Heart Rate Training Zones

sc999cs

Due to an 'unfavourable BMI' I'm spending a lot of time on my indoor trainer, trying to ride for an hour a night, five or six times a week to help get my weight to a more acceptable level... I use a HRM to gauge effort but I'm curious; in order to burn fat and lose weight effectively should I cycle at really low intensities and burn a few hundred calories (high percentage fat) or is it better to ride at a higher intensity, and burn more calories (but a lower percentage of fat)?

Also does anyone know where the 'remainder' of the calories come from if they're not from fat?

Thanks in advance,

Steve C

ut_och_cykla

i's a toss up - ride hard, burn more of everything but risk getting jaded and missing sessions or ride more gently and be more sure of at least burning something (but less) on a more regular basis. Fat is used (decreasingly as a percentage) as effort increases up to sprinting efforts - but the total burnt is more and there is probably a 'after burn' effect of higher efforts.
Don't lose track of the food intake side of things tho' almost more important on a long term basis

joeyhalloran

Once you start pushing up in the high intensity levels your body starts to use more and more carboyhydrates in the form of muscle glycogen and blood glucose. More calories are used but less fat, however, the 'affter burn affect' mentioned is your body repairing itself from the efforts, if you don't supply your body with food after exercise this will mainly come from fat stores. If i were trying to lose weight i would be pushing at low intensities to burn the a larger proportion of fat. The best fat burning zone is between 60-70% of your maximum heart rate and this shoulod lead to around 80% of the fuel coming from fat stores. But what you also need to remember is your body adapts quicker than you might think. To keep your body (and to stop boardem) mix it up a little every now and then with a few high intensity workout (although build up to these to avoid injury). However, the exercise is secondary to dieting when losing weight, regardless of the exercise you are doing you won't lose weight unless you are in a calorific deficit, these means don't be thinking 'because i've been cycling i can eat more', the idea is the cycling buts you in to the deficit so you lose the energy stored in the fat (even though it might make you feel hungrier). And remmeber patients and consistency are key.


sorry for length of post
Hope it helps

sc999cs

Two really helpful replies.

Many thanks

Steve C

Alex_Simmons/RST

To lose weight, the focus is primarily on diet (eat to get lean).

As far as exercise goes, then ride as hard as you can sustainably do so for the training time you have available. Sustainable during the ride, sustainable from day to day, sustainable week to week.

Forget about the proportion of energy derived from metabolism of glycogen vs FFA. It matters not what our metabolism uses as fuel source. What matters is the total calorie deficit, on average day to day, week to week.

Alex_Simmons/RST

JoeyHalloran wrote:

The best fat burning zone is between 60-70% of your maximum heart rate and this shoulod lead to around 80% of the fuel coming from fat stores.

I'm not sure which cereal packet that advice came from but even at rest our metabolism is fuelled nearly 50:50 by FFA and glycogen. The proportion of FFA used may drop as intensity rises but the total used also goes up too.

As far as riding goes, 60-70% of MHR is simply tooling around and won't help you burn many calories, nor get fitter. Ride more at 75% and higher if time is short.

All that matters is total calroies used, not what fuel source they derived from.

jp1985

One of the biggest myths/misunderstandings in sports/exercsie science is that of the so called "fat burning zone" which unfortunately is propogated by nonsensical retarded imbeciles otherwise known as fitness instructors.

exercise at lighter intensities produces a progressive increase in the use of fat as an energy substrate until a total of 80% of total energy expenditure can be contributed by fat. However, at higher intensities the as intensity increases (above 70%ish) the percentage contribution of fats to metabolism drops. this does not mean to say the total energy expenditure from fat decreases, merely that the utilisation of carbohydrates (blood glucose and muscle glycogen) increases as they provide a faster albeit less efficient source of energy that meets the demands of exercise at increasingly greater intensities.

For example exercising at 65% of HRmax for one hour may elicit an energy expenditure of 600Kcal, The ratio of energy provided by fats and carbohydrates respectively may be 60:40 meaning 360Kcal are provided by fat and 240Kcal by carbohydrate. Whereas at 90%Hrmax for one hour may elicit an energy expenditure of 1000Kcal with a 40% contribution by fats and 60% from carbohydrate equating to 400Kcal from fats and 600 Kcal from carbohydrates.(these figures totally inaccurate but represent my point)

First and foremost as alex said it is the total Kcal burnt that is most important, but whatever way you cut it exercising for one hour at a lower intensity will never burn more Kcal nor Kcal from fat souces than exercising at a greater intensity for one hour.

However, exercising at greater intensities is more difficult to sustain for prolonged periods and takes longer to recover from therefore may reduce energy expenditure by reducing the duration or frequency of your sessions. I would reccomend exercising at the greatest intensity you can for one hour that doesnt leave you battered the next day.

first of all i hope this makes sense and secondly helps you out a little

Joe

Aidanw

A bit from our lords and masters.

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... owly-17447

idaviesmoore

jp1985 wrote:

which unfortunately is propogated by nonsensical retarded imbeciles otherwise known as fitness instructors.

Joe

There's nothing like a wildly sweeping generalisation to put the cat amongst the pigeons. I'd be very careful about that type of attitude. There are thousands of very knowleagable F.I and P.Ts in this country with a depth of knowledge. Please don't demonise a whole industry because of a bad experiance or what some newspapers will have you believe. Sorry for going off thread

jp1985

"There's nothing like a wildly sweeping generalisation to put the cat amongst the pigeons. I'd be very careful about that type of attitude. There are thousands of very knowleagable F.I and P.Ts in this country with a depth of knowledge. Please don't demonise a whole industry because of a bad experiance or what some newspapers will have you believe. Sorry for going off thread 2


Yeah there are a few decent ones. But in general expecting to gain the required knowledge of all areas of sports/exercise science is impossible in the 48 hours of work requirred to become a qualified fitness instructor, Thought i would get a dig in while i had the opportunity.

idaviesmoore

jp1985 wrote:

"

Yeah there are a few decent ones. But in general expecting to gain the required knowledge of all areas of sports/exercise science is impossible in the 48 hours of work requirred to become a qualified fitness instructor, Thought i would get a dig in while i had the opportunity.

....I'm walking away while I still can

TheGreatGatsby

this is a good posting! I've been wondering about the same sort of thing since being refined to use a turbo for a little bit. I have been doing 2 hours a day in the mornings 4 days a week - trainright time trial dvd session back to back - and then on the 5th day I do the same session plus a 1 hours recovery ride in the evening and on the weekend I do a 2/2.5 hour ride in the morning and 1.5hour ride in the evening. Before the accident I would do 3 hours in the morning and an hour and a half in the evening with saturdays as a rest day and sundays a 4hour+ ride.

During all this i have been worried about the whole calorie fat burn thing and was wondering about the whole difference in riding intensity and length. One of the things that crossed my mind is that will you still burn fat/lose weight if your calorie burn is low? For example my 1.5 hour rides on the turbo will burn about 4-600cals which is rubbish but my two hour sessions in the morning will burn over 1000 - so which is better for over all weight loss? I am comparing this to my road rides where I would burn about 8-1200 cals a day on average. Is m the riding to the DVD more beneficial overall as it is more structured than just riding randomly?

Gats

idaviesmoore

The second session is better, Gats as long as it's not compromising your health or recovery.

Sorry, I meant your earlier session-misread the post

richa

jp1985 wrote:

For example exercising at 65% of HRmax for one hour may elicit an energy expenditure of 600Kcal, The ratio of energy provided by fats and carbohydrates respectively may be 60:40 meaning 360Kcal are provided by fat and 240Kcal by carbohydrate. Whereas at 90%Hrmax for one hour may elicit an energy expenditure of 1000Kcal with a 40% contribution by fats and 60% from carbohydrate equating to 400Kcal from fats and 600 Kcal from carbohydrates.(these figures totally inaccurate but represent my point)

I think this is a little misleading/misses the point.

65% HRmax 1:00 => 600Kcal @ 60%fat = 360Kcal fats / 240Kcal carbohydrates.
90% HRmax 1:00 => 1000Kcal @40%fat = 400Kcal fats / 600Kcal carbohydrates.

Say we up the intensity further:
92% HRmax 1:00 => 1100Kcal @30%fat = 330Kcal fats / 770Kcal carbohydrates.

On the above logic the 3rd workout wouldn't be encouraged as the KCals of fat burnt decreases.

IMO, what we need to add to the equation is the subsequent hours of rest/recovery @ 50% HRmax (?). During these hours the fat burn % will be increased, due to a shortage in carbs tha has resulted from the greater carb burn by the more intensive workout.

i.e. in the end, it comes down to energy-in v energy-out, because if you partake in v.highly intensive carb-burning exercises, then you leave less carbs available for the rest of the day, hence fat is burned in its absence.

Or somethink...

Alex_Simmons/RST

One needs to get away from being concerned about the fuel source. It's total calories that matter.

Fuel sources only matter when we want to ride long, as we will by necessity need to rely more heavily on fat metabolism since we have something like 50 times more energy reserves stored as fat than as glycogen (and accordingly only be capable of riding at lower powers/speeds as a result). We are capable of supplementing our glycogen exogenously while riding but not usually at the same rate we can burn it.

Of course the best way to improve our ability to metabolise fat at higher intensities is to train at higher (almost exclusively glycogen fed) aerobic intensities. Ironic I know but there you go.

That's why riders seeking to train for long events still need to consider higher intesity efforts as part of their training.

The other component is our diet, which has a sizeable influence on the fuel source mix. Eat a high fat diet and you will burn a higher proportion of fats at any given intensity but you will also reach exhaustion sooner when going moderately hard. Eat a diet high in carbs and guess what, you can go moderately harder, for much, much longer.


Train to get fitter. Eat to get leaner.

TheGreatGatsby

idaviesmoore - you mean the one I'm currently doing on the turbo? Two back to back time trial training sessions 5 days a week, 1 recovery ride and 3 free rides?

I had wondered if doing the structured CTS intervals would benefit me overall in terms of riding ability/strength/pedal technique and weight loss as I was told that during my rehab. from this broken collar bone I would gain weight and lose fitness?

Strangely I am thinking about incorporating the CTS sessions into my normal riding week (when I get better) just as a point of interest and to mix it up a bit. As they are of a higher intensity than I would generally do on the road, where the rides are just miles and done as a feel, I was thinking maybe they would help with the weightloss any way with the added bonus of structure?

Gats

idaviesmoore

TheGreatGatsby wrote:

I was told that during my rehab. from this broken collar bone I would gain weight and lose fitness?


Gats

:shock: Surely, this would only happen if you:-

1. Stopped training
2. Increased calorie intake

If anyone did this they'd gain weight.

I reckon you're doing more than enough not to have to worry about either of them

TheGreatGatsby

do you think its enough? I'm not sure that what I'm doing is enough to keep the Eltons at bay as its such a drop in mileage from what I was doing - but its of higher intensity so does that counter balance it in terms of cal/fat burnage?

Which kind of brings us back to the original posters question about time spent pedalling vs intensity.

Gats

jp1985

As i said it was just an example to demonstrate the point and the figures are wholey inaccurate.
As both yourself and alex point out it is the total energy expenditure that matters and substrate utiisation is largely uninportant.
Indeed, asyou point out, part of the benefit of higher intensity exercise is the greater energy expenditure as part of recovery.

sc999cs

Thanks for all the information - interesting to read.

So if I correct a summary would be

Eat properly

Exercise at higher intensities but not so hard that I'm too tired to ride again the next day

Ignore the heart rate monitor

and most importantly make sure I enjoy myself

Where can I find information about CTS sessions mentioned by another poster?

Regards

Steve C

TheGreatGatsby

www.trainright.com

gats

idaviesmoore

TheGreatGatsby wrote:

do you think its enough? I'm not sure that what I'm doing is enough to keep the Eltons at bay as its such a drop in mileage from what I was doing -
Gats

What do the scales say? I don't recommend you becoming a slave to the scales but they offer and important referance point every so often (and can show if you're dehydrated or not after a long ride) I assume (wrongly, maybe) that you can't do the sessions that you used to do, but I've got to say that what you are doing seems respectable.

Keep your eyes on your calorie intake and keep the current plan until such time that you can get to what you used to do (if you want to by then)