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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

[/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.

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.

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 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 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....

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.

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?

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?