Aerobic vs Anaerobic?

[Kelemvor]

Howdy,

I'm going to be doing a "sprint" triathlon this summer so I've been reading some things online about working out. I was reading something the other day and was confused and thought maybe I've been working out wrong for years.

The workouts I normally do are classes a the Y. I do a Boot Camp workout which is a combination of cardio and strength training. I also do a Cardio Kickboxing which is pretty much strait martial arts cardio. I wear a heart monitor and it pretty much always tells me I'm working over my "zone". I generally burn between 600 and 800 calories during a session.

Upon reading up a little bit, I'm wondering if I would be better off to not work so hard in order to keep my heart rate down.

The monitor uses the 220-age to calculate your MHR which is 185 for me. With Aerobic being 70%-80% that would put me at 130 - 148. My average is normally 150 which means for most of the workout I'm over the 80% mark. The last recorded info on my watch shows 49 minutes over the zone, 7 minutes in the zone, 1 minute under the zone.

Anyhow, I work out to get fit and to hopefully lose weight. Does this mean I need to keep my HR below 148 to ensure I'm burning fat? I'd really have to take it easy as my HR is up in the 150s almost all the time I'm working out so that would definitely be a huge change for me.

If I keep my HR doesn't I will burn less calories but a high percentage of them will be from fat. If I kep my HR higher I will burn more calories overall but a smaller percentage of them would be from fat. However since I burn more, the smaller percentage might end up being more fat calories anyway.

I know this is somewhat of a controversy but just wanted to get people's thoughts here.

 

[edcarman]

The effective 'fat-burning zone' is a myth. How much fat you lose depends on your overall calorie deficit. The fat does not care how you get to that deficit
http://www.alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

There are some very good reasons why you might train in a low intensity zone e.g.
- it is excellent for building your base fitness at the start of the season
- as your training load increases later in the season it becomes necessary to include lower intensity sessions as you cannot maintain multiple high intensity, targeted, sessions while still recovering adequately.

Optimal fat burning is not, however, one of these reasons.

 

[alkemyst]

ummm target heart rate is important. If you are too high you can't go long enough to really get into burning fat. Too much of a calorie deficit can backfire and cause fat to store.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

There's no anaerobic or aerobic heart rate. There are anaerobic and aerobic pathways only. Anaerobic activity utilize the phosphagen and glycolytic pathways. The phosphagen pathway is utilized during max intensity exercise and only lasts for about 10 seconds. The glycolytic pathways is utilized during high intensity to moderate intensity exercise and lasts about 2 minutes. The aerobic pathway utilizes oxidative metabolism, allowing you to go for a while. This is likely to be the most important thing to train for a triathlon of any sorts.

ummm target heart rate is important. If you are too high you can't go long enough to really get into burning fat. Too much of a calorie deficit can backfire and cause fat to store.

This isn't true necessarily true. If you do burst activity at high HR with intermittent rest, you'll burn plenty of calories. You can't think of an activity as burning fat. Exercise burns calories, specifically carbs and fat. At high intensities, you burn dominantly carbs, which is fine. That's because the calories you used from carbs will eventually be restored through your diet and the energy deficit will have to come from fat stores. When you talk about metabolizing macronutrients during exercise, it's pointless to talk about burning fat. Also, you have to think of the lasting thermic effect throughout the day. High intensity exercise increases metabolism dramatically for hours after the workout.

 

[alkemyst]

You are simply wrong on that, making a big generalization...indeed calories are calories, burning them, burns them, etc, but for many they sort of want to spare their carbohydrate reserves, not to mention they will burn out far earlier than fat stores (hitting the wall/boinking/etc)...if you are going 30-45mins not a big deal...longer it's more important.

Also getting yourself into a rhythm with your heartrate and your body operating efficiently at that rate/range is important for many long distance runners, bikers and swimmers.

HIIT and the like are great, more anaerobic and will boost metabolism as well.

Also, what your heart rate is at will definitely determine a lot about those anaerobic/aerobic pathways, so it's indeed important.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Wait, what? What are you even saying in your first statement? Elaborate and I might be able to retort accordingly.

PS: I've taken several classes entailing the details of exercise metabolism. I'm fairly educated on the body's metabolism, especially during exercise. Keep in mind, my education is based off of research and is as close to "proven" as things can get. I think your's is based off a flawed logic flow. If that's the case, I'll let you know what actually happens, but don't think that what you're going to say is right just because you tried to use logic to get there.

 

[brikis98]

As far as weight loss goes, training in a "fat burning zone" is a pile of BS. Whenever this topic comes up, I always remember this quote I read about in an article about the Afterburn effect:

"Caring how much fat is burned during training makes as much sense as caring how much muscle is built during training."

If losing fat is your goal, you can largely ignore heart rate and should instead primarily focus on your diet and make sure you are in a caloric deficit. The fat loss sticky does a great job of discussing this.

If fitness is your goal, you can again largely ignore heart rate and should instead focus on your performance in your workouts. You need to understand that your body adapts exactly and specifically to the stimulus you present it with: if you do the same exact workout over and over again, your fitness is NOT improving beyond the initial adaptations to that workout. To increase your fitness, you need to increase the difficulty of your workout: increase distance or speed or weight or reps as appropriate. You know your fitness is improving if your numbers are improving on the workouts. Heart rate can be a useful feedback mechanism to help guide your pace in a given workout - that is, if you max out your heart rate in the first 400m of a 5k, you are probably going at too fast of a pace - but it shouldn't be the primary focus of your workouts.

 

[alkemyst]

Wait, what? What are you even saying in your first statement? Elaborate and I might be able to retort accordingly.

PS: I've taken several classes entailing the details of exercise metabolism. I'm fairly educated on the body's metabolism, especially during exercise. Keep in mind, my education is based off of research and is as close to "proven" as things can get. I think your's is based off a flawed logic flow. If that's the case, I'll let you know what actually happens, but don't think that what you're going to say is right just because you tried to use logic to get there.

forget about replying. You are an eager college beaver...mine experience is based on a long time of lifting, sports and knowing what gets me stronger and stay healthy.

I was only a biology/zoology major for 7 years though so what the fuck do I know.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

forget about replying. You are an eager college beaver...mine experience is based on a long time of lifting, sports and knowing what gets me stronger and stay healthy.

I was only a biology/zoology major for 7 years though so what the fuck do I know.

You love bringing your bio/zoology major up. Does that have anything to do with exercise metabolism? No, not at all. I'm not going to talk about different types of animals or their physiology, even if I've had a cat and dog for 20 years. I've seen a lot of behavior and interactions, but I'd have no clue what I was talking about. This is not material you would learn unless you taught yourself through an educator's website or unless you took the classes. Everything you say is anecdotal. Most of what you say has a direct counterexample in research showing that there is a better way of doing things.

You use your age as an excuse to say that you know things. You don't. You've drawn the wrong conclusions from things you've seen. If you understood how things actually worked, your posts would show a different tone and subject matter. You're like the old gym coach who knows nothing, but tries to shit talk anyone younger because they "don't have any experience." Grow up and learn to say that a subject is outside of your knowledge base.

 

[brikis98]

forget about replying. You are an eager college beaver...mine experience is based on a long time of lifting, sports and knowing what gets me stronger and stay healthy.

I was only a biology/zoology major for 7 years though so what the fuck do I know.

Ah yes, once again an opinion of yours gets challenged and rather than backing it up with reasoning or research, you just pompously claim you're smarter/wiser/older than us and we should just trust you. Surely someone with so much experience could share a little bit of it to actually back up his claims?

 

[alkemyst]

You love bringing your bio/zoology major up. Does that have anything to do with exercise metabolism? No, not at all. I'm not going to talk about different types of animals or their physiology, even if I've had a cat and dog for 20 years. I've seen a lot of behavior and interactions, but I'd have no clue what I was talking about. This is not material you would learn unless you taught yourself through an educator's website or unless you took the classes. Everything you say is anecdotal. Most of what you say has a direct counterexample in research showing that there is a better way of doing things.

You use your age as an excuse to say that you know things. You don't. You've drawn the wrong conclusions from things you've seen. If you understood how things actually worked, your posts would show a different tone and subject matter. You're like the old gym coach who knows nothing, but tries to shit talk anyone younger because they "don't have any experience." Grow up and learn to say that a subject is outside of your knowledge base.

no not at all, I studied nutrition and experimented with it during that time.

I was a lifter, I competed in martial arts, I played sports.

you go...keep misleading those here with nothing but promises and regurgitating what you have found on the same boards you smite.

I am not using my age, I am using my experience which only comes with age. You are fresh out of school and think you know everything which is more dangerous.

 

[alkemyst]

Ah yes, once again an opinion of yours gets challenged and rather than backing it up with reasoning or research, you just pompously claim you're smarter/wiser/older than us and we should just trust you. Surely someone with so much experience could share a little bit of it to actually back up his claims?

I have...you guys swear it's only powerlifting that matters.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

no not at all, I studied nutrition and experimented with it during that time.

I was a lifter, I competed in martial arts, I played sports.

you go...keep misleading those here with nothing but promises and regurgitating what you have found on the same boards you smite.

I am not using my age, I am using my experience which only comes with age. You are fresh out of school and think you know everything which is more dangerous.

Knowing about nutrition and even resting metabolism does not mean you understand exercise metabolism. At different intensity rates, you mobilize different nutrients. You actually have to study that specifically to know what goes on during exercise.

Lifting, competing, playing... these have no definite impact on knowledge if you don't actually look into what you're doing to your body. Coaches can coach for 20 years and get results and have no idea why. Frequently, with education, they could be training their athletes in a more optimal manner.

Mislead? Every time I have mentioned something incorrect and someone has actually pointed it out, I've retracted my statement. If I mess something up, I'm more than happy to admit that and correct the problem. I've made no promises and regurgitate nothing. I process the information given to me and relate it to previous knowledge. That's called the process of learning. Lmao. Smite. Dramatic much?

You are using your age only. We ask for evidence and you can't provide any. One with experience would know to provide real life evidence so that others could understand a given process. Somebody with true experience can make logical statements and back them. You say "tralalala, I'm right. I'm right because I say so and because I'm the oldest member of these forums. Period." I'm surprised you studied any science for so long because you clearly don't understand how science works.

 

[MJinZ]

Are you a guy? If so, losing weight is so easy for guys.

Just run on the treadmill - warm up, run a bit - go all out flat out for a few minutes.

Lift weights, get protein and lay off the junk.

Push your legs to the limit and bump up your test.

Get sleep.

 

[alkemyst]

Knowing about nutrition and even resting metabolism does not mean you understand exercise metabolism. At different intensity rates, you mobilize different nutrients. You actually have to study that specifically to know what goes on during exercise.

Lifting, competing, playing... these have no definite impact on knowledge if you don't actually look into what you're doing to your body. Coaches can coach for 20 years and get results and have no idea why. Frequently, with education, they could be training their athletes in a more optimal manner.

Mislead? Every time I have mentioned something incorrect and someone has actually pointed it out, I've retracted my statement. If I mess something up, I'm more than happy to admit that and correct the problem. I've made no promises and regurgitate nothing. I process the information given to me and relate it to previous knowledge. That's called the process of learning. Lmao. Smite. Dramatic much?

You are using your age only. We ask for evidence and you can't provide any. One with experience would know to provide real life evidence so that others could understand a given process. Somebody with true experience can make logical statements and back them. You say "tralalala, I'm right. I'm right because I say so and because I'm the oldest member of these forums. Period." I'm surprised you studied any science for so long because you clearly don't understand how science works.

yeah, I know nothing on science. I was only accepted to a few pharmacy schools prior to even finishing my AA degree. I only scored in the 90's on my PCAT's for pharmacy. I only applied my science knowledge along the way to my lifting and sports. I only did a major weight loss in three months. Trust me I have been there and done it.

 

[Howard]

yeah, I know nothing on science. I was only accepted to a few pharmacy schools prior to even finishing my AA degree. I only scored in the 90's on my PCAT's for pharmacy. I only applied my science knowledge along the way to my lifting and sports. I only did a major weight loss in three months. Trust me I have been there and done it.

Can you do us all a favour and compile a list of fields that you are experienced in and/or skilled at?

 

[alkemyst]

Can you do us all a favour and compile a list of fields that you are experienced in and/or skilled at?

lol

 

[SociallyChallenged]

yeah, I know nothing on science. I was only accepted to a few pharmacy schools prior to even finishing my AA degree. I only scored in the 90's on my PCAT's for pharmacy. I only applied my science knowledge along the way to my lifting and sports. I only did a major weight loss in three months. Trust me I have been there and done it.

And I've been accepted to physical therapy schools who specialize in the body, exercise as treatment, muskuloskeletal systems, etc. I'm going to say I have the subject-specific advantage. You applied your pharmacy science incorrectly to whatever you did. Anecdotal evidence is not true evidence. Go run some studies, learn the scientific method, and then come back with some knowledge. You did major weight loss that put you at risk for severe health problems (heart failure, excitotoxicity, stroke, kidney failure, and more). All the supplements and stress that you put on your body did more than anyone with your knowledge could know. That means you're more inexperienced than most here.

 

[alkemyst]

this is where you fail, because you are assuming too much. I knew the weight loss was a risk, I ended up with a minor kidney infection from it as well. What supplements are causing me issues though?

PT stuff is a bit of a joke though, nothing compared to getting into Pharmacy school and my specialty was anatomy and phyisology in both human and animal.

Just maxing out on squats is sort of a major risk...we all take our chances.

 

[Kelemvor]

Thanks for taking over my thread with a pissing match guys. Really appreciate it.

So, to get back on point... I should pretty much ignore the whole "Workout in a certain range" thing and just concentrate on what I'm doing, how often, and how I feel during and after the workout? That's what I've always been doing so sounds good to me.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Thanks for taking over my thread with a pissing match guys. Really appreciate it.

So, to get back on point... I should pretty much ignore the whole "Workout in a certain range" thing and just concentrate on what I'm doing, how often, and how I feel during and after the workout? That's what I've always been doing so sounds good to me.

Yeah, but don't use this as an excuse to slack off Work hard and you'll get results. Just don't overwork yourself. A lot of the times I go by rate of perceived exertion (RPE). It takes some experience to know how you feel (typically gauged by a numerical scale or %s), but it definitely helps you mix stuff up. Some days I'll go at 75% RPE, other's 90%. On active recovery days, I'll go about 50-60%. It's all about how you wanna do things.

 

[alkemyst]

Thanks for taking over my thread with a pissing match guys. Really appreciate it.

So, to get back on point... I should pretty much ignore the whole "Workout in a certain range" thing and just concentrate on what I'm doing, how often, and how I feel during and after the workout? That's what I've always been doing so sounds good to me.

Workout yes, cardio no unless your goal is just to get some calories burned.

It's going to be pretty hard to shoot your pulse up majorly just lifting weights....

 

[brikis98]

So, to get back on point... I should pretty much ignore the whole "Workout in a certain range" thing and just concentrate on what I'm doing, how often, and how I feel during and after the workout? That's what I've always been doing so sounds good to me.

You should be paying attention to your performance on your workouts. If your workout numbers improve, you know your fitness has too. This of course assumes your workouts are training the relevant abilities for a sprint triathlon and have readily measureable metrics; if not, then those are the first issues to see to.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

I'm not a triathlete, but as a runner, I have raced over a variety of distances.

Alkemyst is correct that you need to watch what heart rate range you work out in so as not to burn through your glycogen stores too quickly and "bonk". Fat is not oxidized as efficiently as carbohydrates, so you cannot maintain as fast a pace once you've burned through your carbohydrate stores. SC and brikis are also correct that there isn't a "fat-burning zone".

The optimal adaptation is to work out near to your lactate threshold and train your body to work partially on its fat reserves and primarily on carbohydrates (glycogen); the goal being to run out of glycogen as close to the finish as possible.

For distance runners, lactate threshold pace is about 77-84% of your max HR. These are like "tempo" workouts. HIIT is close to VO2 Max (93-95% Max HR). The lower ranges (70% Max HR) are for recovery workouts.

Since each of the distances in the sprint triathlon are relatively short, HIIT will be extremely beneficial, but some lactate threshold workouts will also help your endurance.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Workout yes, cardio no unless your goal is just to get some calories burned.

It's going to be pretty hard to shoot your pulse up majorly just lifting weights....

Separate from the bitching match: CrossFit itself revolves around cardiovascular training through weightlifting. "Just lifting weights" has enabled CFer's to run marathons without running more than 10k. Plenty of people utilize weights to do circuit training. Weights are a valid means of cardiovascular exercise (which typically elicits increased heart rate for a prolonged amount of time). It's actually easy to get a good cardio workout through weights.