traineo - What is the fat burning zone and how do I find my target heart rate range?

Reply by Arby Jones

Fri, 02 May 2008 22:06:24 +0000

Quoting: JammersAnyways, I'm up to 40 minutes at 7.2 mph (or it might be kph?) on the treadmill and about half an hour on the cross trainer. Do people think this is enough to burn weight, if I was to do this say 2 or 3 times a week.? Well, as the previous three pages of this thread demonstrate, it's all about heart rate and how hard you're working. There has been a lot of interesting information presented, and I'd suggest you shoot for 60-80% intensity (using the Karvonen ...

Reply by Jamie Green

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:36:52 +0000

Hi everyone, I'm new to the forums. After just dieting didn't work in shedding the pounds I started going swimming which naturally seemed to progress into going to the gym. I joined last week and have been 4 times already. Anyways, I'm up to 40 minutes at 7.2 mph (or it might be kph?) on the treadmill and about half an hour on the cross trainer. Do people think this is enough to burn weight, if I was to do this say 2 or 3 times a week.? I also walk to the gym there and bac...

Reply by Dave Nicholson

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:26:17 +0000

Minu, don't you love a wellness me too???? I find it reasonably appropriate that Sheryl is on his contact list...

Reply by Minu ~

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:24:56 +0000

Marco, stop spamming, especially direct in our message boxes here.

Reply by marco bottone

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:04:44 +0000

I love a wellness,and I suppose you love wellness me too....I want you report a interesting site, www.p4p.mobi tell me what you think...

Reply by Joe Weierke

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:40:12 +0000

I have been setting my heart rate level at 149 recently. I set the Elliptical machine to that rate on the fat burn setting and it automatically adjusts to keep my heart rate at that level. So far I am doing OK with 40 to 45 minutes at that mark at least 3 - 4 days a week.

Reply by Cynthia P

Sun, 06 Apr 2008 01:35:32 +0000

I think that is around the 136-138 mark for me. I managed to hit 160 doing intervals earlier this week, but I was about to keel over I was gasping for air so bad. In water, 132-135 is more comfortable.

Reply by Steve W

Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:09:53 +0000

Some things to keep in mind. That formula for determining max HR is not accurate for everyone. I am 43, fairly athletic but not in world class shape. I can reach 187 bpm on my bicycle, which is 10bpm over what the formula says. I also notice that any exercise under 135bpm feels like a complete waste of time. I would suggest that you find the heart rate where you start speaking in broken sentences. For me that number is about 160bpm. I stay 5-10bpm below that unless I'm doing intervals;...

Reply by Cynthia P

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:01:05 +0000

So how high is too high? I'm 50... my supposed max HR as per the standard formula is 170. I can now workout in a range where I sustain a 135 bpm... or perhaps a little higher for a while. Yes, I'll be sweating! However, when I do interval training, my bpm can easily hit 155 or even 157 bpm as it did today. Is that too much? It doesn't seem to be hurting me any, but I do tend to get a good headache after doing intervals. I presume it's safe enough, as I haven...

Reply by Splint Chesthair

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:40:17 +0000

Quoting: sianleeWhile i ride my bike.... the most i've rode was 8 km in an hour. And I was going at a speed of 14 km per hour.... rougly. Sometimes it would be 17, but most of the time it would be 14. There's a major problem with your calculations there. If you traveled a distance of 8 km in one hour, then I'm pretty certain that your speed wasn't 14 km/h "most of the time." I'm going to flex my mathematical genius here and guess that "most of ...

Reply by Minu ~

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:14:13 +0000

120? I could sing an opera at the same time, (I wouldn't charge tickets but...) I reckon it's not quite gonna cut the mustard.

Reply by Raynie A

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:27:12 +0000

I recently joined a gym and the trainer I worked with told me that my target heart range was 120, which when I started a workout on the treadmill seemed way tooo slow! I am going to work with it for a while and chart my results, if it works then I will stick with it.

Reply by Marc T

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:42:39 +0000

Quoting: sianleeWhile i ride my bike.... the most i've rode was 8 km in an hour. And I was going at a speed of 14 km per hour.... rougly. Sometimes it would be 17, but most of the time it would be 14. Which is around 8.6 miles I guess. - Speed. Is that a good speed on a bike to workout with or must I go faster? It's not the speed that matters, Stitch. Focus on your heart rate....

Reply by Something Dark Side

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:26:46 +0000

While i ride my bike.... the most i've rode was 8 km in an hour. And I was going at a speed of 14 km per hour.... rougly. Sometimes it would be 17, but most of the time it would be 14. Which is around 8.6 miles I guess. - Speed. Is that a good speed on a bike to workout with or must I go faster?...

Reply by RRRRRrrrrr wibble

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:33:52 +0000

When I moved onto the bike for a 20km cycle, admittedly I was doing 100rpm (according to the bike), my heart rate was once again, at 180+ Maybe it was nerves or something setting my heart rate so high? Or both the machines are out of whack. I do have a strap on though (HR monitor ;)) but be damned if I can find the monitor bit ...

Reply by scott red handed

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:48:21 +0000

hahahah!!! to be honest, if you were rocking that machine its possible that your heart rate was up that high. however, i tend not to trust the machine heart rate monitors. let us know how that strap on works for you... heart rate wise.

Reply by Minu ~

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:43:17 +0000

I wanted to add that my elliptical machine usually reads from 10 to a whopping 50 beats under, (this is when compared to my monitor's readout, as well as a manual pulse take). Then there was that irksome day it read 210, which unto itself, for a split-second almost GAVE me cardiac issues......

Reply by Minu ~

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:29:50 +0000

Quoting: M3ta7h3adDid 6.3km on a cross-trainer yesterday and pretty much for the entire 30 minutes, my heart rate was 185+ for the entire session, at some points hitting 194. Stepping onto the machine and first reading was 140. Sounds like it might be the cross trainer that's outta whack. Perhaps it's time to invest in a strap on---------heart rate monitor that is... ...

Reply by scott red handed

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:11:53 +0000

Richard, Thats a high heart rate! I can't get my heart rate up to 140 without warming up and exercising for a bit first. You're resting heart rate should be lower than 140 even during the middle of the day. It's hard at first to keep your heart rate down, but thats the whole point. The more in shape you get, the better your body performs without your heart racing. In essence, you're right on track. Do the distance measure/HR every week, month, or however often you like...

Reply by RRRRRrrrrr wibble

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:56:08 +0000

im about 19 stone and 23 years old. Did 6.3km on a cross-trainer yesterday and pretty much for the entire 30 minutes, my heart rate was 185+ for the entire session, at some points hitting 194. Stepping onto the machine and first reading was 140. How on earth one who is overweight can move and keep their heart rate down under 140 I'm completely stumped. Resting HR whilst lying on a hospital gurney waiting for an operation so not exactly the least stressful time, was 64bpm...

Reply by scott red handed

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:01:20 +0000

as long as it shows your heart rate in real time you should be set!

Reply by Something Dark Side

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:58:39 +0000

Quoting: MinuHow would he know that? Does he record you two sleeping? Lol. No just when you're laying there you can tell if someone breathes more frequently than you do I guess. I have a HR monitor, I brought one the other week. I've posted on other topics about it to see if it's actually working properly. And lets just say it does it's job I suppose. Its not one of those great polar ones, but I guess it's ok. ...

Reply by scott red handed

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:34:43 +0000

sian, if you want to heart rate training make sure you get a heart rate monitor. beware the frills and gimmicks on those things too. minu... i like the way you think!

Reply by Minu ~

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:23:01 +0000

Quoting: sianleeApparently my partner says that I breathe alot slower than he does during sleep, How would he know that? Does he record you two sleeping?

Reply by Minu ~

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:19:12 +0000

It'll be what it is, and you'll go from there. Enjoy the weekend,

Reply by Something Dark Side

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:15:55 +0000

Ok well i'll try and work at a higher intensity. As for the heart rate when I wake up... well I will need to take that. What happens if it's really low? Apparently my partner says that I breathe alot slower than he does during sleep, and he's 24 and pretty slim and could run pretty far ...

Reply by Minu ~

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:26:57 +0000

Indeed, as I think I've noted somewhere before in another thread, resting heart rates should be taken while still in bed in the am. Our heartrates during the day are most always higher than the morning readouts, for eg, just to be scientific, I have my monitor on right now, and it's 9:24pm. It shows my heart beating between 59 and 64 bpms. In bed in the morning, nowadays it's usually at around 46. So don't worry about yours being higher than the morning readouts Sian, ...

Reply by scott red handed

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:28:27 +0000

Sian, The best way to gauge your resting heart rate is RIGHT when you wake up. I wouldnt worry about you heart rate when taken at the computer. All the heart rate range is used for is determining the intensity of your workout. I truly recommend working at a higher intensity (see my previous post in this thread) to get the best results. However, I have been going into more interval training lately which is super high intensity down to low and back. I love it....

Reply by Something Dark Side

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:29:11 +0000

Ok well this is strange... I read the first post and tried what it said. My resting heart rate right now sitting on the computer is 96 :O Wow thats really bad. Anyway im 18 so my MHR is 220. I did 202 x .60 (60%) = 121.2 so I guess thats my target zone when I work out. My heart rate range is 202 - 96 = 106. Is that really bad? And what is the heart range used for? Im suprised that you only need to warm up 10 minutes, and then if you work at 60-80% of MHR you can loose wei...

Reply by Minu ~

Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:25:20 +0000

I must confess, that the abundance of math here is not my bag, heheh... I just tend to go by how I feel during a workout, and push when I'm able. I have a resting heart rate of 54bpm, I work out usually for 50 mins. to an hour, 6 days a week. My workouts used to consist of power-walking/jogging intervals, or the same on an elliptical, but after trying some HIIT style, I shall never look back. EG: Today I spent the last 20 minutes of my hour along side the river going full tilt in ...

Reply by john walker

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:31:45 +0000

Hi all, I haven't read all, cause there is really too much to read for the time I have. Regarding the best FC range, I remember having read that: Let the R = The Heart frequency while resting, just after wake up And M = The Max heart frequency (220-age is the approx). The W = Workout heart frequency (fat burning frequency) range is: Wmin = R + (M-R) * 60% = R*40% + M*60% Wmax = R + (M-R) * 70% = R*30% + M*70% Example R = 60 bpm M = 180 bpm Wmin = 60*0.4 + 180 ...

Reply by Amber B

Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:33:32 +0000

ive been going to the gym oh most seven says a week my fat zone heart rate is 129 beats per min i cant do that im always around the 140ish range.... sometimes i get really fast and its 180ish.....

Reply by John Stephens

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:28:59 +0000

Quoting: anamanamanBest program is one you can stick with. Passionate opinions are great, but other people should try both to see what they can stick with. I tried the Body For Life HIIT stuff twice and fizzled out after a couple weeks. I hate putting in that much effort in my cardio. I'm lazy and out of shape, so be it. But I've found I can consistently hang out in the fat burning zone for an hour and half while watching my video ipod. It's even something I look forward to ev...

Reply by j c

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:49:22 +0000

Best program is one you can stick with. Passionate opinions are great, but other people should try both to see what they can stick with. I tried the Body For Life HIIT stuff twice and fizzled out after a couple weeks. I hate putting in that much effort in my cardio. I'm lazy and out of shape, so be it. But I've found I can consistently hang out in the fat burning zone for an hour and half while watching my video ipod. It's even something I look forward to every day since its th...

Reply by John Stephens

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:02:16 +0000

Quoting: game64Although i am a Newbie here, i agree with scott. Higher Intensity produces the best results. I used to weigh in at around 320LBS, at 6'2. Never done any sport in my life, and never ran more then a few blocks my entire life. Walking at 4MPH provided me with a high heart rate (170 - 180), and anything above that gave me chest pains. By doing this everyday for about a few months, and getting sick with Pneumonia, all allowed me to drop to 260lbs. In a matter of 3 months. I ne...

Reply by John Stephens

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:51:02 +0000

Quoting: scottredhandedAny doctor, trainer, athlete, etc. would never, ever, recommend you work in the fat burning zone if you didn't have to. To lose weight or otherwise. Why? You ask. Because the fat burning zone gives you virtually no other benefit than just that... burning fat. The results in physical improvement will be marginal. With cardio, you not only increase your cardiovascular system but you are burning a whole lot of fat too. This means more endurance, more tone, and less f...

Reply by C4G R.

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:23:55 +0000

Quoting: nickatbristolthe extra weight you are carrying around will contribute to your heart beating faster than normal --> think of it as a good thing, it means you don't have to work quite as hard to get to your target heart rate That is definately a positive note, but I notice that when karate training gets intense...I feel like I am gasping for air-as if I can't get enough for what my body is needing at the time. Is this bad, or is this because I am just out of shape? Will t...

Reply by Denis dhekaier

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:31:42 +0000

I’ve created with professional coach mp3 workouts including HRmax Test, interval Training and compiled music for Runs of an hour or more… These mp3s could help you reach your goals. Come and see for yourself! http://blog.jiwok.com/en

Reply by Trevor Capon

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:48:44 +0000

Sorry Nathan, Scott is correct. See below: Myth #2: You have to do your cardio in your "fat burning zone". Again, nonsense. While you might burn a larger proportion of total calories as fat when you exercise in your fat burning zone, you burn fewer calories overall by exercising at such a low intensity. When you increase your workout intensity and get out of your so-called "fat burning zone", you burn more total calories, and as a result, more fat. In addition...

Reply by scott red handed

Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:15:48 +0000

alissa, absolutely, 1000000% continue interval training. everyone i've talked to that has been fit at one point and used to exercise regulary seems to be somewhat more familiar with "pushing thru the pain". i hate to sound crude, but you probably suffer from whats known as "skinny person stuck in a fat persons body". all that means, is being fat does NOT necessarily mean you are out of shape. it means your body has more fat stored than the average amount. the size an...

Reply by Alissa Bush

Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:02:01 +0000

Quoting: scottredhandedIt is recommended for people that are obese, have a physical ailment, sports injury, heart problems, etc. Ok huge question: I am definetly obese right now: five foot two and 197 lbs!... but I LOVE the intensity of interval training! I run on the eliptical so as not to put added stress on my joints. My resting heart beat is 68. (Don't know if that's good or not) I don't know what it gets up to when I run because I have not checked it, but I definetel...

Reply by Fredrik Haan

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 00:03:14 +0000

Kelsey made me understand what is happening, and it is happening faster than I had previously understood. Muscle mass increases in weight much faster than the fat loses weight (does that make sense?). I have been what I would call "damn good" for three weeks but my weight-loss stopped after 10 days. After seeing Kelseys post I realize that I have lost quite a bit of fat and gained quite a bit of muscle. To all of you out there wondering what the h*ll is happening, and why you aren'...

Reply by scott red handed

Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:34:39 +0000

Julia that was my post earlier and I couldnt agree with you more. You've hit it right on the head. The big thing that people are also missing when it comes to this is how you eat and when you eat it. This single element alone will dictate what and how it is going to be burned off. Any variation of cardio (high, low, sideways, hehe) is going to be affected by the food you put in your body before and after you perform it. Especially in regards to muscle loss. Read any sports and fit...

Reply by julsies g

Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:24:20 +0000

I think one thing that people here haven't mentioned is the sheer amount of calories that you burn by working your body harder. Most likely if you run or do the elliptical for the same amount of time in the aerobic zone vs the fat burning zone - you are going to burn more calories (usually a significant amount more). Someone's post early on described it perfectly - you might burn a higher percentage of fat - but when you get down to the total amount of fat you burn - you burn much ...

Reply by Chris Timberlake

Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:36:03 +0000

Although i am a Newbie here, i agree with scott. Higher Intensity produces the best results. I used to weigh in at around 320LBS, at 6'2. Never done any sport in my life, and never ran more then a few blocks my entire life. Walking at 4MPH provided me with a high heart rate (170 - 180), and anything above that gave me chest pains. By doing this everyday for about a few months, and getting sick with Pneumonia, all allowed me to drop to 260lbs. In a matter of 3 months. I never felt better...

Reply by scott red handed

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:34:44 +0000

Tish I'm with ya. Thing is, it is scientific. People that work harder get results faster. Like I said before... Fat Burning Zone is a gimmicky name. That's all. If you want a higher ratio of fat burned off during exercise go nice and easy. If you want MORE fat burned off kick it up a notch. Screw ratios... I'll take the faster results thank you very much. I've started doing interval training as of late and its been kicking my butt....

Reply by Gavin Walsh

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:34:50 +0000

check out this article about interval training on the la times website: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-inter val15jan15,1,5158048.column?coll=la-headlines-heal th&ctrack=1&cset=true

Reply by Tish Traster

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:28:59 +0000

@scott red handed I tend to agree with you scott. Nothing scientific here for me. Believe me, I know science has it's place concerning exercise.....but for me....past experience tells me if I want to lose fat and tone up fast...I kick up the intensity of my workout. I run faster and do my resistance training in very short-burst intervals. Of course, I listen to my body.......if I have pins and needles, chest pain, shortness of breath etc....I back off. Otherwise, I "Dig, dig, dig...

Reply by Irfan Saloudeen

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:06:18 +0000

Great snippets of advices... a friend was asking the same info in the gym today and I was able to provide that along with this forum post. Irfan

Reply by scott red handed

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:57:32 +0000

i think about it as i'm running my butt off. thats more time than i need!

Reply by Tish Traster

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:56:08 +0000

I love all these posts. Ton's of useful information in here. Just don't get "analysis paralysis", where you spend more time thinking about doing something than you spend actually doing it!

Reply by scott red handed

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:04:37 +0000

If you train your heart rate it will start to slow down. Also, the better in shape you get the slower your heart rate will become. Like I said before, the Fat Burning Zone is a zone is for people that are physically incapable of performing at a higher level intensity for long periods of time. Double and triple the benefits of high intensity cardio. I personally feel great after a good hard session. No offense but if you can do high intensity and you have the time but you opt to go for...

Reply by Jennie W

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:49:32 +0000

Eric - I am the same way...I am 28 and my heart rate consistently goes up to 180 when I jog on the treadmill and 175 or so on the elliptical. It has worried me in the past, but I guess I won't worry about it unless I start feeling chest pains. I don't FEEL like I overdo it at all. So, I guess it is what it is, and hopefully as I get in better shape, that will calm down a bit?...

Reply by Joel Jones

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:38:42 +0000

Here is a link to WebMD's Target Heart Rate Calculator According to that, my rage should be between 95 and 146 while exercising. While I'm on the elliptical machine, going around 2-2.5 MPH (a moderate fast walk) my heart rate is around 155... So, I agree with Scott, that formula cannot be meant for healthy, young adults. Either that, or the heart rate monitor is REALLY off on the elliptical machine......

Reply by scott red handed

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 06:16:18 +0000

dude... did you read my post above? i have explained exactly why the fat burning zone is not necessarily the best answer. please reread my post and tell me what you think. secondly, your heart like the rest of my body operates for efficiency. you really have to train your heartrate to be at certain BPM. if you try and keep it around 170-190 for a 21y/o this would not be bad at all. it is exactly one of the reasons that this whole "fat" burning zone should be renamed or something...

Reply by Eric Rodewald

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:08:48 +0000

Yeah. Like I said - Ive got no problem operating at high BPM's for long periods of time but everything I read says its not going to help me to do this. However I FEEL like I am getting an awesome workout. I just don't know what to believe?

Reply by Joel Jones

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 03:48:42 +0000

I am the same way as Eric. It seems like my heart rate (for a 25-year-old) doesn't really go right with that standard 220-my age formula. I've read in several places that the formula itself, though adopted as a standard, was actually an "average" finding of heart rates based on age, but was never intended to be used as the standard. I'm 25 years old and am a little overweight, but I'm not in bad health, and I've got great stamina at higher heart rates than what...

Reply by Eric Rodewald

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 02:26:37 +0000

I feel this is something that I'm doing wrong. When I run at 4.5mph on the treadmill (0 incline) for 15 minutes my heart rate is around 188 (I am 21, mhr is 199). So I figured I am not burning fat as much as just burning muscle or something. I got on the treadmill, walked at 3-3.5mph for 20 minutes and my heartrate was around 160bpm (it was adjusting incline to keep me at 160bpm). I just find it hard to believe that I am going to get skinnier quicker by walking than running. Shou...

Reply by Nad g

Tue, 19 Dec 2006 08:01:32 +0000

Thanks again Nathan, I've copy everything in my computer notebook. . I will buy myself a watch that will tell my exact heartbeat so I can find exercise that keeps me more in the burning phase.. So 130 is the rigth place to burn fat...good to know. I'm still satisfy if I don't loose to much fat at a time and build muscle (got to firm this body of mine hehe)..but to loose amino acid especially that I'm not a protein fan. Congratulation to your wife also! ...

Reply by Nathan P.

Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:45:05 +0000

Well, at 158 bpm you're into the anaerobic state. That's not a bad thing, you're going to work the muscles more than the system as a whole...train to run faster or longer, instead of simply burn fat...you're still burning calories and will probably still lose weight, but you'll also stop burning fat about 20 mins into your workout if your heart rate stays that high. You'll start burning other fuel sources like amino acids (protein) instead of fat. Interval traini...

Reply by Nad g

Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:55:32 +0000

Nathan thanks very much for the information! So I guess I'm okay..doing aerobic at 158 bmp. I was worry when I started because my heart was beating so fast I couldn' follow hehe. (like more than 190 bmp). Thank you again for your help!!

Reply by Nathan P.

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:56:15 +0000

When I get one I'll post in the before after thread, I have to get my fiancee to take them...I didn't take a "before" pic though so there's not much to compare to...just imagine 76 lbs. of fat on top, haha. I'm 229 now too!

Reply by scott red handed

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:03:15 +0000

I am the same way Jeremiah. Its just a great feeling. However, I am not suggesting that people do one or the other. Just get it done. Its the end result that counts. Like I said, both methods work. and... I tried working out in the mornings and that (for me personally) was the fasttrack to failure. I'm just not a morning person. It was almost tortuous for me to get out of bed earlier than I had to, to physically exert myself on a daily basis. The weight training for me is where its at...

Reply by Nathan P.

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:55:05 +0000

OK after long debate, haha, your max is 220-34=186, Correct! 60-70% is your aerobic zone. 70-80% is your anaerobic zone 80% and up is hardcore (for sports and things) training zone (I know there is a name for it but I can't remember what it is). So you're shooting for (depending on your goals) 111-148 bpm. lower end for long distance low-intensity (fat burning zone) higher end for anaerobic exercise (training to be a better runner) Your resting heart rate is great...kee...

Reply by Jeremiah Utecht

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:50:36 +0000

Ok I am going to weigh (woohoo there is a pun!) on this HR Zone debate. Yes there is science behind both arguments. Still we as people are more than HR% and mathematical formulas. There is one inescapable fact to working out. You will get out what you put in. If you find that you can take a 30min brisk walk everyday without fail and feel good after doing it. Then that is what you should do. If you love a 45min high intensity aerobics class and you can attend regularly. That is what you...

Reply by Nad g

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:15:27 +0000

I'm very bad at math can someone help me? I'm 34 years old, My heigth is 5.2 feet, my heart beat is at normal 62/per minutes. (was at 90 before I did my exercice and smoke woww what a change!!! ) I weight 136 pounds at the moment. So I guess, my max target is 186. But after I'm lost..what is the target weight I should be looking for? Thanks in advance...

Reply by scott red handed

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:48:56 +0000

sigh... I just don't understand why people would want to lose weight with no extra benefits. This is the type of rationale that convinces people not to push themselves to their potential. I agree with you Nathan, I just want the record to show that you will burn just as much fat doing both methods. When I have more time, we can go into how important it is the eat the right food at the right time so you're not losing muscle. That's equally important. But different goa...

Reply by Nathan P.

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:33:42 +0000

Scott, You are right that you will burn fat in the anaerobic zone of cardio training, but you won't burn it for very long, you're body will kick up and start using the faster burning/more efficient fuel, which isn't fat. fat is actually a very inefficient furl, but very easily sustainable. Robin, if you don't need to run a 5k or a marathon, then training in the aerobic zone is fine, maybe your goals will change and you'll lose your weight then decide to train differe...

Reply by scott red handed

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:33:16 +0000

***WARNING: THIS MAY DISPLEASE SOME OF YOU*** I guess I should have elaborated on the whole fat burning zone being a marketing gimmick... allow me to explain. First off I will say that Nathan is right in the differences between the 2 zones. This is factual and correct. However, the fat burning zone is being marketed because of the percentage of fat burning. It is no way, shape or form a necessarily better way to lose fat. That is the gimmick. The fat burning zone was created for people ...

Reply by Nathan P.

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:37:59 +0000

Rock and Roll! I'm glad I could help, now if someone would pay me to tell them stuff like that...hmmm...

Reply by Birch Reed

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:32:46 +0000

Nathan, Your reply makes me know I've found the right place here at Traineo. Thank you so much. I'm taling your advice - it's the voice I already had in my gut and you helped me trust myself. Congratulations to you on your weight loss.....that kind of determination is something I want to be able to report - in May! Again, thanks. I was having a down day and I'm back on track this morning. Peace, Birch...

Reply by Nathan P.

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:04:16 +0000

Robin, firstly, you're doing great. 1lb. a week is healthy and sustainable, and it is all fat at that rate. Secondly, what you are aiming for in reagrds to target HR are fine. Faster results aren't nececssarily healthier results. If you start over intesifying your workout and burning amino acids(protein) for fuel, then you may start to burn off muscle. (Remeber, 1lb. of musle burns 100 calories a day just to maintain, you want your muscles to do that. fat burns no calories jus...

Reply by scott red handed

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:37:58 +0000

You are on a very steady weight loss program that will promote slow positive weight loss and fat reduction. However, you would need more intensity to your work if you would like faster results. Also, it depends strongly on your diet. Remember that the fat burning zone is mostly a marketing gimmick. It is true in the sense that you will burn fat, but it definitely will make for a much slower progress. If you're not sweating and your heart rates not up... you're not working out....

Reply by Heather Madrone

Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:48:39 +0000

A pound a week sounds like a good, sustainable weight loss for a woman. Sounds like you're doing a great job. Keep up the good work. After the birth of my second child, I lost 40 pounds over 8 months. by sensible eating and attention to exercise, just like you're doing now.

Reply by Birch Reed

Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:12:15 +0000

Since Nov 4, I have been walking on the treadmill keeping my Heart Rate between 106-114 for Fat burning - for 60 minutes a day/6 days a week. I weigh 170 lbs, and 53 years old, and I'm 5' 7". My goal weight is 145 lbs. I've changed my diet (dropped fast food, started eating breakfast which I never did before, and am trying to eat more frequently during the day, and dinner ealrier in the evening, hoping to keep calories at 2000 a day or less). After almost 5 weeks, I...

Reply by scott red handed

Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:42:16 +0000

Interval training is still a pretty intense workout. You'll definitely feel like you've accomplished something afterwards. I'm with Gabriel though when I feel like I've barely done anything if I work in my "fat burn" zone. If I show up to the gym, I might as well make it count....

Reply by Jeremiah Utecht

Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:25:27 +0000

Quoting: scottredhanded note: i am not pro. blah blah blah. Ditto for myself. In my own experience I can train myself to go long time periods (long being a relative term) within a narrow BPM range and a medium to high intensity. For me personally I have seen my best gains through interval training. The constant push and retreat throughout a workout not only keeps it from getting boring it feels like a more intense workout. Those are my 2 bits anyways. JAU...

Reply by Peggy T

Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:31:55 +0000

Ugh, I hate the whole fat burning zone. People get so hung up on the percentage and not the total calories burned 9as Scott illustrated so nicely). I tell my clients if they want to burn the highest % of fat, don't get out of bed! If they want to burn more fat overall - move it! If you do what you've always done, you'll always be where you are....

Reply by Gabriel S

Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:57:05 +0000

Scott, I found your post extremely helpful and it makes sense to me. I'm going to switch to cardio training. Thanks for the info.

Reply by scott red handed

Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:53:00 +0000

note: i am not pro. blah blah blah. both fat burning zone and cardio will burn fat. the difference is the ratio of fat calories being burned. this means that when you work at lower heart rates you're body will burn less overall calories but within the calories the ratio of fat calories (burning pure fat) to other calories is much higher. however, if you workout at higher intensities you are burning more calories from everywhere (food energy, etc.) and the ratio of fat calories to o...

Reply by Gabriel S

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:44:04 +0000

I just discovered "fat burn" mode on the treadmill but I'm not convinced. For me to maintain a hear rate of 126 bpm, I walk at a medium pace and treadmill automatically adjusts the speed and incline to keep me at my target rate. I barely sweat at all and don't feel like I'm getting much of a workout. Converesly if I do interval training, I really work up a sweat and feel like I'm on my way to shedding fat. What's the story? If my goal is to lose bo...

Reply by RaeVynn CroneWynd

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:33:58 +0000

I, too, rather dislike going at my "optimal fat burning rate" (Iwon't tell how low that is, it would give away my age!).. but, I've found for me, if I go faster, I tend to have more hip/knee/foot pain. So, it feels like I'm not doing anything "serious" at the gym, but I'm doing what I can!...

Reply by Kelsey Brookes

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:02:31 +0000

There's probably a certain amount of accuracy to it. I've noticed over the last few weeks that my weight loss has plataued and once I even gained weight. I couldn't figure it out until I looked at what the charts (and my own knowledge of what I'm doing) really told me. When I started this about 8 weeks ago, I was losing about 1.3 - 1.5 kilos a week. My exercise was regular, but low intensity and my diet was spot on for the plan I'm on. The last few weeks I've ...

Reply by Joe Briefcase

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 03:27:44 +0000

So once upon a time I was treadmilling it, and a trainer came up and slowed me down because I was pushing too hard. Turns out I was about 20 beats higher than the optimal fat burning zone and she felt that reason enough to intervene. She felt I should slow down to what amounted to a moderate walk at the recommended HR. I felt pretty good at the elevated heart rate. Damn good in fact. I happened to run into a guy in the sauna who was a physician and had been a trainer in college and ask...

Reply by Stephanie Blaisure

Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:22:12 +0000

Oh thank you thank you thank you. I've been looking for information on this for awhile, and then it dawned on me. Check traineo! I got a heart rate monitor for my birthday and i've been noticing the little scale on the machines where i work out. Do you think it's better to switch on and off working at a higher heart rate one day, and then to a lower one the next day? Or if my main goal right now is weight loss, should i always work out at the lower heart rate?...

Reply by Vrinda GetsFit

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:48:44 +0000

G, At my gym, the people undergoing rehab are mainly individuals who were intense / interval training addicts. The interval trainers tend to rely on higher impact training for the anerobic intervals. Even the deconditioned, get conditioned over time and will find themselves needing to up intensity to get a real interval workout. The in-zone-steady-staters dont seem to injure themselves. Especially in the 40+ age group. So this could be one factor pro-the-other-side. I tell myself it is be...

Reply by Gavin Walsh

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:18:33 +0000

It seems that if interval training is the superior tool for fat loss when compared "long slow boring cardio" then the only reason someone would perform the later is if they are seriously deconditioned. Although saying this, a deconditioned individual could still perform intervals working at their own intensity. So why bother with fat loss zone training? I also prefer intervals Vrinda. G...

Reply by Vrinda GetsFit

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:58:36 +0000

Hello Gavin, The theory I have read is that interval training is better due to two reasons: a. It burns more total calories, so even if % fat burned is lower, the total number of fat calories could be higher (smaller % but of a larger total number) than with steady-state-in-fat-burn-zone workouts b. Like you said, it speeds up metabolism post-workout I hope it is true. I like it far better and find working in my fat-burn-zone boring....

Reply by Gavin Walsh

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:48:28 +0000

Hey guys, In one of the articles posted recently (http://www.traineo.com/article-interval-training) it talks about interval training for fat loss. Interval training is high intensity work, right? So definately past the so called fat loss zone. You get all the benefits of low intensity training plus, the benefit of speeding up your metabolism afterwards which makes you burn more fat overall, right? Your thoughts... G...

Reply by Vrinda GetsFit

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:13:19 +0000

I am sceptical about 220 - age as the formula for Max HR. I have even read how the inventors of the formula are amazed at the sanctity it has achieved. When I started cardio vascular training a few years ago, I could not run for 10 minutes without getting breathless. After regular training, my aerobic capacity has improved significantly. As per this formula, my Max HR has degenerated because I have aged a few years? I am 39 years old and exercise regularly. Is my Max HR the same as someon...

Reply by Nathan P.

Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:29:21 +0000

it's about 60 - 70% of your max heart rate = 220 - (your age), should be less than 140. unless your 9 years old

Reply by Nick Richards

Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:17:34 +0000

<140...

Reply by Oliver Hill

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:01:00 +0000

so what are we saying is the 'ideal' belt here? 120-150bpm? more specific?

Reply by Liz Ryan

Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:17:12 +0000

I have too have seen better results by keeping within the "fat burn" heartrate, but find it an absolute BORE to have to do such a mellow low-intensity workout for such a long period of time. What I've been doing is spending 15-20 minutes on 3 different machines (eliptical, rowing, stair-climber). I'm definately way above the "fat burn" on each machine, but as I said, I can't stand the boredom. Any thoughts?...

Reply by Tom Hoffman Jr

Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:06:30 +0000

To figure out Max HR etc check out http://www.bodyforlife2.com/max_heart_rate.htm for a handy dandy lil calculator. Quoting: gdfwilliams(Also, what are your thoughts about the accuracy of the heart rate monitors built into treadmills/elliptical machines?) The number of calories you burn and zones you are in on the machines are based on general algorithms comparing age / weight to your current heart rate. Best thing to get is a belt or something to put on your arm where you can monitor...

Reply by Jeremiah Utecht

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:37:06 +0000

Take heart (yeah its a bad pun). When I started cardio again I had to spend most of my workout focusing on slowing my heart rate. After hitting the gym and working at it I noticed this morning that my HR naturally went into the "Weight Loss" zone. Quoting: gdfwilliams(Also, what are your thoughts about the accuracy of the heart rate monitors built into treadmills/elliptical machines?) My feelings on the accuracy basically boils down to consistency. They are probably not medical...

Reply by Nick Richards

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:28:03 +0000

Quoting: FunklyThanks Nick... your giving great advice all over theese forums.. Quoting: gimpwow nick, you're one heck of "silver lining" finder! LOL Thanks! Thanks guys ;)

Reply by Ryan Foster

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:56:01 +0000

Quoting: nickatbristolthink of it as a good thing, it means you don't have to work quite as hard to get to your target heart rate wow nick, you're one heck of "silver lining" finder! LOL Thanks!

Reply by Joe Filip

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:25:21 +0000

Thanks Nick... your giving great advice all over theese forums..

Reply by Nick Richards

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:17:08 +0000

Keep that intensity around the 120 mark, the extra weight you are carrying around will contribute to your heart beating faster than normal --> think of it as a good thing, it means you don't have to work quite as hard to get to your target heart rate

Reply by Joe Filip

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:46:20 +0000

wow I am throughly confused, as I have a hard time keeping my 'fat burning' target heart rate. Its low at 112, generally i get as high as 170, and try to keep it around 140 to 150 while I'm on the treadmill or stair machine. even when i put the machine on flat (no incline), i have to walk about 1.2 MPH to get that low of a heart rate, it is very hard to keep it that low. Is it bad to do 140 heart rate? I think there might be the factor that i am almost 300 LBS (I lost 15 LB...

Reply by Digital Knave

Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:58:06 +0000

I used to go hard and fast on the elliptical cross trainers at the gym, but found that it doesn't really shift the slight spare tire I have around my waist. But if I watch my heart rate and exercise within my optimal fat burn zone I get noticable results must faster. A tip I was given is that you should *just* be able to hold a conversation without huffing and puffing. If you can't then you're going too fast. But obvioulsy you need to balance this and not go too slowly either....

Reply by Colin Principe

Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:32:10 +0000

As far as I know, interval training has two benefits. First: to improve the ability of your body to react to sudden bursts of activity, perfect for any kind of sport which requires such bursts. Second: to improve the overall functioning of the cardiovacular system. This is opposed to a either a fat burning workout, which is designed to burn calories without leaving you feeling devastated afterwards; or a cardio workout, which is designed to improve the endurance of your cardiovascular syste...

Reply by Mo Matthews

Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:45:07 +0000

Hi Greg Good question, I too use a treadmill, on this model it has a table with heart/age rates and I am ALWAYS approx. 30 to 40 BMP over my optimum FAT BURNING ZONE. Should I be doing this or slowing down to the recommended HR? Is this over working out having a not so FAT BURNING effect rather a CARDIO workout? And finally if I am sweating due to exercise isn't this good regardless of the correct way to workout i.e. as opposed to sitting on the sofa with 1/2 dozen empty packets o...

Reply by Greg Williams

Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:15:49 +0000

I am currently focused on losing weight. I've been dieting carefully, working out on a treadmill or elliptical machine daily and doing an ab workout. So far I'm down ~25lbs. I'm excited to have just found traineo. I'm 31, which makes my max rate 189BPM. When I workout on a treadmill or elliptical machine, I always run the "Hills" interval program, which starts with a ~8 minute warm-up and ends with a ~8 mintue cool-down. The intervals are 1 minute, increasin...

Reply by Michael George

Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:14:15 +0000

The fat burning zone is a specific target heart rate zone which is the optimal place for your body to burn fat effectively and efficiently. Your specific fat burning zone depends on factors such as age and physical condition. Here are some tips and calculations to remember: Take your heart rate by finding your pulse, either on the side of your neck below your jawbone or on your wrist below the base of your thumb. Count the beats for 15 seconds, then multiply this number by 4 for your 3beats p...