It appears you have not yet Signed Up with our community. To Sign Up for free, please click here....



Exercise & Fitness Message Board
Post New Thread   Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-22-2005, 05:29 AM   #1
Senior Member
(female)
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: san antonio, TX
Posts: 189
sammy726 HB User
Cardio: Burning Fat or Carbs??

Hello everyone. I've been reading in some magazines that when you get your heart rate up to a certain level that your mainly burning carbs and not fat, but when you do cardio at a slower pace, you burn fat. Does anyone have any info on this and if it's true or not? I'm wondering if the best way to lose fat is to stay at a lower heart rate. I'm just having trouble believing this. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!

 
Old 12-22-2005, 05:41 AM   #2
Senior Veteran
(female)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 543
starsofglass HB User
Re: Cardio: Burning Fat or Carbs??

Ultimately, losing weight comes down to burning more than you eat. At a lower heart rate you will PROPORTIONALLY burn more fat, but higher intensity cardio will burn more calories. Go for higher intensity.

 
Sponsors Lightbulb
   
Old 12-22-2005, 05:56 AM   #3
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Bramton, Ontario
Posts: 553
pipermac HB User
Re: Cardio: Burning Fat or Carbs??

It is Somewhat true.......In Higher Intensity cardio the Percentage of Carb to Fat Burn is Higher for Carb. But When you exercise at a higher intensity you are burning More Total calories...so the Total amount of fat you burn will be higher.Think of it like this (These numbers are not accurate...it is just an example)
you exercise for 1 hour at low intensity and you Burn 500 Calories or which 70% come from Fat...so you burn 350 Calories of Fat. Or you Exercise for 1 hr at a High intensity and burn 800 Calories of which only 50% come from fat..so you burn a total of 400 Calories of fat. thus you have burned more calories of fat.

Ther is also another Benefit of this......Whe your body has no Carb available to get calories from it will go to fat to get them. Since in the High Intesity exercise you burned 250 more calories of carb...that means there are 250 Calories of Carb left in your body.......so Later on when your body is Burning calories from regular activity It will deplete its Carb Supply earlier and start burning more fat.

Please Keep in mind this is a very simplistic example and there is a lot more to it...but in very basic terms that is how it will work.

 
Old 12-22-2005, 08:39 AM   #4
Inactive
(male)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 69
Berner HB User
Re: Cardio: Burning Fat or Carbs??

I've been doing a lot of research on this topic recently, so I thought I'd share a couple points. I did this post primarily to assemble the information for myself, so excuse the verbosity. This is probably more information than the OP (or anyone else) would want, but here it is anyway. I welcome any additions or corrections.

First, it is true that at lower heart rates (60-70% max HR) you burn proportionately more fat than carbs. This is why a lot of exercise machines and exercise charts label the 60-70% HR zone the "fat loss" or "weight loss" zones. It can be less taxing on the body (knees, back, shins, etc.) than higher intensity workouts. Its probably also safer for someone who is very out of shape, because it allows them to build their cardiac and muscle endurance in gradual steps. In sum, low intesity cardio is a safe, traditional, time-proven method for weight loss.

However, starsofglass and pipermac are both correct that at higher intensities (70-85% max HR), although you will burn proportionately less fat, you may burn more net fat just because your energy needs are higher. Indeed, there are a lot of people today trying to dispel the "myth" (their word, not mine) that lower HR exercise is better for weight loss. In some respects I think this thinking is a big factor behind the increased popularity of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in recent years. And, there is quite a bit of science and practical experience supporting the theory that HIIT can be superior to traditional low HR cardio.

Just to confuse you further, lets take it another step. Your body has two fuel tanks available: carbs and fat. Carbs (glycogen) convert easily into available energy, so you can think of the carbs as the "high octane" fuel. On the other hand, burning fat for energy (lipolysis) is very inefficient, but the fat fuel tank is much larger than the carb fuel tank. Because of this, your body tries to use the fat fuel tank as much as possible in order to save the high-octane fuel (carbs) in case of need. So when your muscles are only moderately stressed (low HR), you body has the luxury of using more from the fat fuel tank. However, as your exercise intensity increases (high HR), energy can't be delivered from the fat fuel tank at a sufficient rate to keep up. So your body switches more and more to the carb fuel tank.

However, prolonged exercise at high HR has two "bad" effects (putting aside the question of your cardiac health). First, at some point you may be working so hard that you switch from aerobic to anaerobic exercise. The rule of thumb is 90% max HR, but this varies widely. Anaerobic means "without oxygen" and it simply indicates that you are using energy so quickly that your body doesn't have time to add oxygen to the fuel burning process. This isn't inherently dangerous in itself -- sprinters, weight lifters and other athletes that depend on short, quick bursts of power -- are generally working in the anaerobic zone. But, when glycogen (carbs) are burned without oxygen, it produces lactic acid, which builds up in the muscles and causes discomfort and fatigue. Thus, you can't sustain prolonged anaerobic activity.

Secondly, prolonged intense cardio will stimulate the release of cortisol into your body. Cortisol is a hormone that gives access to a third fuel tank - protein. Unfortunately, this fuel tank is actually your muscles themselves, and cortisol actually causes your own muscle tissue to be burned for energy (catabolization). Cortisol in the system (which is also triggered by stress) additionally promotes the formation of fat, especially around the midsection.

One last point: you can give your engine an overhaul. By training exclusively (or almost exclusively) at low heart rates, some researchers and trainers believe that you can increase the efficiency of the fat fuel system. Your carb fuel tank (glycogen) has limited supplies, maybe 70-100 minutes depending on the person and when they last ate and/or exercised. Once its used up, you've only got the fat fuel tank to rely on, so people who exercise/compete for long periods need to get better gas mileage out of their system (so to speak). Long-distance runners and bikers train their bodies to be more efficient in the fat burning process so that even at higher heart rates, they are still relying on their fat fuel tank for a larger portion of their energy needs. In order to accomplish this tune-up, some people advocate exercising exclusively at low heart rates (60-75%). A runner, for example, may find that this forces them to slow way, way, way down at first. But in the long run, the theory goes, that runner will train their body to burn fat more efficiently and thus use more of the fat fuel tank even at higher HRs. This results in better, faster performance -- and more fat burning. A full discussion of low HR training is beyond the scope of this post, but a Google search for Maffetone and/or Hadd (two of the leading advocates) will put you on the trail.

Of course, what this implies is that low HR cardio training can actually be the better way to burn more fat in the long run. Suffice it to say, the advocates of high intensity cardio hold fast to their contrary view.

Personally, I have tried both HIIT and low HR training and I don't know which is better. I've lost body fat with both. I do feel more "fit" having done six weeks of low HR training, but I also think that low HR training is much more time demanding (longer cardio sessions) than HIIT for equivalent gains. Since I am training for a marathon next year, I will probably stick with low HR training; increased endurance is now as important a goal for me as fat loss. Obviously, other people have different goals, etc. In any event, hopefully this illustrates that both high and low intensity cardio have benefits, and I don't know that one is better or worse than the other. In the end, I believe it depends on what you want to accomplish and what will motivate you to keep at it.

Last edited by Berner; 12-22-2005 at 08:44 AM.

 
Old 01-08-2006, 07:07 AM   #5
Newbie
(female)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1
TinyGirl HB User
Re: Cardio: Burning Fat or Carbs??

Sammy,
I am sorry I can't be of help with your questions, I am sort of in the same boat.
I did want to make a comment on Berner's post. Very nice post, good info. My goal is to make my legs thinner, get rid of fat, but not add any size in muscle. I guess low intesity cardio is best choice than.
Any comments are welcome.
Thank you.

Last edited by TinyGirl; 01-08-2006 at 07:09 AM.

 
Old 01-09-2006, 09:27 AM   #6
Inactive
(male)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 69
Berner HB User
Re: Cardio: Burning Fat or Carbs??

Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyGirl
Sammy,
I am sorry I can't be of help with your questions, I am sort of in the same boat.
I did want to make a comment on Berner's post. Very nice post, good info. My goal is to make my legs thinner, get rid of fat, but not add any size in muscle. I guess low intesity cardio is best choice than.
Any comments are welcome.
Thank you.
Thanks for your kind words TinyGirl ... I'm glad you found the information helpful.

I think you're on the right track thinking that low intesity cardio is a better choice for your fitness goal. While I personally didn't notice a significant different in my leg muscle mass between high and low intensity cardio, I have most often seen high intensity cardio recommended in combination with resistance programs designed to promote muscle growth. The theory is that the two types of training (HIIT and weights) are more complimentary. So if your goal is the opposite of muscle growth, then low intensity would seem to be a smart choice. You will get the fat burning effect either way.

 
Closed Thread

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Board Replies Last Post
Should I do cardio before breakfast, or eat breakfast sooner? bekkieboop89 Exercise & Fitness 15 01-05-2011 01:23 PM
Cardio after splurging on sugar didn't work uma_anne Diabetes 9 12-03-2008 07:05 PM
post-cardio nutrition brucen32 Exercise & Fitness 13 01-31-2006 02:18 PM
Cardio: Time vs Distance GetGhostNucca Exercise & Fitness 6 01-05-2006 01:58 PM
Pushing body too hard during cardio? SupraMan Exercise & Fitness 1 01-05-2006 09:51 AM




Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Join Our Newsletter

Stay healthy through tips curated by our health experts.

Whoops,

There was a problem adding your email Try again

Thank You

Your email has been added








TOP THANKED CONTRIBUTORS



diamond839 (17), janewhite1 (8), lenvegas (8), Titchou (4), tjlhb (4), JohnR41 (3), james079 (3), bdrunner79 (3), sam 23 (3), Bexiesbruv (3)

Site Wide Totals

teteri66 (1180), MSJayhawk (1006), Apollo123 (906), Titchou (852), janewhite1 (823), Gabriel (759), ladybud (755), midwest1 (669), sammy64 (668), BlueSkies14 (607)



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:51 PM.



Site owned and operated by HealthBoards.comô
Terms of Use © 1998-2014 HealthBoards.comô All rights reserved.
Do not copy or redistribute in any form!