Relation between Pulse and Weight loss

[hpkeeper]

What is the relation between Pulse and weight loss?

I go to the gym and on all the cardio machines there are pulse (-ometers?) on them and they're color coded and surprisingly fat burning pulse rate is not at the top.

Should I be working in that pulse rate to lose the maximum amount of weight or should I be working harder in an Aerobic or Anaerobic work out pulse rate? I have been for teh longest time working in the pulse rate of 160+... but as it turns out I should be between like 80 and 120 to burn fat (or so says the cardio machine at the gym)

can anyone explain this phenomenon to me?


~ThE KeEp~

 

[gramboh]

There have been a few posts on this and a bunch of research, all of which I am too lazy to the find.

From what I recall, the problem with the 'fat burning zone' heart rates is that it only takes into account what your body is doing at the time of exercise. The most overall efficient way to burn fat is to train hard (higher heart rate) as your body will continue to burn fat for a longer period (up to 24h I believe) after the training period is over. If you want I'll find the research, but it makes logical sense right? How is working at a lower intensity going to burn more energy than a higher intensity.

 

[hpkeeper]

Originally posted by: gramboh
There have been a few posts on this and a bunch of research, all of which I am too lazy to the find.

From what I recall, the problem with the 'fat burning zone' heart rates is that it only takes into account what your body is doing at the time of exercise. The most overall efficient way to burn fat is to train hard (higher heart rate) as your body will continue to burn fat for a longer period (up to 24h I believe) after the training period is over. If you want I'll find the research, but it makes logical sense right? How is working at a lower intensity going to burn more energy than a higher intensity.

That was my logic behind it as well... that math at the end didn't make sense to me either.

 

[theeedude]

Calories burned = Calories/min * minutes.
The reason that peak fat burning pulse rate is not at the top is that you cannot sustain a high pulse rate very long, so while the rate at which you will burn calories will be higher, you will burn fewer calories due to much shorter duration.
You want your heart rate as high as possible, but in a zone that you can sustain almost indefinitely. It's like running a marathon vs sprinting 100m.

 

[brikis98]

If you want to lose weight, the only formula you should really care about is: calories in < calories out. The whole "fat burning" zone and all that other junk is not particularly relevant. In fact, unless you have heart problems or are severely obese, training at higher intensities will typically be far more beneficial all around. This article has some great commentary on the issue, including the following important excerpts:

...even though the percentage of fat contribution differs, exercising for 45 minutes at a low intensity vs. exercising at a moderate to vigorous intensity will expend nearly the same amount of fat. However, the moderate to vigorous exercise intensity workout is further benefited by more than double the total calories burned!

The body fat loss from exercise is based, not only on the fat burned during exercise, but also on the caloric deficit you generate from a sound diet in combination with adequate exercise and physical activity.

It should also be noted that higher intensity exercise training results in greater training adaptations as compared to those seen with lower intensity workouts.

 

[Finns14]

The information you are getting from the thread is pretty poor so I would advise against listening to it. For loosing weight and maintaining muscle there are two schools of though LISS and HIIT. LISS is low intensity steady state cardio whereas HIIT is high intensity interval training. There is plenty of research out there all you have to do is google it. As far as a quick run down LISS keeps your heart rate at the fat burning zone for a long period of time in order to burn calories. No it shouldn't be all out and yes that matters because depending on your level of intensity your body will use different sources for energy. HIIT is like what it says interval training where for short burts you go all out followed by a very slow recovery interval. This type of training will burn less calories during the work out as compared to a LISS session but its been shown to elevate your RMR long after the workout.

I suggest looking into this some more.

Oh and while calories in vs calories out is pretty much the bottom line when it comes to weight loss there are things you can do to try and make sure that the weight you do loose is as much fat as possible leaving as much muscle as possible.

 

[edcarman]

Finns14, I presume by LISS, you refer to an exercise where you train for an hour or so just below threshold i.e. around 75-80% max heart rate?

The low heart rate, fat burning zone, as an effective weight loss method is a myth. The argument proposed for it is that you burn a greater proportion of fat in this zone e.g. 2 'fat calories' for every 1 'glucose calorie' = 3 calories
The problem with the argument is that, while at higher intensities you burn a lower proportion of fat, your total calorie use is higher and, due to metabolic effects, continues even after exercise has finished. So at high intensity you might now burn 2 'fat calories' for every 4 'glucose calories' = 6 calories.

The downside to very high intensity is that it is hard to maintain for long periods of time and you take much longer to recover (i.e. the amount of time before you can train again).
An hour or longer at a constant heart rate of about 75% MHR gives a good compromise between intensity, exercise duration and recovery.

Here is a previous post on the subject with some links to research on the fat burning zone:
Is there any benefit to running over walking?

 

[polarmystery]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Calories burned = Calories/min * minutes.
The reason that peak fat burning pulse rate is not at the top is that you cannot sustain a high pulse rate very long, so while the rate at which you will burn calories will be higher, you will burn fewer calories due to much shorter duration.
You want your heart rate as high as possible, but in a zone that you can sustain almost indefinitely. It's like running a marathon vs sprinting 100m.

Um...I had a question. Your forumla:
Calories burned = Calories/min * minutes. Simplified, wouldn't that be
Calories burned = Calories ?

Since (1/min) * minutes = 1?

Not trying to be an ass...just sounded confusing.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: polarmystery

Um...I had a question. Your forumla:
Calories burned = Calories/min * minutes. Simplified, wouldn't that be
Calories burned = Calories ?

Since (1/min) * minutes = 1?

Not trying to be an ass...just sounded confusing.

you're forgetting that calories are units. the formula was simplified to leave out numbers, but yes, the # of calories burned = X cal/min * N min = XN calories, where X and N are numbers.

 

[Juked07]

Originally posted by: polarmystery

Originally posted by: senseamp
Calories burned = Calories/min * minutes.
The reason that peak fat burning pulse rate is not at the top is that you cannot sustain a high pulse rate very long, so while the rate at which you will burn calories will be higher, you will burn fewer calories due to much shorter duration.
You want your heart rate as high as possible, but in a zone that you can sustain almost indefinitely. It's like running a marathon vs sprinting 100m.

Um...I had a question. Your forumla:
Calories burned = Calories/min * minutes. Simplified, wouldn't that be
Calories burned = Calories ?

Since (1/min) * minutes = 1?

Not trying to be an ass...just sounded confusing.

All equations that are sound work out like this. If the units did not come out the same at the end, you would not have an equation...

 

[Finns14]

Originally posted by: edcarman
Finns14, I presume by LISS, you refer to an exercise where you train for an hour or so just below threshold i.e. around 75-80% max heart rate?

The low heart rate, fat burning zone, as an effective weight loss method is a myth. The argument proposed for it is that you burn a greater proportion of fat in this zone e.g. 2 'fat calories' for every 1 'glucose calorie' = 3 calories
The problem with the argument is that, while at higher intensities you burn a lower proportion of fat, your total calorie use is higher and, due to metabolic effects, continues even after exercise has finished. So at high intensity you might now burn 2 'fat calories' for every 4 'glucose calories' = 6 calories.

The downside to very high intensity is that it is hard to maintain for long periods of time and you take much longer to recover (i.e. the amount of time before you can train again).
An hour or longer at a constant heart rate of about 75% MHR gives a good compromise between intensity, exercise duration and recovery.

Here is a previous post on the subject with some links to research on the fat burning zone:
Is there any benefit to running over walking?

You are just stating exactly what I said and also after a certain period of time you use up your glycogen storage and an even bigger percent is fat loss. You are also not taking what I said about muscle break down into affect either.

 

[edcarman]

Originally posted by: Finns14You are just stating exactly what I said and also after a certain period of time you use up your glycogen storage and an even bigger percent is fat loss. You are also not taking what I said about muscle break down into affect either.

If the answer to my initial question is yes (which it seems to be), then I was agreeing with and building on what you said.

Provided you are eating properly, then at 75%MHR, your glycogen stores should be sufficient for around 90min of exercise. For longer durations than that, you need to start taking in additional fuel, such as a sports drink.
Allowing your glycogen stores to run down completely is not an effective weight loss method. The rate at which fat converts to glucose is low and once glycogen is fully depleted, your ability to train at any kind of useful intensity is seriously compromised (in extreme cases, it can be difficult even to walk). This situation is usually referred to as 'hitting the wall' or 'bonking' and is pretty unpleasant when it happens.

At below-threshold intensities (around 75%MHR), there is little direct muscle damage (somewhat depending on the sport) and your recovery is based solely on replenishing lost energy stores. If in a slight calorie deficit then, if I'm reading the article right, some of this replenishment will be in the form of continuing fat burning. This also points out why starving yourself to lose weight is ineffective: you can't replace enough energy to allow you to train effectively at the next session - you almost start out in a 'bonked' state.

You didn't really mention muscle breakdown, but muscle damage from higher intensities is compensated for in proper nutrition and recovery. The need to repair and build muscle is one of the reasons why it takes longer to recover from a high intensity workout.
Following a pure, low intensity training plan would lead to some muscle loss (if you had started off with excess muscle), this muscle loss would level off at some point and can be easily slowed or prevented by varying your training by adding weight training or higher intensity workouts.