Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › Heart Rate vs. Weight Loss
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Heart Rate vs. Weight Loss

post #1 of 39
5/28/09 at 3:03am
Thread Starter 
I'm trying to lose the extra weight I put on during exam period last month. Someone has just attempted to convince me that my cardio routine is ineffective re: weight loss. I generally do 30-45 minutes of cardio per day (Precor), with a heart rate of around 160-170. I was informed that in fact, for weight loss purposes, a heart rate of 130-140 is preferable. This makes no sense to me, as I intuitively assume I burn more calories with a higher heart rate. Does low intensity cardio actually result in shedding fat more effectively than higher intensity cardio?
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 39
5/28/09 at 3:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD_May View Post
I'm trying to lose the extra weight I put on during exam period last month. Someone has just attempted to convince me that my cardio routine is ineffective re: weight loss. I generally do 30-45 minutes of cardio per day (Precor), with a heart rate of around 160-170. I was informed that in fact, for weight loss purposes, a heart rate of 130-140 is preferable. This makes no sense to me, as I intuitively assume I burn more calories with a higher heart rate. Does low intensity cardio actually result in shedding fat more effectively than higher intensity cardio?
No. If you want to lose weight, eat less. Your 45 mins of cardio won't make that much of a difference.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 39
5/28/09 at 3:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD_May View Post
I generally do 30-45 minutes of cardio per day (Precor), with a heart rate of around 160-170.

wow, keeping my heart rate at that level for 30-45 minutes straight would probably kill me.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 39
5/28/09 at 3:10am
arggg to over-thinking.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 39
5/28/09 at 3:20am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbaquiran View Post
If you want to lose weight, eat less. Your 45 mins of cardio won't make that much of a difference.
Okay, now I actually mentioned my diet not at all, so it seems odd to assume that I'm not eating properly. I maintain a very low carb diet that's high in protein. I also have a light weight training regimen, but I didn't mention that either because it has nothing to do with the question. The question is whether I'm wasting effort on a higher intensity workout that's actually counterproductive. The other option would be to alternate between a resting heart rate and a high heart rate; ie upping the resistance to boost heart rate to 170 and then resting for a bit to drop it back down, and repeating for 30-45 mins.
Quote:
arggg to over-thinking.
I wasn't really thinking at all to begin with, I just figured higher heart rate = better. Someone tells me I am misinformed. So I ask this question of the almighty internet. Straight answer? Anyone? It's like pulling teeth...
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 39
5/28/09 at 3:47am
You know this forum, we like pulling teeth.

bb is right. The difference is negligible between cardio at a 130 HR and a 170 HR. You will develop better lung capacity etc at higher HR, but calories expended will be similar. What is of concern is the amount you eat. Whether you mention it or not caloric intake is the main concern.

Some people have trouble containing themselves after high intensity cardio, they feel they have to eat a shit-ton to compensate. Others feel like they can't eat at all because they'll vomit. Different things for different people. Low-intensity cardio removes the feeling that you need to overeat, the feeling of crashing.

There is evidence both ways in regards to cardio and HR, but if you want to lose weight enjoy a caloric deficit and continue cardio.

You have just pulled my teeth.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 39
5/28/09 at 3:50am
Also, your diet being 'very low carb' is a bad idea IMO. Balance is better. If you like carbs eat them.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 39
5/28/09 at 4:00am
Thread Starter 
^Sure about that? The most weight I ever lost was when I spent a year not eating any starches whatsoever and basically no carbs. Just protein and veggies. I then fell off the wagon. I don't know if I could manage to get back to that level, but I eat as few as I can manage. There's a lot of salads and beef.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 39
5/28/09 at 5:32am
How did they verify that their idea is right and yours is wrong, seeing as theirs appears counterintuitive? And even if they are right... we talking a 0.5% increase?
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 39
5/28/09 at 6:58am
I'm not sure which of the school of thoughts is right, be it the school that thinks your heart rate should be a certain percentage of maximum or the school that equates energie (not especially fat) burning with oxygen expenditure. But the first school of thought which you are referring to thinks you should have a heart rate of about 60-70% of your maximum for a maximum amount of fat burning per calorie. (I don't know the statistics, so perhaps you could burn more fat when excercising at a higher heart rate while the percentage of fatcalories vs al calories burned lessens) Roughly this is calculated by deducting your age from 220 a minute. You could also do a stress test which would probably involve going to the max several times (5-7?) and seems to me rather tiring. So it roughly depends on your age. 140 seems about right for a 20 year old.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 39
5/28/09 at 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD_May View Post
^Sure about that? The most weight I ever lost was when I spent a year not eating any starches whatsoever and basically no carbs. Just protein and veggies. I then fell off the wagon. I don't know if I could manage to get back to that level, but I eat as few as I can manage. There's a lot of salads and beef.

Most veggies are 50% or more carbohydrates, so if you were eating 'protein and veggies' you were getting plenty of carbs. The problem is that a lot of people don't understand the difference between good carbs (ie veggies) and bad carbs (bread, pasta, white rice etc). My greatest success in weight loss was completely eliminating the bad carbs (100% - no breads or pastas, whole wheat or not) and focusing entirely on the good.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 39
5/28/09 at 12:12pm
This is what I've read from my weight training book. I don't have it on me now so can't find the references but in any case I'll try and paraphrase.

The "fat burning zone" (60-70% of your max heart rate) burns more energy stored in fat cells. The high intensity cardio zone you've been doing uses energy in your blood stream from sugars and so forth more. The latter uses up more calories in total, being that excess sugars will be stored as fat anyway the latter will always lead to more weight loss. Total calories burned is more important than where the calories are taken from.

I also commend you for the sheer balls to go that long at that heart rate. I can do ten minutes at 185.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 39
5/28/09 at 2:50pm
My rested heart rate is above 90. I am a ticking time bomb
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 39
5/28/09 at 3:49pm
Your diet is the MOST important part in your weight loss regimen. If you eat right, you will lose weight even if you exercise lightly. You need a balanced diet. Don't do any of the low-carb or low-fat fad diets.

What's even more important is the type of food you eat. Good carbs (brown rice, whole wheat bread, veggies, fruits) vs. bad carbs (white rice, white bread, soda, cake). Good fats (olive oil, flax oil, fish oil, nuts) vs bad fats (trans fat, fried food, animal fat). Do research on these and stay away from the bad ones.

As for working out, experts have said high-intensity interval training (HIIT) is more effective than long sessions of lower-intensity cardio. I don't know your age but 170 heart rate is considered high-intensity. You said you can maintain 160-170 for 45 minutes, which is pretty incredible. I guess you can go even higher (with rest in between, of course). It's not good to overwork your heart. You can try weight lifting. Deadlift, squat and other exercises can get your heart to 80% very fast. You can try sprinting as well.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 39
5/28/09 at 4:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyquik View Post
My rested heart rate is above 90. I am a ticking time bomb

You kid yes?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › Heart Rate vs. Weight Loss