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.

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've lost 5 lbs. I feel better, have more energy and inches are definitely being lost. However, I guess I expected to lose more pounds with this kind of consistent exercise program.

Just wondering what thoughts anyone has.....only 5 lbs in five weeks? Also, thos steady state on the treadmill in the Fat Burning Zone, is it the way to go?

Feeling a little discouraged,
Robin

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.

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.

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 just waiting, keep the muscle lose tha fat.)

Scott, "fat burning zone" isn't a marketing gimmcik, it is another name for aerobic excercise. I've lost 75 lbs. in 11 months excercising in my aerobic zone. If you train above 60-70% of your max heart rate (about 220 - your age), you're switching into anaerobic excercise which is training the muscles. It's not bad and you will burn more calories total, but if fat loss is what you are going for then you want to stay in the aerobic zone to promote the burning of fat and carbs, instead of burning amino acids(protein) for fuel.

Robin, if it means anything, keep doing what you're doing. If anything take your current weight multiply it by 10, and try eating that many calories you'll create an extra 2100 calorie deficit over the course of a week (about another .6 lbs. per week loss). Keep it up.

You won't neccessarily sweat at that heart rate either, and if your heart rate is at 115, then it is definitely "up." at rest it's probably at about 70.

You're doing fine. Don't get discouraged, you've only 25 lbs. to lose you're already 20% percent done. Another 20 weeks is only 5 months you'll be at your goal in May (at your current rate). If you lessen your calories (as I suggested above) you'll lose it in about 13 - 14 weeks. 3 months. Good work so far, keep it up!

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

Rock and Roll!

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

***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 that could NOT complete the cardio zone for the recommended time frame (we know that is all about length of time performed). It is recommended for people that are obese, have a physical ailment, sports injury, heart problems, etc. It is NOT an excuse to NOT perform higher intensity cardio.

Any 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 fat. It also carries the big benefits of reducing stress, making you sleep better, more energy, increasing your sex drive (not to mention other proven sexual benefits) etc. These are not benefits easily achievable simply by walking for 30 minutes in a day.

There is also a bigger percentage of people that reach weight loss plateaus much earlier than when using high intensity, while only using the fat burning zone. (Those last 10lbs can be a pain...)

The benefits of high intensity cardio outweigh the benefits of the fat burning zone.

Now, does that mean that the fat burning zone is inferior or superior? No. Not at all. Just realize what the 2 accomplish. If you simply want to lose weight and are not to concerned with any additional benefits than just do the fat burning zone.

Remember though that everybodys bodies are different and respond differently to different exercises.

Don't be lazy! If you can squeeze in some high intensity cardio DO IT! Your body will love you for it. You'll come away with a sense of accomplishment and feel invigorated.

As you can tell I'm a big fan of high intensity cardio. hehe

Which will get you there faster??? High intensity. No question. (As an example, anyone watch the Biggest Loser?? The competition to lose the most weight for a quarter million bucks in the fastest time possible? Anyone guess how they're being trained??? High intensity all the way... I have more examples but lets move on...)

What you eat and when you eat will determine the effectiveness of your workouts. (lest we enter the realm of what lifting weights does for you)

Remember, both will get you to your goal weight... its the differences between the two that will give you different things when you get there.



and Robin... whichever one you decide, dedication and determination is what's going to get you to your goal weight. What I would like to see is you try both out for 1 week each and come back and tell us what you discovered... but thats just me.

and Nathan... thanks for the technical explanation of the 2 workouts, that should pave an excellent background for people wanting to know how our bodies tick and respond both methods. Alot of people are disillusioned into thinking that the only way to burn fat is in the fat burning zone. and congrats on such fantastic results!!! That is truly a big accomplishment that anyone would be proud of.

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 differently. It's always a good idea to change your goals.

And everyone is different. Do what works so far, you're doing what works, so just do more of it.

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 goals for different people.

PLEASE PEOPLE TALK TO A TRAINER OR YOUR DOCTOR FOR WHAT WOULD WORK BEST FOR YOU. ONLY THEY ARE TRULY QUALIFIED TO GIVE YOU SAFEST, MOST EFFECTIVE PLAN.

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

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 should be doing.

For me personally (and I am not claiming to be the sterling example of sane) I just don't feel as if I have not done enough after a fat burning heart rate zone workout. I don't question the science behind knowing that I have burned the majority of my calories from fat. For me personally I have only one hour a day that I can dedicate solely to exercise. So I hit the cardio hard. I love my legs feeling all rubbery and loose when I get off the elliptical trainer. I love that my heart rate lingers in that juicy fat burning zone through my entire post cardio stretching routine. Looking at my metrics out of my hour of cardio about 20mins is spent solidly in the fat burning zone. During my interval training I dip into it numerous times, but generally only long enough to catch my breath before speeding up again.

For me I get a mental high from pushing myself. I like the feeling of stiffness that settles in midmorning and fades away around lunch. For my personality if I am not pushing it ... I am just not doing it. But that is me. I would rather hear about someone that looses 1lb. a week through solid dedication to a routine, than someone that has lost 20lbs. in the same month but has pushed themselves to hard and burned out through either injury or motivational lapse.

Those are my 2 bits. If you want change do something ... everyday. If you want that change fast be prepared to work really hard for it. If you have a reasonable goal, take a reasonable pace.

Those are my 2 bits.

JAU

P.S.
I know I need to start lifting. Getting up earlier to allow it has been very hard, but it will happen.

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...keep up the improvements!

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. I am currently lifting weights to lose weight and I love the next day feeling I get after lifting weights in the gym. Except maybe when my legs hurt to the point where I grunt walking up stairs. hehe....

Nathan... wheres that 235 pic? hahah I'm looking forward to seeing those results!!!

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!

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!!

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 training and long distance low intensity will burn fat for longer periods of time. But, as we've discussed, if you want to train for something more at the saem time, go for it 158bpm is good.

My fiancee did the same thing, she started working out and her heart rate would be like 180, and she couldn't get it down, it eventually was under control, and now she's doing well. You'll get there. I do suggest staying at the top of your aerobic zone though (right around 130) becasue you'll still burn fat, but you'll have a higher likelyhood of sweating, and your skin is the most eliminative part of your body, clear your skin, rid your body of extra toxins, etc.

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!

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.

Should I even bother running anymore? I can hardly warm up at 40-50% of my MHR which is between 80 and 100bpm.. I am sitting here right now and my HR is 79. I am not sure why it is high, I am not really out of shape or unhealthy. I mean, I can easily run several miles. My figures are just way off the 'standard' curve.

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 the formula says I should be operating at...

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?

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. PEOPLE THINK ITS THE ONLY WAY TO BURN FAT. no no.

if you want to use your resting heart as a measure, eric, you have to do so right when you FIRST wake up. that is really the best way to get the most accurate reading. when you first wake up you are free of food, stress, and most other deciding factors in your BPM. try it then and let me know... i guarantee it will be lower if you're in the shape you say.

as for the slow heart rate vs. fast heart rate, please do not let a mechanism for people (slow heart rate aka fat burning zone) who are not meant for a higher paced activity (read my post) fool 2 guys in their early to mid 20s that you should be walking and not running. ridiculous.

in conclusion, i'm with ya. push yourself as hard as you can go. that is why you're running to begin with right?

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...

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?

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 the Fat Burning Zone... you're just being lazy.

Not to mention losing weight you will be 500000000 times more physically capable than any "walker", any time, any where. No contest.

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!

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

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

@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!"

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