Fat Burning Zone - a load of cobblers?

[breadbin]

http://www.runningforfitness.org/faq/weightloss.php

I was under the impression like many others that if I trained in the fat burning zone it would use just fat and therefore get rid of the spare tyre. It makes sense though if you go into the next zone and train using glucose the body will have to replenish the muscles from somewhere. So What does everyone think about this? I am sort of confused now. I think I will keep training in the aerobic zone 70-80% just to be sure.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

This will explain it as well or better than I can, but it's about duration of effort vs intensity of effort.

http://www.myfooddiary.com/resources/ask_the_expert/aerobic_vs_anaerobic.asp

[markhr]

Having not clicked on either of the links here's my 5c (feel free to blow holes in my less than academic approach :rolleyes: )

as a percentage of maximum heart rate

80-100% is a purely anaerobic zone which burns no fat. Useful for speed work, intervals and such.

70-80% is a very good fitness zone that is an aerobic zone and still burns some fat. It'll make you fit but the fat loss will slow compared to lower levels.

50-70% is an aerobic zone that burns a lot of fat. The "best" fat burning zone - it won't improve your fitness as quickly but, as long as you never feel hungry during the ride, will help lose the most fat.

To burn fat you MUST be fed - if you feel hungry that's a sure sign that, at least while exercising, the body has started to convert protein rather than fat. Fat can only be consumed by the body if there is enough "starter fuel" (carbohydrates/glycogen) to initiate the process.

The final point is that it's all cumulative - you don't have to do bricks of zone work outs. If you do 10min an hour for 8 hours that's still 80min in the zone and burning fat/increasing fitness.

[lil brown bat]

80-100% is a purely anaerobic zone which burns no fat. Useful for speed work, intervals and such.

70-80% is a very good fitness zone that is an aerobic zone and still burns some fat. It'll make you fit but the fat loss will slow compared to lower levels.

50-70% is an aerobic zone that burns a lot of fat. The "best" fat burning zone - it won't improve your fitness as quickly but, as long as you never feel hungry during the ride, will help lose the most fat.

This is an oversimplification and makes the standard mistake of "fat-burning zone" promoters of confusing absolute amounts with percentages. Your so-called "best" fat burning zone doesn't burn more fat; it burns a higher percentage of its calories from fat. Big difference.

[markhr]

This is an oversimplification and makes the standard mistake of "fat-burning zone" promoters of confusing absolute amounts with percentages. Your so-called "best" fat burning zone doesn't burn more fat; it burns a higher percentage of its calories from fat. Big difference.

Care to expand on that please?

As far as I can see 10% fat burned is less than 20% fat burned. So, unless you match exactly the work done, joules of energy converted from both fat and carbs (glycogen/adipose?) and food eaten you're pretty much always going to burn more fat at a lower heart rate. There're better explanation on the web :) .

However, I know from experience I'll lose fat MUCH faster at 50-60% than any level above that but my fitness improvement will be very slow. I do prefer the 70-80% zone because of the dramatic cardiovascular fitness workout compared to the lower level. Yes, it burns less fat so I lose less but I'm getting much fitter.

[keithm0]

Some of this was covered in an earlier thread: http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=316498

The short answer (as I understand it): Yes, 10% is less than 20%, but 10% of 2000 calories (a long, hard workout) is more than 20% of 800 calories (a long, easy workout). At the end of the day (quite literally) it's your overall calorie deficit that leads to weight loss.

[markhr]

Some of this was covered in an earlier thread: http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=316498

The short answer (as I understand it): Yes, 10% is less than 20%, but 10% of 2000 calories (a long, hard workout) is more than 20% of 800 calories (a long, easy workout). At the end of the day (quite literally) it's your overall calorie deficit that leads to weight loss.

While I agree with that the average clyde newbie is likely to be able to do more at a low level than go out for 2 hours at 70-80%. Anyway, I know what works for me and that's using the 70-80% fitness increase rather than better weight loss/fat burning of lower levels.

Now where's that large deep pan with extra everything :D

[Slow Train]

Exercising in certain zones for weight loss is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo pushed to sell exercise books. One uses zone training to avoid over-training. For casual,everyday riding just do what feels best.

If you want to improve your cardiovascular capability and overall cycling speed then a training regime that requires you ride at various intensities is a good way to go. This is exactly what the article says.

Losing weight requires that you change what you eat for the better. Which is easier? Putting that 300 calorie donut back on plate or riding 10 miles to 'burn' it off?

[doctortalk121]

xxx

[socalrider]

I have a few friends that are personal trainers and the slow and steady burns fat has been out for a few years.. They are seeing better results with higher intensity workouts, more interval based..

I personally find that I have a tough time losing weight while just riding my bike.. I have to incorporate resistance training and running to drop the pounds..

I am also a big believer in counting the calories for best weight loss results..

http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-4-88-278-4219-1,00.html

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=fat+burning+zone+myth&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

[langster 2008]

I think its cobblers , i lost 84 lb in 6 months in 2005. 5'11 and 180 lbs now. I just went on long bike rides and enjoyed it. I started off by cycling about 20-30 miles , and increasing abit every week. By the end of 6 months i was cyclnig 150-200 miles a week coz i enjoyed it. I didnt alter my diet at all. My friend is gym mad and he kept telling me about all these percentages and fat burning zone but i just ignored it and went and enjoyed riding. There was no loose skin or spare tyre, the only only equipment i used was a cycle computer that monitored cadence which i kept at 80. oh and i used a road bike.

[geo8rge]

Bicycles, especially expensive ones, are very efficient and producing the most motion from the fewest calories burned. Lay off the Gatorade/energy bars or you will consume more calories than you burn.

[flip18436572]

By personal experience, I will say that if I stay in the low zone that supposedly burns fat, I would have to exercise 2 to 3 times longer than if I work harder in less time. My weight loss is not like others here, but I have lost over 100 pounds in the last two years. The first year and a half was about 30 pounds, then I decided to step up my work outs and start doing some interval training, and then I started to actually burn some calories and started to lose fat and inches off of my body. I really think a lot of it depends upon the person and their goals and how their body reacts to different exercises.

My wife is losing weight at the lower heart rates and I couldn't lose there.

[astropuppy]

I think its cobblers , i lost 84 lb in 6 months in 2005. 5'11 and 180 lbs now. I just went on long bike rides and enjoyed it. I started off by cycling about 20-30 miles , and increasing abit every week. By the end of 6 months i was cyclnig 150-200 miles a week coz i enjoyed it. I didnt alter my diet at all. My friend is gym mad and he kept telling me about all these percentages and fat burning zone but i just ignored it and went and enjoyed riding. There was no loose skin or spare tyre, the only only equipment i used was a cycle computer that monitored cadence which i kept at 80. oh and i used a road bike.

Glad to read at least somebody doesn't think I'm a total idiot. Just hope I get similar results riding my million pound MTB on the road and walking a couple miles everyday at lunch. Just getting off the couch and moving around has got to do something. Diet wise, I do think I need to reduce my beer consumption.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

By personal experience, I will say that if I stay in the low zone that supposedly burns fat, I would have to exercise 2 to 3 times longer than if I work harder in less time. My weight loss is not like others here, but I have lost over 100 pounds in the last two years. The first year and a half was about 30 pounds, then I decided to step up my work outs and start doing some interval training, and then I started to actually burn some calories and started to lose fat and inches off of my body. I really think a lot of it depends upon the person and their goals and how their body reacts to different exercises.

My wife is losing weight at the lower heart rates and I couldn't lose there.

It kind of depends on your goals, actually, if you stay in the zone where the larger portion of your burn is from fat stores, then you'll drop weight without building additional muscle mass as quickly. You maintain current muscle mass instead, whereas going anaerobic will throw you into more of a protein metabolism, resulting in greater muscle breakdown and in the rebuilding process, you just get more muscle mass than before.

Aerobic is also more beneficial to the heart as well, as far as it goes relative to going anaerobic, especially in the early part of your weight loss. Less cardiac stress at the lower HR.

[Halthane]

I'd argue that for many it is more about hours spent in the saddle than it is about pace. And some people will lose more fat in different ranges than others. Genetics, specifics of diet, and fitness level play all play a role I'm sure. I see the greatest weight/fat loss when I vary my workouts from day to day and week to week. In general I do long low intensity rides on Saturday and Sunday and Harder interval type rides Tuesday and Thursday with a recovery day on Wednesday. I find that gives me a good balance between fitness increase and weight loss. And by changing things it keeps me from being bored. WEIGHT loss may also seem slower when doing sustained high intensity workouts even if FAT loss is high due to MUSCLE gain.

<EDIT see Tom's post above... His says the same thing only simpler>

[markhr]

It kind of depends on your goals, actually, if you stay in the zone where the larger portion of your burn is from fat stores, then you'll drop weight without building additional muscle mass as quickly. You maintain current muscle mass instead, whereas going anaerobic will throw you into more of a protein metabolism, resulting in greater muscle breakdown and in the rebuilding process, you just get more muscle mass than before.

Aerobic is also more beneficial to the heart as well, as far as it goes relative to going anaerobic, especially in the early part of your weight loss. Less cardiac stress at the lower HR.

+1

[breadbin]

Heartzones aside, the heart monitor I got recently is fantastic for keeping me at a certain work rate where normally I would slow down without knowing. And training in any zone is better than no training at all. I think I have to stop thinking about it and as the ad used to say "Just Do It".

[lil brown bat]

Care to expand on that please?

As far as I can see 10% fat burned is less than 20% fat burned.

Which is bigger, 10% of Bob's salary or 20% of Jane's salary?

[markhr]

Which is bigger, 10% of Bob's salary or 20% of Jane's salary?

but, in this case, we're talking about one cyclist doing one workout :)

[Shubox]

Which is bigger, 10% of Bob's salary or 20% of Jane's salary?

and we know Bob makes more, well hes a man so 10% is probably more then 20% of Jane's lol totally hijacking / trolling this thread :D

[lil brown bat]

but, in this case, we're talking about one cyclist doing one workout :)

Well, no, we're not. We haven't said how changing the intensity may change other factors, most importantly the duration of the workout. That's the problem with this whole "fat-burning zone" wank: it fails to define its terms and parameters. The "fat-burning zone" advocates talk about burning more fat, when in reality, what evidence there is points to burning a higher percentage of calories from fat. But many people are incapable of telling the difference between the two, and therefore will always be likely marks for the latest "lose weight fast with no time and no effort" scam.

The difference between "greater percentage" and "greater number" becomes even more important when you consider that the difference in percentage isn't anywhere near double (as in the 10%/20% faux "example" originally posted by keithm0). One example (http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardioworkouts/l/aa022601a.htm) of a 130-pound woman found a difference of 39.85% calories from fat at 80-85% MHR and 50% (or in other words, nowhere near double) calories from fat at 60-65% MHR.

Bottom line: less is not more.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

Which is one of the reasons I advocate, at least initially, longer periods of lower intensity and then going to higher intensity as your base fitness level increases.Well, no, we're not. We haven't said how changing the intensity may change other factors, most importantly the duration of the workout. That's the problem with this whole "fat-burning zone" wank: it fails to define its terms and parameters. The "fat-burning zone" advocates talk about burning more fat, when in reality, what evidence there is points to burning a higher percentage of calories from fat. But many people are incapable of telling the difference between the two, and therefore will always be likely marks for the latest "lose weight fast with no time and no effort" scam.

The difference between "greater percentage" and "greater number" becomes even more important when you consider that the difference in percentage isn't anywhere near double (as in the 10%/20% faux "example" originally posted by keithm0). One example (http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardioworkouts/l/aa022601a.htm) of a 130-pound woman found a difference of 39.85% calories from fat at 80-85% MHR and 50% (or in other words, nowhere near double) calories from fat at 60-65% MHR.

Bottom line: less is not more.

[keithm0]

The difference between "greater percentage" and "greater number" becomes even more important when you consider that the difference in percentage isn't anywhere near double (as in the 10%/20% faux "example" originally posted by keithm0).

The numbers I used were definitely pulled out of the air (or some convenient orifice) and not intended to reflect reality. They were simply meant to illustrate that (small percentage of a large number) can be greater than (larger percentage of a smaller number). The real-world figures you mention make the point even more strongly.

[ivesrw]

just go out and ride. somewhere around the second or third year start trying to game your own body with percentages and heart rate monitors. The best place to lose weight is on hills. A good bike + 2 - 3 hill riding sessions per week + sensible nutrition equals gradual weight loss and increased ability on a bike. IMHO you need a base of two full years of riding long, slow to medium paced mileage before beginning training any particular "zone". And, during that time period, concentrate on learning how to fix and maintain the bike.

[keithm0]

just go out and ride.

That's the best advice I've seen in a long time.