Cardio for fatloss 65-75% MHR

[Gumball]

Hi!

I restarted doing this cardio on empty stomach @ 65-75% MHR. I am 24, so my MHR is 196, which gives me an interval of around 128-147 bpm for optimum fatloss.

Now, aren't these bpm a little too much for fatloss? I felt like I was pushing my legs a bit (stationary bike), and I also sweated quite a bit for a "low intensity" workout (I usually sweat a lot).

I think that if I go out running, I can keep myself between that interval, which doesn't seem right? If I did a brisk walk, on the other hand, I think I couldn't be able to reach at least 128 bmp needed to be in "the fat burning zone".

I am well conditioned as far as cardio is concerned, and do some sort of exercise almost everyday, so fitness levels are fine.

Any thoughts?? Is this interval correct?

Thanx

 

[mcr]

IMO it doesn't matter. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this, but cardio, put bluntly, just burns calories. There's no special percentage that suddenly metabolises your fat stores and leaves what you've just eaten alone. The body thinks MUCH longer term than that.

I think the main reason most people stick to 65-75% MHR is because it's easier to burn 500 total calories doing that for an hour, than it is to burn 500 total calories from 90% MHR for (say) 30 minutes.

In other words, just work out how many calories you need/want to burn from cardio, and fit in whatever cardio you want at whatever rate you feel happy with in order to burn those calories.

 

[jstrick2]

Those numbers seem good. If you are having trouble getting the heart rate up while walking briskly, try hitting the treadmill and upping the incline until you get where you need. Thats usually what I do in the mornings. Others can probably give their opinions as well, but seems good to me.

 

[JKurz1]

IMO it doesn't matter. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this, but cardio, put bluntly, just burns calories. There's no special percentage that suddenly metabolises your fat stores and leaves what you've just eaten alone. The body thinks MUCH longer term than that.

I think the main reason most people stick to 65-75% MHR is because it's easier to burn 500 total calories doing that for an hour, than it is to burn 500 total calories from 90% MHR for (say) 30 minutes.

In other words, just work out how many calories you need/want to burn from cardio, and fit in whatever cardio you want at whatever rate you feel happy with in order to burn those calories.

Actually, you are wrong, but I was wrong about it before too.....studies prove that there are HR percentages where you body uses fat stores as it's primary source of fuel while others use carbohydrates...do some research.......you'll see...........


As far as when you do cardio, this is widely debateable.....IMHO, I don't really think it matters.....I think I've lost a TON of strength and size from doing it on an empty tank...I now make sure to eat something at least 2 hours beforehand....

 

[mcr]

Actually, you are wrong, but I was wrong about it before too.....studies prove that there are HR percentages where you body uses fat stores as it's primary source of fuel while others use carbohydrates...do some research.......you'll see...........

Yes - but that's just how your body is fuelling itself during the cardio. It's burning a higher percentage of calories from fat rather than calories from carbs - but that doesn't necessarily mean it's using body fat. Sure there are studies that show the body is burning more calories from fat - but there isn't a study I've ever seen that shows 65% MHR cardio beating 90% MHR cardio in actual BODY fat loss. At the end of the day, what does it matter how your body fuelled itself - it burns 500 calories in each approach. This also explains why both ketogenic AND moderate carb / low fat diets work.

I think it was you who originally said (a few threads back) that the body thinks longer term than "shit I'd better burn some bodyfat because he's doing 70% MHR cardio right now". I TOTALLY subscribe to that view.

 

[JKurz1]

Yes - but that's just how your body is fuelling itself during the cardio. It's burning a higher percentage of calories from fat rather than calories from carbs - but that doesn't necessarily mean it's using body fat. Sure there are studies that show the body is burning more calories from fat - but there isn't a study I've ever seen that shows 65% MHR cardio beating 90% MHR cardio in actual BODY fat loss. At the end of the day, what does it matter how your body fuelled itself - it burns 500 calories in each approach. This also explains why both ketogenic AND moderate carb / low fat diets work.

I think it was you who originally said (a few threads back) that the body thinks longer term than "shit I'd better burn some bodyfat because he's doing 70% MHR cardio right now". I TOTALLY subscribe to that view.

Your body thinking in advance in not days like we do is very accurate. However, v02 tests have been performed on both olympic athetes and joe blows, resulting in high intensity exerc. burns more carbs as fuel than fat, but more overall calories post. The reason, we as bbers, like low-mod. intensity, is that it saves our carbs to shuttle the protein to our starving muscles.....

 

[treet0ps4]

if u go above target heart rate - 65ish %, then soon thereafter the body cannot keep up with energy supply through just fat, so it mobilizes protein also at that point, which is catabolic, so stay at 65

 

[turbinhunter]

HIIT burns 9 times more fat than low intensity cardio per minute... stick with HIIT.

 

[JKurz1]

HIIT burns 9 times more fat than low intensity cardio per minute... stick with HIIT.

 

[~SC~]

Yes - but that's just how your body is fuelling itself during the cardio. It's burning a higher percentage of calories from fat rather than calories from carbs - but that doesn't necessarily mean it's using body fat. Sure there are studies that show the body is burning more calories from fat - but there isn't a study I've ever seen that shows 65% MHR cardio beating 90% MHR cardio in actual BODY fat loss. At the end of the day, what does it matter how your body fuelled itself.

Wow, you couldn't be FURTHER off in reasoning. As well, everything above you have '"not seen" has been proven, it's PROVEN SCIENCE!

May wish to check out "why I don't count calories", an article I wrote. It's not as simple as KCALS in/KCALS out.

~SC~