Fat Burning vs Cardio

[Alexander D]

I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this:

On the stationary bike in my gym, it states that for a 30 year old:

65% of my max heart rate should be around -123 bpm. And that at this rate- this is optimal for FAT BURNING.

and that, 80% of my max HR should be around 152 bpm and that this rate is optimal for Cardiovascular health.

Now, I do not fully understand this concept...  Let's say that I ride the bike for 15 minutes and at 65% of my max HR, i burn 150 calories... Now compare that to if i ride the bike for 15 minutes at 80% of my max HR and I burn 200 calories... Isn't the latter going to help me decrease my overall bodyfat better due to the fact that im burning more calories this way?

Or do we mobilize fat better at lower heart rates? or something!?

Hopefully someone can clarify, or point me to a website that explains it!

thanks!

-A DUB

[Stubborn]

I would look at it as 'muscle sparing' rather than "fat burning". You will burn fat during both. You will certainly burn more calories the higher your HR, but there is an area that is more conducive to utilization of two stores of energy (carbs/fat), rather than the body pulling energy from wherever possible (muscle/fat/carbs). There is a little more to it, but that is all it really means. This is why you see bodybuilders doing very low intensity 'cardio'.

[dyslexic]

The higher the intensity of the exercise, the more calories you burn. Intensity and Duration are not one and the same. The harder you do something, the less time you will be able to spend doing it. The easier the task is to perform, the longer you will last.


I personally think it is good to alternate HIT cardio and moderate long bouts of cardio. Your body will get used to anything over time, may as well change things up.


Don't forget the weights. Muscle burns fat when it is doing nothing. Build of much of that muscle tissue as possible.

[Fatpanda]

I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this:

On the stationary bike in my gym, it states that for a 30 year old:

65% of my max heart rate should be around -123 bpm. And that at this rate- this is optimal for FAT BURNING.

and that, 80% of my max HR should be around 152 bpm and that this rate is optimal for Cardiovascular health.

Now, I do not fully understand this concept...  Let's say that I ride the bike for 15 minutes and at 65% of my max HR, i burn 150 calories... Now compare that to if i ride the bike for 15 minutes at 80% of my max HR and I burn 200 calories... Isn't the latter going to help me decrease my overall bodyfat better due to the fact that im burning more calories this way?

Or do we mobilize fat better at lower heart rates? or something!?

Hopefully someone can clarify, or point me to a website that explains it!

thanks!

-A DUB

enjoy a-dub

http://www.alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

[wes]

Fuck all that heartrate and fatburning zone crap.

Just eat clean,train hard,and mix cardio up for variety, and above all,be consistant at all three!!

30-45 minutes 5-6 x a week depending on bodyfat levels is all that`s needed as long as diet is spot on.

[The Ugly]

Fuck all that heartrate and fatburning zone crap.

Just eat clean,train hard,and mix cardio up for variety, and above all,be consistant at all three!!

30-45 minutes 5-6 x a week depending on bodyfat levels is all that`s needed as long as diet is spot on.

What about tacking it on immediately after weights? Still 30-45 on those days?

[nolotil]

I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this:

On the stationary bike in my gym, it states that for a 30 year old:

65% of my max heart rate should be around -123 bpm. And that at this rate- this is optimal for FAT BURNING.

and that, 80% of my max HR should be around 152 bpm and that this rate is optimal for Cardiovascular health.

Now, I do not fully understand this concept...  Let's say that I ride the bike for 15 minutes and at 65% of my max HR, i burn 150 calories... Now compare that to if i ride the bike for 15 minutes at 80% of my max HR and I burn 200 calories... Isn't the latter going to help me decrease my overall bodyfat better due to the fact that im burning more calories this way?

Or do we mobilize fat better at lower heart rates? or something!?

Hopefully someone can clarify, or point me to a website that explains it!

thanks!

-A DUB

stop this, it doesnt matter, just do fast walking for 30-60min thats all you need to worry about and that you are ina caloric deficit. i have dieted for many shows, science is good but no need for science in bodybuolding very simple sport

[nolotil]

What about tacking it on immediately after weights? Still 30-45 on those days?

no do not do cardio after weights, put it in the morning if you do weights in the evening or vicer versa. seperate them maximally .

[tbombz]

more calories burned= more weight lost

keeping your heart rate low= improved ability to retain muscle

[nolotil]

more calories burned= more weight lost

keeping your heart rate low= improved ability to retain muscle

bodybuilders should never run or do too high intensity..fast walks is the best. tried and true x millions.

[dyslexic]

Fuck all that heartrate and fatburning zone crap.

Just eat clean,train hard,and mix cardio up for variety, and above all,be consistant at all three!!

30-45 minutes 5-6 x a week depending on bodyfat levels is all that`s needed as long as diet is spot on.

five to six times a week? Oh shit!!!!

[local hero]

no do not do cardio after weights, put it in the morning if you do weights in the evening or vicer versa. seperate them maximally .

makes no difference what so ever if you do them after weights....

[nolotil]

makes no difference what so ever if you do them after weights....

yes it does, the cardio sends reverse signal to the body compared to lifting weights. so seperate cardio and weights, specially if natural bodybuilder

[The Ugly]

yes it does, the cardio sends reverse signal to the body compared to lifting weights. so seperate cardio and weights, specially if natural bodybuilder

Signal?

[local hero]

yes it does, the cardio sends reverse signal to the body compared to lifting weights. so seperate cardio and weights, specially if natural bodybuilder

sorry, thats utter bullshit...... dont even care if u have some proof

[The Ugly]

sorry, thats utter bullshit...... dont even care if u have some proof

I do it regardless, no interest in morning/evening split shit anymore.

Only 20 minutes, though, post-workout; 30 off days.

Done.

[Fatpanda]

sorry, thats utter bullshit...... dont even care if u have some proof

he is correct. there have been studies done on this. hence the reason powerlifters spilt max effort and speed days. the 'signals' interfere with each other - producing less results than either protocol done by itself on seperate days. However i will quantify it by saying i think its only if working the same muscle group.

[local hero]

so your body will only grow when it gets the signal from weight training, so when you do your cardio after it looses the signal, and you loose less fat too???..... i suppose the bodybuilders doin 2 or 3 sessions of cardio pre contest most be signal crazy, specialy if they do weights that day too


people try to make things much harder than they need to be,,,,,, ive done this protocol both ways, split and after training and it makes no difference what so ever,,, altho i do actualy train and look like i train, unlike alot of people on here...

[Fatpanda]

so your body will only grow when it gets the signal from weight training, so when you do your cardio after it looses the signal, and you loose less fat too???..... i suppose the bodybuilders doin 2 or 3 sessions of cardio pre contest most be signal crazy, specialy if they do weights that day too


people try to make things much harder than they need to be,,,,,, ive done this protocol both ways, split and after training and it makes no difference what so ever,,, altho i do actualy train and look like i train, unlike alot of people on here...

i didn't say that. For the average joe it probably won't make much difference, but for elite athletes it does.

So if you want to be getting 100% optimal results split it up. If not don't.

[nolotil]

sorry, thats utter bullshit...... dont even care if u have some proof

no its not bullshit, educate yourself you idiot. it matters more for natural bodybuilders tho. but sometimes you don't have a choice due to time constraints.

[Fatpanda]

i'll see if i can find one of the studies that backs this to help this thread. i have it stored somewhere......

[tbombz]

i saw thhe studies in MD on this. its true, it seems from the few articles i saw. however,as fatpanda said, it only works if its the same muscle group.  what muscles are used in 99% of cardio ? primarily the legs.  so really, this would only stand true after leg day, BUT most people find theirlegs respond better to an endurance type of training anyway. so what difference would it make? probably none.

[nolotil]

i'll see if i can find one of the studies that backs this to help this thread. i have it stored somewhere......

you are correct about if affecting the worked body part more...if you work legs and then go running  = not good at all. but hormonization makes seperation of cardio and weights much less imporant. not that you have to do cardio at all when dieting. personally i prefer to keep cardio in my diets 30-60min fast walks.

[local hero]

no its not bullshit, educate yourself you idiot. it matters more for natural bodybuilders tho. but sometimes you don't have a choice due to time constraints.

dont throw a natty rage on me!!!!!
i stopped educating my self on all this crap years ago, dont get too wrapped up in all the new findings, i used to over analise everything, untill i found much of it made no difference at all in real world terms, and much of this upto date stuff changes with the wind.. end of the day you can follow all the best upto date sceintific advice to the letter, but if u dont have the genes youl still look shit

where as if you have decent genes youl grow and get lean as long as you put the hard work in, and thats how it is,,, end of story, dont get angry if you belong to the 1st group and not the latter

[nolotil]

dont throw a natty rage on me!!!!!
i stopped educating my self on all this crap years ago, dont get too wrapped up in all the new findings, i used to over analise everything, untill i found much of it made no difference at all in real world terms, and much of this upto date stuff changes with the wind.. end of the day you can follow all the best upto date sceintific advice to the letter, but if u dont have the genes youl still look shit

where as if you have decent genes youl grow and get lean as long as you put the hard work in, and thats how it is,,, end of story, dont get angry if you belong to the 1st group and not the latter

fuck you, you know nothing about me. you were wrong so i pointed it out.