Someone tell me what this is about? I've seen it on machines all the time, and never really thought about it till now. How the heck does doing a cardio exercise at only 65% burn off more fat than doing it at 85% or more? It doesn't make sense. In order for you to turn the treadmill, or spin the elliptical machine, or climb the stairclimber, it requires a certain amount of energy to make it go one rotation. So the more rotations you do, the more calories you should burn. Whether you are doing it at a slow speed, or if you're doing it fast. So why do charts on these exercise machines still print this? Is there any truth to it?
IIRC, it's for beginners to get their basic fitness level up so they'll burn more calories AFTER the actual workout.
Yes, you do burn more calories in the higher zone, but those are mainly carbs. When you're in the fat burn zone, your burning more calories from your fat reserves.
You burn calories at a higher rate at 85%, but you don't burn more calories because you tire too quickly and stop exercising. If you start out sprinting, you never get anywhere near completing the marathon.
I just crank the damn machine up to it's highest setting and make myself stay at it for an hour or so. And by machine, I mean stationary bike or elliptical machine. Fucking hate treadmills.
I work out at a heart rate of about 160-170 for 45-50 minutes. The "fat burning" zone is supposed to be at about 135. Also - IIRC, Frijol is wrong. But then there's lots of shit about aerob and anaerob stuff and god knows what that I just can't get myself to care about.
Yea, I have wondered about that too. Are you seriously burning more fat at a lower heart rate and lower exertion effort?
You don't start burning fat in earnest until you run down your glycogen reserves. If you tire out and stop exercising before that happens, not much fat gets burned. If you exercised for the same length of time, you'd burn much more fat at the higher level of exertion. You might also give yourself a heart attack.
