones that lets you sustain your workout for the time you've got available also makes sense.

 Caveat: when dieting, strength training always needs to have a higher priority than cardio-based activities to preserve muscle mass and resting energy expenditure in a calorie deficit. So the time you've got to do cardio with is really (total training time-strength training time=) cardio time, which may or may not leave you with enough hours in your week to get in anything approaching significance with the long-duration steady state.

 OTOH, strength training doesn't need to take an inordinate amount of time; 3xweekly whole-body sessions is plenty for a beginning-to-intermediate trainee and my preferred workout templates tend to take about 30-40 minutes per workout. Although some useful training models can take up to 60 minutes per workout. After you've programmed in those 1.5-3 hours of strength training,any time you've got left over goes to cardio - and then you start looking at how to spend your time most efficiently.

 If you've got an hour or more left over every day, steady state wins. If you can only carve out 10-20 minutes of "you time" to get in a quick workout, interval training is the best way to use your available time.

Up to a point. If you're lifting, HIIT on top more than 1-2 times a week tends towards overkill and overtraining, and something more like Fartlek or aerobic intervals is a more appropriate adjunct to your training.

Thank you! I hate that "fat burn zone" on the elipitcal. If I keep my heart rate at what it tells me, then my breath is not labored, I don't sweat and I might as well be just walking around the mall. I need my heart rate right up there around 150-155 to feel like I am doing anything and to release those wonderful endorphins. Otherwise, why bother working out unless it makes me feel good?

thanks for the tips.  I'm in much better shape than I was last year so I know about working harder for the same results.  I actually do the cardio for both the burn and the endorphin fix (mood disorder), not to mention the need to restore my CV health. 

This is all just FUD.  I think the one thing we all can agree on, a caloric deficit leads to the loss of fat, and just leave it at that.  I think we can all agree that muscle burns more calories, even while resting.

When I started Ironman training, I had lost 50 pounds.  Over the five months of Ironman training, I lost 7 pounds, even though I was exercising up to 17 hours a week.  What the chick in that article doesn't tell you is that to be an endurance athlete, especially an ultra runner or Ironman, you have to eat constantly before during and after workouts.  It's hard to lose weight.

Long slow endurance workouts are designed to build strength (muscle?).  Aerobic workouts are designed to improve our cardiovascular system.  Intervals are designed to increase our VO2 max and lactate threshold.  Obviously, if you rev up your system harder, it will burn more calories longer after your workout is over.

I still, personally, think I would rather burn a higher percentage of fat because fat is more difficult to replace.  But that may just be me.  The fat burning zone is a hell of a lot more enjoyable workout too.  Intervals is hard work.  Not to knock intervals.  Each type of workout has its proper place in your training to achieve your goals.

Oh, well, just my two cents.

Original Post by wesmckean:

I still, personally, think I would rather burn a higher percentage of fat because fat is more difficult to replace.  

 I think everyone would rather burn a higher percentage of fat, people get confused because they think the 'fat burning zone' will help them achieve this, which has been shown not to be the case.

The problem is that while the 'fat burning zone' may help you burn a higher percentage of fat during exercise, other forms of exercise lead to a higher percentage of fat burning during the rest of the day, and since I spend the majority of my day not exercising I'd rather be burning more fat then than during the few hours a week I am exercising.

I love this.  Dbackerfan nice start to another discussion.  I thoroughly enjoyed the pink dumbell one as well!

What I see here is that people just have a different order of priorities for what they want to achieve from their exercise.  Burn calories, burn fat, lose weight, adjust the mood, enjoy the outdoors, train for ironman, minimize time spent, maintain cv health, etc.  It all depends on what you want to achieve.

Original Post by floggingsully:

Original Post by wesmckean:

I still, personally, think I would rather burn a higher percentage of fat because fat is more difficult to replace.  

 I think everyone would rather burn a higher percentage of fat, people get confused because they think the 'fat burning zone' will help them achieve this, which has been shown not to be the case.

The problem is that while the 'fat burning zone' may help you burn a higher percentage of fat during exercise, other forms of exercise lead to a higher percentage of fat burning during the rest of the day, and since I spend the majority of my day not exercising I'd rather be burning more fat then than during the few hours a week I am exercising.

I'm down with that.  I think if the body isn't getting what it needs to replace glycogen stores from the food we eat (due to a deficit), its probably going to take that from fat, and that too will reduce our fat stores.

I just think that after my long slow runs, I am not ravenously hungry a couple of hours after I get done because my body is in a hurry to replace fat cells.  It is replacing glycogen.  Truth is we are not 100% sure how the body works.  Stick with what we know.