"DRS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Gags <[email hidden]> wrote in message
[email hidden][...]
Quoted message said:I generally use the HRM to train within a certain HR zone, depending
on what I am trying to achieve with the session (ie. fat burning,
cardiac base, intervals, lactic tolerance). It is actually pretty
hard to keep the HR low enough to stay in the fat burning zone
(generally I work on 60%-70% of max HR) and so keeping it down to
about 120bpm makes me feel like I am bludging.The idea of the 'fat burning zone' is a myth. It's based on poor
understanding of both physiology and maths. Your body's prime sources of
energy are carbohydrates and fat.
For one refering to "poor understanding of both physiology and maths", this
is very simplistic.....the body actually has 3 energy systems....Phosphate,
Lactate, and Aerobic. The fuel for these systems are respectively: creatine
phosphate, glucose (from carbs), fat and carbs. All three of these energy
systems use adenosine triphosphate (or ATP) as the final fuel that provides
energy for the contraction of muscles. These three systems overlap to some
degree as intensity and duration varies but basically you want to train at
an intensity that utilises the aerobic ("with air"😉 energy system in order
to oxidise fat. And before you acuse me....this stuff is coming out of the
grey matter, not from some text book that I have read once.
Quoted message said:Now, it is true that your body derives a
higher proportion of its energy from carbohydrate the harder you train.
For
Quoted message said:every 10 calories you burn during exercise at a high intensity (85%
VO2max),
Quoted message said:up to 3 of those calories will come from fat. For every 10 calories you
burn during exercise at a moderate intensity (65% VO2max), up to 6 of
those
Quoted message said:calories will come from fat. This is the source of the concept but it has
a
Quoted message said:fatal flaw. When you do the maths you actually expend more calories from
fat at high intensity work levels.Consider the fat calories expended by a 130-pound woman during cardio
exercise [1]:MI (60-65% MHR) HI (80-85% MHR)
Total Calories Expended per min. 4.86 6.86
Fat Calories expended per min. 2.43 2.7
Total Calories expended in 30 min. 146 206
Total Fat calories expended in 30 min. 73 82
Percentage of fat calories burned 50% 39.85%The point is that although the MI workout expended a higher proportion of
calories from fat, the high intensity workout expended more calories from
fat in absolute terms and it's the absolute numbers which matter in this
context. Assuming the same calory intake, the woman in question would
lose
Quoted message said:fat faster doing the high intensity workout even though it's nominally
outsided her 'fat burning zone'. As a bonus, the high intensity exercise
will increase her Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) more than the moderate
intensity exercise, so she will burn more calories per day anyway.In short, if you want to burn more fat then work harder for longer.
Your argument is fine for a half hour workout but I generally work on a one
hour minimum for a "fat burning" workout and often extend the work out for
two to three hours. This is not achievable at a high intensity for three
hours (at least not if you want to do 4-5 workouts a week).
Quoted message said:[1] The 24/5 Complete Personal Training Manual, 24 Hour Fitness, 2000
--
A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?