Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Exercise Forums: Active Low-Carbers > Advanced/High Intensity
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Fri, Nov-12-04, 22:36
shawn119 shawn119 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 39
 
Plan: modified
Stats: 329.5/266/175 Male 5 ft. 9 in.
BF:
Progress: 41%
Location: Escanaba, Michigan
Default Cardio vs. Weight Loss?

I hope I can explain this in a way that's understandable. On the elliptical trainer I use, there are 2 heart rate target zones. The lower one is for "weight loss" and the higher rate is for "cardiovascular". My question is this. I can keep my heart rate far into the cardiovascular zone (around 150) without any pain or discomfort for a 45 minute workout. With my goal being losing weight in the most efficient and quickest manner, would I be better served staying in the lower zone for a longer workout, say an hour? Or would I be better served staying where I am. I'm a bit confused on this topic.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Fri, Nov-12-04, 22:45
lilli's Avatar
lilli lilli is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,079
 
Plan: My own, post Atkins
Stats: 180/131/140 Female 5'5
BF:
Progress: 123%
Location: los angeles
Default

I am confused about this too. I wouldn't see why one should work less than one can because of the guide on the machine. I mean, if you're dying at 150, that's another story. But if it's a good pace for you and you feel challenged but not like falling over, I think that's what you'd want to aim for.
Maybe the guide on the machine means that to start burning to lose weight, you need to AT LEAST get to the "weight loss" zone. I don't think working harder would mean you will only get cardiovascular benefits & won't lose weight, that's slightly ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Nov-12-04, 23:10
binki binki is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 527
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 190/159/140 Female 67 inches
BF:
Progress: 62%
Default

I think it's got to do with aerobic vs. anaerobic exercise, but don't know the specifics for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sat, Nov-13-04, 21:58
Nudizzle's Avatar
Nudizzle Nudizzle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 129
 
Plan: Anabolic diet
Stats: 355.0/308.0/230.0 Male 73 inches
BF:
Progress: 38%
Location: So Cal Gangsta
Default

stay in the lower zone to maximize fat burning and to reduce the possibility that you burn some lean mass to fuel your cardio workout.

also, an hour is probably more than enough. i'd keep it to no more than 40 mins at a time.

thank you, i'll be here all week. try the veal.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, Nov-15-04, 15:52
ttorres ttorres is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 61
 
Plan: modified atkins
Stats: 170/164/140 Female 5'5"
BF:
Progress: 20%
Location: bakersfield, ca
Default

Several studies have shown high intensity interval training is the best for fat loss. Set your program to look like a high/lows graph (I i I i I i I i) with a fair amount of resistance. You should be working really hard at the high end, and recover during the low end.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Mon, Nov-15-04, 16:51
MaryToU's Avatar
MaryToU MaryToU is offline
& Dillion Doggie Do!
Posts: 2,061
 
Plan: Atkins, Maintenance
Stats: 221/172/147 Female 5'6"
BF:Sizes over scale!
Progress: 66%
Default

The way I look at it, to loss weight you want to at least get into the fat burning zone. But you will have better results all around both for your heart and weight loss doing the cardiovascular levels.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, Nov-15-04, 17:08
dina1957 dina1957 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,854
 
Plan: My own
Stats: 194/000/150 Female 5'5"
BF:Not sure
Progress: 441%
Location: Bay Area
Default

Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Nov-23-04, 20:06
Daisy-Duke's Avatar
Daisy-Duke Daisy-Duke is offline
Water-Ski Chic :-)
Posts: 1,992
 
Plan: Healthy LC :-)
Stats: 149/132.5/141 Female 65
BF:20/14.5/15
Progress: 206%
Location: Oregon
Arrow Agree

I agree with a lot of folks here the longer you can sustain your W/O at a lower level perhaps the longer time you are in that fat burning mode. Yet the High interval training is something that does wonders for me too. It is really hard becasue to are going to a really high level of exurtion (sorry about the spelling) and then down so fast only to turn around and continue this pattern. The time sure does fly though.

Good luck. I think what you are doing is great and if you have the extra time do a little more

Daisy
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sun, Dec-05-04, 10:28
realdeal31's Avatar
realdeal31 realdeal31 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 548
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 231/212/185 Male 5 feet 10 inches
BF:22%
Progress: 41%
Location: Canada
Default

Why not just listen to your body???? so much people are concerned about so little things.

Your goal is to lose weight so do your weight training at least 3 times a week and your cardio has much has you are confortable with. If one day you feel weak just skip the gym that day.

By working out this way you can modify your split, avoid overtraining and get better gains at the end.

Sometimes i take 3 days off from the gym and when i go back i find that i have gained strenght in all my lifts, or can do a bit more cardio.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Sat, Dec-11-04, 12:50
WoodyAllen WoodyAllen is offline
New Member
Posts: 52
 
Plan: Low GI/Sugar
Stats: 250/180/180 Male 68
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Default

Well, you'll burn a lot more calories at the higher rate. In the 'fat loss' zone you just burn a higer percentage of fat than in the cardio zone.

So do the cardio to maximize fat loss. I actually find the 'fat burning zone' burns a piddling amount of total calories compared to when I go high intensity.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Tue, Jan-11-05, 20:30
cbcb's Avatar
cbcb cbcb is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 791
 
Plan: South Beach-esque
Stats: 194/159/140 Female 5'3"
BF:34% / 28% / 20%
Progress: 65%
Default

Just had a fancy test done at the doc's... in my case I'm at max fat burning at 100 bpm and hit the wall at 120 for fat-burning benefit, going into anaerobic. But that's just me.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Mon, Aug-29-05, 21:19
cpriest cpriest is offline
New Member
Posts: 1
 
Plan: my own
Stats: 250/250/200 Male 6'2"
BF:
Progress:
Default

Found this on the Precor website

Q. We have several workout machines in our office and I want to use them, but I'm confused about the different heart rate zones. What zone should I be training in to lose weight?

This is a great question that many people ask. It is important to realize that the body has two different fuels it converts to energy: carbohydrates and fats. The body burns these fuels in different proportions depending on your fitness and the intensity of your workout. Your body stores fewer carbohydrates than fat, yet it accesses the carbohydrates more easily. So the goal is to make your body more efficient at burning the stored fat while sparing the carbohydrates. Working out at higher heart rates will burn more carbohydrate calories in the short term, but it is working out in the lower zones that trains your body to become efficient at fat burning. In turn, this improves your endurance and aerobic fitness, eventually leading to a faster metabolic rate during exercise. This means that over time, you can burn as many calories at a low intensity as you were previously burning at a high intensity. With proper training this can happen in as little as three to six months.

Therefore, the best intensity for weight loss is one that seems 'fairly light' to 'somewhat hard'. Often people who cannot lose weight, or who even gain weight despite high intensity exercise and restrictive dieting, find success through a combination of slowing down their exercise, and improving the quality of their diet. This approach is not only more effective, but it's more fun and easier to stick to long-term!

-- Emily Cooper, M.D.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Tue, Aug-30-05, 09:08
kbfunTH's Avatar
kbfunTH kbfunTH is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,240
 
Plan: UDS
Stats: 199/190/190 Male 69
BF:12%/11%/6%
Progress: 100%
Location: Pflugerville, TX
Default

I think this whole 'cardio zone,' 'fat burning' zone is a bit misleading. Solve the equation for yourself and spend a few weeks working in both zones to see which one works better for you. I bet that most everyone will not notice a difference between the two in terms of fat loss.

I think too much energy is wasted on worrying about things like this.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Tue, Aug-30-05, 09:32
cbcb's Avatar
cbcb cbcb is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 791
 
Plan: South Beach-esque
Stats: 194/159/140 Female 5'3"
BF:34% / 28% / 20%
Progress: 65%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbfunTH
I think this whole 'cardio zone,' 'fat burning' zone is a bit misleading. Solve the equation for yourself and spend a few weeks working in both zones to see which one works better for you. I bet that most everyone will not notice a difference between the two in terms of fat loss.

I think too much energy is wasted on worrying about things like this.


I appreciate the sentiment, but I for one do not wanna be exercising in such a way that it's going to do comparatively little good - am glad to know a little about the science behind how this works.

(I always knew I felt much better exercising at lower intensity for longer duration and just ran out of energy when I tried the higher intensity work that some thought was such a good idea. The test I took clearly showed why it wasn't.)
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Tue, Aug-30-05, 10:41
misskimbee's Avatar
misskimbee misskimbee is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,140
 
Plan: 000
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 0%
Default

To determine your fat-burning range:

(220-your age) x 65% =

(220-24 yrs.) x 65% = 127.4 should be my BPM to burn fat.

To determine aerobic threshold range:

(220-24) x 85% = 166.6 should be my BPM to work cardiovascular system.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Portion Control Pays Off in Weight Loss Dodger LC Research/Media 16 Mon, Oct-18-04 09:23
Limits on protein/fat-dont eat liberally! fairchild Atkins Diet 42 Thu, Jun-10-04 16:14
Email a journalist today! mcsblues LC Research/Media 4 Thu, Jun-03-04 15:18
Dairy vs Stalls .... Princesspp Tips and Stalls 10 Sat, Jul-13-02 09:07


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:10.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.