39 yr old.......optimum heartrate for fatburn ?

JimmyK

Ive read so many conflicting articles regarding what training zone you should be in for fatburn. Im 39 and in good shape and I went out with a heart monitor and chest strap recently for a 2hr ride. Without knowing the exact science for best fatburn , I didnt go any lower than 135 bpm and made a conscious effort not to exceed 155 bpm......though I could have comfortably gone a lot harder at it, but I supposed that would push me into anerobic instead of the desired aerobic training zone.

Whats the best heartrate for a fit 39 yr old bloke to achieve good fat burn ?



JimmyK

Anonymous

I would say that doing a 2hr ride between 135 and 155 is pretty damned good for fatburn!

Frank the tank

Don't know what your MHR is ZONE 2 is the optimum fat burning zone, which I believe is about 60-75% of your MHR. I think.

Alex_Simmons/RST

For the OP - you'll have to define your goal a little better in order for others to provide some sensible advice, since "fat burning zone" is a myth.

Infamous

Don't be silly alex, it's arbitrary zone 2

To burn fat, ride more and eat less. hth.

liversedge

fatbee will post in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Frank the tank

Infamous wrote:

Don't be silly alex, it's arbitrary zone 2

To burn fat, ride more and eat less. hth.

I've always been lead to believe zone 2 was the most efficient zone to ride in to "burn fat". But obviously if anyone is serious about losing weight it's all about calorie deficit, as long as calories out is more than calories in you will lose weight, whatever zone you're working in. There were no fat b@st@rds come out of Belsen.

turnerjohn

its the total calories burnt thats the important thing.
By speeding up your matabolisium by high intensity riding your body will burn fat up more efficiently. It also continues to burn fat after you've finished and are sitting down with a cup of tea :-) . If the ride is only 2hrs then your better off shifting to zone 3 with occassional bursts to zone 5, this will get your body firing much more efficiently in calorie burning. Oh and don't forget to take carbs with you. The body will try to burn protein in the your muscles if it runs low on carbs...not a good thing !

liversedge

I think the logic of L2 for fat burning is you can ride for much longer at lower intensities and therefore burn more calories as well as the fact that a higher percentage comes from fat rather than glycogen.

So 6 hrs of L2 is better than 2 hours of L4. But 2 hours of L4 is way, way better than 2 hrs of L2.

Infamous

Frank the tank wrote:

Infamous wrote:

Don't be silly alex, it's arbitrary zone 2

To burn fat, ride more and eat less. hth.

I've always been lead to believe zone 2 was the most efficient zone to ride in to "burn fat". But obviously if anyone is serious about losing weight it's all about calorie deficit, as long as calories out is more than calories in you will lose weight, whatever zone you're working in. There were no fat b@st@rds come out of Belsen.

But what's this arbitrary zone system you are quoting?

It's rubbish anyway, if you aim for zone 2 (whatever that is), then get to a climb and you hit zone 3, do you back off and go slower? are you saying this will burn more fat?

Although the belsen analogy is not the one i'd of chose, but you're right. Just choose the ride that burns the most calories, that doesn't mean ride slowly.

ut_och_cykla

liversedge wrote:

I think the logic of L2 for fat burning is you can ride for much longer at lower intensities and therefore burn more calories as well as the fact that a higher percentage comes from fat rather than glycogen.

So 6 hrs of L2 is better than 2 hours of L4. But 2 hours of L4 is way, way better than 2 hrs of L2.

I think so too liversedge. if you're new to exercise of any form or a new sport nice N easy build up is a good idea - create some kind of base. Having done that more intensity can be added, as long as you allow time for body to recover. Very hard sesions can't be done too often , easier sessiosn can be done daily if the intesity can be kept down. If you have loads of time you could do long & slow stuff, lose weight but gain very little in performance improvement. If your're short of time and/or want to see gains in performance riding harder regularly will also help you lose weight. And as long as youre not half starving yourself all the time you will lose fat not muscle

oldwelshman

60% MHR is optimum, but if you go higher it may be less efficient but you will burn more calories not just fat.

sebastiandangerfield

Higher heart rate means higher energy expenditure, however, your heart rate and workload intensity depict where that energy comes from. Working at lower intensities means your body will usilise fat stores for energy easier than at higher intentities. Zonal heart rate training is a simple way of working out how intense the excersise is and where your energy is comming from.

Zone 2 is optimum for fat burning. It's between 60 - 70 % of your heart rate reserve. Most people make the mistake of calculating 60 -70 % of your maximum heart rate but this gives different figures that are a far bit out.

Hope this helps.

Paul

Infamous

We burn 100% fat when we sit on our arse and do nothing, is this better for fat loss?

sebastiandangerfield

[/quote]We burn 100% fat when we sit on our ars* and do nothing, is this better for fat loss?

Dude, i'm just trying to answer the guy's question.

To answer yours, no, glycogen would be the main energy used in that scenario.

Frank the tank

Infamous wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Infamous wrote:

Don't be silly alex, it's arbitrary zone 2

To burn fat, ride more and eat less. hth.

I've always been lead to believe zone 2 was the most efficient zone to ride in to "burn fat". But obviously if anyone is serious about losing weight it's all about calorie deficit, as long as calories out is more than calories in you will lose weight, whatever zone you're working in. There were no fat b@st@rds come out of Belsen.

But what's this arbitrary zone system you are quoting?

It's rubbish anyway, if you aim for zone 2 (whatever that is), then get to a climb and you hit zone 3, do you back off and go slower? are you saying this will burn more fat?

Although the belsen analogy is not the one i'd of chose, but you're right. Just choose the ride that burns the most calories, that doesn't mean ride slowly.

Firstly I'm no training guru and the "zone idea" is not mine but some sports scientist's I dare say.

In answer to your statement how I'm lead to believe when working strictley to a heart rate
yes indeed you would back off as it's all about heart rate not speed along the ground.

TBH when I first trained specifically to a heart rate it did seem wierd because it felt like I wasn't working hard enough but in the long run it did seem to work. It's as much about dissaplin as much as owt else.

Alex_Simmons/RST

sebastiandangerfield wrote:

We burn 100% fat when we sit on our ars* and do nothing, is this better for fat loss?

Dude, i'm just trying to answer the guy's question.

To answer yours, no, glycogen would be the main energy used in that scenario.

No it isn't.

Infamous

Frank the tank wrote:

Firstly I'm no training guru and the "zone idea" is not mine but some sports scientist's I dare say.

In answer to your statement how I'm lead to believe when working strictley to a heart rate
yes indeed you would back off as it's all about heart rate not speed along the ground.

TBH when I first trained specifically to a heart rate it did seem wierd because it felt like I wasn't working hard enough but in the long run it did seem to work. It's as much about dissaplin as much as owt else.

It seems weird because it's wrong. Sometimes common sense is needed.

NJK

Frank the tank wrote:

Infamous wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Infamous wrote:

Don't be silly alex, it's arbitrary zone 2

To burn fat, ride more and eat less. hth.

I've always been lead to believe zone 2 was the most efficient zone to ride in to "burn fat". But obviously if anyone is serious about losing weight it's all about calorie deficit, as long as calories out is more than calories in you will lose weight, whatever zone you're working in. There were no fat b@st@rds come out of Belsen.

But what's this arbitrary zone system you are quoting?

It's rubbish anyway, if you aim for zone 2 (whatever that is), then get to a climb and you hit zone 3, do you back off and go slower? are you saying this will burn more fat?

Although the belsen analogy is not the one i'd of chose, but you're right. Just choose the ride that burns the most calories, that doesn't mean ride slowly.

Firstly I'm no training guru and the "zone idea" is not mine but some sports scientist's I dare say.

In answer to your statement how I'm lead to believe when working strictley to a heart rate
yes indeed you would back off as it's all about heart rate not speed along the ground.

TBH when I first trained specifically to a heart rate it did seem wierd because it felt like I wasn't working hard enough but in the long run it did seem to work. It's as much about dissaplin as much as owt else.

The fat burning zone no doubt from the fitness community. Something nice to put on the machines that the general public can understand, however a lot of fitness staff may not have the knowledge to understand the generalisation of what has been printed on the machine.

Better get carbo loading if i'm going to be burning glycogen for the next 2 hours watching the giro.

sebastiandangerfield

sebastiandangerfield wrote:
Quote:
We burn 100% fat when we sit on our ars* and do nothing, is this better for fat loss?


Dude, i'm just trying to answer the guy's question.

To answer yours, no, glycogen would be the main energy used in that scenario.

No it isn't.

I know, I was answering a dumb post with a dumb post.

I was simply trying to answer the original posters question politely by explaining that zonal training targets a specific enrgy system and the old fasioned ethos of pushing as hard as you can will make you fitter but not utilise fat stores as energy as readily.

I'm going to have to change coaches. Everyone at my athletics club trains using zonal techniques. Several of those are working towards a world championship this summer and ultimately an olympics with sport scientists, nutritionists and coaches all working at what I thought was the pinnacle of my sport and fitness training. Judging by the far superior knowledge of several of you guys we're doomed for London!

Infamous

sebastiandangerfield wrote:

I know, I was answering a dumb post with a dumb post.

I was simply trying to answer the original posters question politely by explaining that zonal training targets a specific enrgy system and the old fasioned ethos of pushing as hard as you can will make you fitter but not utilise fat stores as energy as readily.

I'm going to have to change coaches. Everyone at my athletics club trains using zonal techniques. Several of those are working towards a world championship this summer and ultimately an olympics with sport scientists, nutritionists and coaches all working at what I thought was the pinnacle of my sport and fitness training. Judging by the far superior knowledge of several of you guys we're doomed for London!

Well, going by the last 100 years, we are already doomed for London when it comes to athletics.

But in cycling, where we did quite well recently, they don't use HR zones (they do use a HRM along with a PM though).

Not that it means anything. So, seeing how you're best mates with seb coe or whoever, ask seb how he accounts for cardiac drift? does he go slower and slower until he has to stop, just to keep inside the HR zone?

sebastiandangerfield

Seb Coe wouldn't be training to lose fat in the first place so he'd be in higher zones in order to increase efficiency.

The original poster was asking specifically about fat loss using a heart rate monitor and zonal training so cardiac drift wouldn't be an issue as his heart rate monitor would still show what heart rate zone he was in as opposed to the amount of effort he's using increasing as his heart rate incresed relative to the de-hydration and fatigue he was experiencing toward the end of the session.

I'll double check with seb though.

Slow1972

sebastiandangerfield wrote:

Seb Coe wouldn't be training to lose fat in the first place so he'd be in higher zones in order to increase efficiency.

The original poster was asking specifically about fat loss using a heart rate monitor and zonal training so cardiac drift wouldn't be an issue as his heart rate monitor would still show what heart rate zone he was in as opposed to the amount of effort he's using increasing as his heart rate incresed relative to the de-hydration and fatigue he was experiencing toward the end of the session.

I'll double check with seb though.

Hmmm I'm still not convinced by your low zonal training for optimal fat burning.

I'll accept that at lower intensity the proportion of energy used by the body derived from fat burning is greater but that must be related to the fact that the overall rate of calorie burn is lower (eg say 3 cals per min from fat, 3 cals per minute from carbs would give a 50% ratio). If you exercise at higher intensity the proportion of fat burnt is lower because the body processes more carbs to supply the extra energy. That's not to say the actual amount of fat being burnt is lower (eg 3 cals per minute from fat, 6 cals per minute from carbs would only give 33% from fat, but the same amount of fat is still being burnt).

The main benefit I would have thought with lower zonal training is that, subject to the time being available, the OP could sustain his effort longer and therefore burn more fat overall in a lower zone than high intensity work. But if he is time limited I would have thought he would burn most fat being exercising at a higher intensity if he can sustain it for the time available.

At some point surely it boils down to the old adage of calories in vs calories out.
For example, I don't care what you say, I seem to have shifted more fat since I started riding my 14 mile commute at a higher intensity (say 155 - 160 bpm avg) than covering the same distance at 130-135 bpm.

As someone suggested, maybe the athletics team need to take a leaf out of the cycling team's book and update their approach as to how they train....

spartacuscp

Thanks to Frank the Tank for his assumption that "no fat ba*t*rds came out of Belsen".
The Nazi concentration camp was described by the BBc as _

“ ...Here over an acre of ground lay dead and dying people. You could not see which was which ... The living lay with their heads against the corpses and around them moved the awful, ghostly procession of emaciated, aimless people, with nothing to do and with no hope of life, unable to move out of your way, unable to look at the terrible sights around them ... Babies had been born here, tiny wizened things that could not live ... A mother, driven mad, screamed at a British sentry to give her milk for her child, and thrust the tiny mite into his arms, then ran off, crying terribly. He opened the bundle and found the baby had been dead for days.
"This day at Belsen was the most horrible of my life.[4]

sebastiandangerfield

Slow, I fully agree. The op wasn't asking about how long to train for or training programs. He was mearly asking what is the most efficient heartrate zone for fatburn and it's zone 2.

Frank the tank

Thanks for the history lesson. I'm more than aware of the horrors of Belsen and many other death camps.

My analogy/choice of words were perhaps not the best, I was merely trying to put as much emphasis to my argument that weight loss is all about calorie deficit and actually nothing to do with zones/training schedules/types of exercise etc.

I appologise for any offence I may have caused.

JimmyK

I was out last night and did a lovely country scenic route of 42 miles, I didnt push too hard and when I got back my cateye strada was telling me that my average for the trip was 18mph . I keep a target fitness watch based heart rate monitor attached to my handlebars and I wear the accompanying heart belt.

I find the training at 65% of MHR approx 135 bpm to be way too easy and it just doesnt sustain my interest whirring away to keep at that heartrate. For the duration of the 42 miles, lowest heartrate was around 150 bpm and max was 180 bpm on hillier bits, I endeavoured to keep at least 80% of the ride in the 150 - 165 bpm zone and that wasnt any problem.

For a 39 yr old bloke like me, is that kind of training going to burn fat or is it more anerobic in nature ?

Jimmy

sebastiandangerfield

Before anyone starts slating me for answering a question i'd like to pont out that I dont condone or support this type of training in anyway but do understand the science behind it.

To answer your question,

Remember to work out your training zones incorporating your resting heart rate instead of just your max, thats probably why it was too easy.

Calculation of a zone value
The calculation of a zone value, X%, is performed in the following way:

Subtract your RHR from your MHR giving us your working heart rate (WHR)
Calculate the required X% on the WHR giving us "Z"
Add "Z" and your RHR together to give us the final value
Example: The athlete's MHR is 180 and their RHR is 60 - determine the 70% value

MHR - RHR = 180 - 60 = 120
70% of 120 = 84
84 + RHR = 84 + 60 = 144 bpm

Thats assuming you your resting and max are those figures, in reality your probably very different from that. Remember, your max heart rate isn't that 220 minus your age nonsense either. If you post your stats, Max HR, Rest HR i'll do the zones for you?

liversedge

every so often I am reminded how much I miss nn and the 'k' command ... I wish fatbee had posted into this deja vu of a thread.

We SO need Ruth and Alex to collaborate on an an FAQ ... am I alone in thinking this?

Bhima

Slow1972 wrote:

If you exercise at higher intensity the proportion of fat burnt is lower because the body processes more carbs to supply the extra energy. That's not to say the actual amount of fat being burnt is lower

Yeah, exactly. The carbs act as a "top-up". So any riding is good for fat burning. I'm guessing It's probably safer to stay in the "no glycogen" zone though, otherwise you have to start eating to replace glycogen stores and could possibly overeat, making the fat-burning irrelevant because you've taken in too many calories. I've been guilty of this many times, with my banana/flapjack addiction!

sebastiandangerfield

Well, going by the last 100 years, we are already doomed for London when it comes to athletics.

But in cycling, where we did quite well recently, they don't use HR zones (they do use a HRM along with a PM though).

Not that it means anything. So, seeing how you're best mates with seb coe or whoever, ask seb how he accounts for cardiac drift? does he go slower and slower until he has to stop, just to keep inside the HR zone?

So what are they measuring with the heart rate monitor then? Or it just to make sure it's still beating but they take no notice of how hard?