Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning?

In article ,
"Steve Freides" writes:

The people who can "eat whatever they like and never gain
weight" are few and far between, and many of them are blessed with the
right genes.

That's me, but I opine that at least some of it is a
matter of habituation, rather than genetics. While I
do frequently indulge in stuff that other folks claim
causes them to gain weight just by looking at it, I also
enjoy many healthy foods. And I no longer "eat big" like
I did in my youth. I think a lot of people can eat whatever
they like, in reasonable portions. But I also maintain an
active lifestyle (including work that involves much physical
labour,) avoid lolling in soft furniture, and limit my snacking.

Setting aside/programming/scheduling an hour a day in which
to lose weight & waist is as ridiculous as doing the same
in order to interface with one's children before getting
some shuteye and going back to the dehumanizing cubicle job.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

vernon wrote:
"wizzywiz" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how
much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by
monitoring my heart rate?

Thanks....

And what makes you think that asking in a range of unrelated forums will
result in a consensus?


Which forum is unrelated to whether aerobic exercise on a bike,
stationary bike, or running, are equally effective to lose weight?

Why do you think that people who frequent some or all of these forums
would be unable to reach a consensus?

Why do you think that individual discussion forums are like clubs whose
members don't want to associate with other forums, even if the issue is
specifically contrasts the topics of the different forums?

Why do you think Google allows posting in up to five forums?

Why am I asking these questions?

How many Google posters does it take to change a light bulb?

In article . com,
"wizzywiz" writes:

You're assuming that people can just eat less. For most people who are
overweight, that is not the case.

Sure it is. There really /is/ hope.

It's a cop-out to rationalize you're
some kind of hopelessly genetically-
predilected eating machine. I know a
number of diabetic folks who've not only
reduced their intake of "bad" foods and
lost weight in the process, but have derived
additional fitness benefits in doing so.
Some of 'em might even be able to kick
/my/ ass around the block, and celebrate
their accomplishment with a reasonably
sized slab of cherry pie a la mode
(sugarless ice [cream/milk/soy/rice].)


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On 2006-12-11, wizzywiz wrote:

vernon wrote:
"wizzywiz" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how
much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by
monitoring my heart rate?

Thanks....

And what makes you think that asking in a range of unrelated forums will
result in a consensus?


Which forum is unrelated to whether aerobic exercise on a bike,
stationary bike, or running, are equally effective to lose weight?

That wasn't the question you asked.

To answer your question in this context -- no, you can't just compare heart
rates for different exercises and conclude that the higher one is burning more
calories.

Running will usually burn more calories per unit time, but you need to weigh
that against injury risks -- 20 minutes running probably carries more injury
risk than 2hrs cycling.

A suggestion: just choose whichever one you like doing. Either will enable you to
lose weight if you stick with it. But if it's not fun, you probably won't stick
with it.

[snip]
Why do you think Google allows posting in up to five forums?

They cater to idiots.

Why am I asking these questions?

Hmmmmmm ...

How many Google posters does it take to change a light bulb?

Only one, because a single google poster can post "how do I change a light bulb" to
100 different forums.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On 2006-12-10, Beginning runner wrote:
In article .com,
"wizzywiz" wrote:

Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how
much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning
by monitoring my heart rate?

Fat burning and calorie burning are not the same thing. The fat burning
zone is 60 to 70 percent of maximum heart rate. That's where the
greatest percentage of calories burned comes from burning fat.

However, if you're exercising in a higher zone, you'll burn more
calories per minute, and even if the fat-burning calories are a lower
percentage of the total, the number of calories burned from fat may be
higher.

just in case anyone's wondering -- shoot for maximising total calories, not
percentage or absolute # of fat calories.

So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that too much of
it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good area for most
beginners who are trying to lose weight.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On 2006-12-10, joke wrote:

"wizzywiz" schreef in bericht
oups.com...
Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how
much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by
monitoring my heart rate?

Thanks....


Intensity and calory burning go together like horse and carriage. The lower
the intensity of your activity, the higher the amount of fat that is used as
a source of energy.

Right, in fact when you're sleeping, you are getting nearly all your energy from
fat. Want to burn "fat calories" ? Go watch TV.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

"wizzywiz" wrote in message
ups.com...

Steve Freides wrote:
"David Martin" wrote in message
oups.com...

Steve Freides wrote:
"wizzywiz" wrote in message
oups.com...
Sorry, I wasn't very clear.

My goal is maximum weight loss in an hour of exercise per day. I
really
want to know how many calories I burn if I do that hour on my
bike,
on
my statinary bike, or running. I've seen lots of different
numbers,
so
I am just wondering if I can assume that 1 hour at 135 beats/min
burns
the same number of calories regardless of which activity I'm
doing.

Thanks very much for any advice.

I will restate a point I made earlier. If weight loss is your
goal,
focus on eating better, cleaner, and most of all, less - eat less
food,
and figure out how to eat wholesome, healthy food that leaves you
satisfied without requiring you consume more of it than you need.

The gym I go to is full of people who spend countless hours there,
some
of them 3 hours or more every day, and they are overwhelming
overweight.
Exercising to lose weight is not a sound strategy by itself, nor
is
it a
sound primary plan of attack. You need to clean up your eating
first
and foremost. Try exercising for 20 minutes instead of one hour,
and
eating fewer calories for the remainder. The usual guideline for
slow
weight loss is eating 250-500 calories per day fewer than you need
to
maintain your current bodyweight. You can achieve that 250-500
calorie
deficit through diet, exercise, or both, and it's my opinion that
people
who do both tend to have the most success. It will not take you
an
hour
to burn off 250 calories, and you don't need to exercise for an
hour
a
day. If you insist on spending that much time exercising, then
mix
it
up between aerobic activities like cycling and lifting weights -
the
older you are, the more important some sort of resistance training
is
to
achieving and maintaining a good body composition.

Interesting hypothesis.. Though the experts would suggest that
exercise
is more successful in reducing harmful fat.

Reistance training isn't exercise?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6220596.stm

Exercise is necessary for health; minding what you eat is necessary
for
weight loss; weight loss is the first, most important thing for
people
who are significantly overweight. Body composition, reducing
visceral
fat, etc. - those are relatively minor points when we're talking
about
the average American. Let them exercise 20 minutes a day, or even 20
minutes every other day, and eat less. That will help them get rid
of
those 10, 20, 30 or more extra pounds they're carrying around, at
which
they'll be ready to discuss the relatively finer points of this
subject
like adding muscle mass, improving endurance, and reducing visceral
fat.

That article, by the way, states nothing that hasn't been common
knowledge 10 years or more.

Just to put my point of view into some perspective, I am an avid
exerciser. I'll spare you the details but you can read them on my
web
site if you wish. And when it's time for me to lose weight, I keep
right on exercising, I cut down on the food I eat, and I try to keep
the
best parts of my diet while eliminating the junk. That's just what
one
has to do. The people who can "eat whatever they like and never gain
weight" are few and far between, and many of them are blessed with
the
right genes. What works for sedentary, overweight people is the
addition of some exercise but a main focus on diet.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


..d



You're assuming that people can just eat less. For most people who are
overweight, that is not the case.

Honest to goodness, listen to yourself! People die from lack of food
all over the world every day. Think of that, and think of the millions
of children going to bed hungry and malnourished the next time you find
yourself saying you just can't resist having one more piece of cake.
Then go figure out a strategy for yourself that you can live with.
Atkins, South Beach, Weight Watchers, and a million other approaches are
out there for you to try - pick one and stick with it. The one I use is
here - http://www.kbnj.com/wd.htm and it's called the Warrior Diet.

The number of people who can exercise themselves out of obesity is quite
small and they can thank their parents for their good genes. For most
it simply doesn't work. I am sorry to be blunt but if you are not
willing to deal somehow with the need to take in less food or at the
very least, much different kinds of food, your efforts to lose weight
are doomed to failure, regardless of the method you choose for passing
your hour a day in exercise.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:40:51 +0000 (UTC), Elflord wrote:

On 2006-12-10, Beginning runner wrote:
In article .com,
"wizzywiz" wrote:

Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how
much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning
by monitoring my heart rate?

Fat burning and calorie burning are not the same thing. The fat burning
zone is 60 to 70 percent of maximum heart rate. That's where the
greatest percentage of calories burned comes from burning fat.

However, if you're exercising in a higher zone, you'll burn more
calories per minute, and even if the fat-burning calories are a lower
percentage of the total, the number of calories burned from fat may be
higher.

just in case anyone's wondering -- shoot for maximising total calories, not
percentage or absolute # of fat calories.

So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that too much of
it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good area for most
beginners who are trying to lose weight.

It is kind of a difficult question to answer strictly as the OP proposed it
(maintaining constant 135bpm).

I can ride a road bike at about 85% HRmax for an hour per day and easily do
that 7 days per week. (That's still not enough to cause weight loss past
the first few months.)

Running I can only do 4 days per week due to need to recover, even if I'm
staying at a similar perceived effort as road biking, and it's not just do
to the pounding - it seems to take more out of me systemically. Despite
less time on the road, weight loss seems to be steady.

Stationary biking is the worst for fitness improvement or weight loss, in
my experience. I can ride the trainer at over 85% HRmax for an hour and
still not be breathing as hard as when I'm road riding. It's a bit
puzzling, because some people say that 'every mile on the trainer is equal
to two miles on the road'. (due to constant pedaling vs freewheeling).

In article ,
"Steve Freides" writes:

The number of people who can exercise themselves out of obesity is quite
small and they can thank their parents for their good genes.

No.

Diet & exercise go hand-in-hand.

An overweight person can't just starve him/herself out of
overweightness. All they'd get out of that is malnutrition,
or at least a bunch of folded skin on a bone-rack body.

it simply doesn't work. I am sorry to be blunt but if you are not
willing to deal somehow with the need to take in less food or at the
very least, much different kinds of food, your efforts to lose weight
are doomed to failure, regardless of the method you choose for passing
your hour a day in exercise.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but the human body needs to /work/
in order to regenerate. To be sure, that work needs its
proper fuel, but you might be surpised how little fuel
it takes.

But hey -- I guess just sitting in a Laz-E-Boy and starving to
death is easier and more appealing to the sedentary folks, than
actually getting up and doing something more than leaving a film
of sweat on the seat of some go-nowhere gym exercise equipment.

I recommend building a rockery garden, for starters.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

"wizzywiz" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how
much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by
monitoring my heart rate?

Thanks....

No, fat is only burned during endurance exercises like long swims, cycles,
jogs. Increase intensity and time to get in better shape. Be gradual and
consistent. Heart rate shows you your progress. 3/4 of your max heart
rate, after a 30 minute warm-up to prevent injuries, for 5 minutes will
improve your heart and lungs for a start. The more you feel comfortable
with the better.
Take HR before exercise and after for 10 seconds on the wrist or where ever
you do it. Target charts for HR after exercise can tell you if you are
below average, gaining, or maintaining your fitness. Find them in any
fitness book. Now here is the most important part. Fitness is also
measured by how fast your body recovers from your workout. Means you are
getting stronger if your heartrate is decreasing after doing the workout
regularly for a week or two weeks. Then you can increase work load. Reps
and/or length of time, or intesity (speed and up hill grades)
No need for special equipment unless you compete.

As an aside calorie burning is more efficient in fitter people with lower
HR. The lungs work at greater capacity as does the heart in churning the O2
around to you muscles. You could walk a mile or jog a mile and you would
burn the same amount. It is physics. Another person being heavier will
have carried extra weight and worked harder, then burned more calories, and
have a higher HR but that is because they are not fit. If they get in shape
you can tell because the same amount of workout will have them pumping more
efficiently and so less reps of the heart.
As you get fitter the calories burned goes up because you are doing more
work but it is easier to do so the HR is lower.
I think that about answers it. Counting calories is really not the way to
go. Muscles weigh more so weight is not the one measurement either that
proves you are more fit. Different for everyone and changes over time in
short term and long term. Older people have a slower metabolism but it can
be increased with regular exercise. That is a good thing because healing
takes place faster with a higher metabolism.

References on this advice can be drawn from any Physical Education or
Kinesiology section of the library. It is all there in black and white and
read.

Don't forget to make the workout fun so will continue the pursuit of well
being.

Take care of each other.