Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:220-your age is supposed to be your maximum heart rate during exercise.

NP so if I'm 48 and when I exercise my heart rate stays around 105-115 is that "good enough" to burn any fat?

You heart rate doesn't matter as far as metabolizing fat.

What matters is your carb intake. Eat excessive carbs, then your body uses carbs for fuel and your body reserves most of your fat deposits.

Eat less carbs to none, and you start using up that fat stored on you.

Heart rate doesn't matter. You could walk 10 miles at a slow pace or jog it at a fast pace, the calories used is the same.

I don’t want to be rude, but this is fundamentally wrong. Though it may sort of be accurate for an average person.

You don’t think pro tour cyclists are extremely efficient at oxidizing fat? Have you considered their heart rate profile? Those boys are taking in 120g / hour. That’s not matching their output and they are not bottom out their glycogen stores during a stage.

How about pro triathletes during full distance Ironman races? Those are the extremes. Even an average age cyclist is oxidizing fat if they ride their bike for 3+ hours, even with carb intake.

Well most posters here are not pro athletes, but slightly overweight middle aged women. So this theory is true but doesn’t matter too much, just be more active than a rock, and eat less will do.

Eating less is very hard for many people. For me, vigorous exercise suppresses my appetite. It also makes ultraprocessed and sugary foods unpalatable. And it improves my mental health.

And I think there is too much hype around low carb diets. It is extremely difficult to get enough fiber if you are also minimizing your carbs to the lowest amount possible. Fiber is really important. A bowl of oatmeal with apple and peanut butter in the morning is good for you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:220-your age is supposed to be your maximum heart rate during exercise.

NP so if I'm 48 and when I exercise my heart rate stays around 105-115 is that "good enough" to burn any fat?

You heart rate doesn't matter as far as metabolizing fat.

What matters is your carb intake. Eat excessive carbs, then your body uses carbs for fuel and your body reserves most of your fat deposits.

Eat less carbs to none, and you start using up that fat stored on you.

Heart rate doesn't matter. You could walk 10 miles at a slow pace or jog it at a fast pace, the calories used is the same.

I don’t want to be rude, but this is fundamentally wrong. Though it may sort of be accurate for an average person.

You don’t think pro tour cyclists are extremely efficient at oxidizing fat? Have you considered their heart rate profile? Those boys are taking in 120g / hour. That’s not matching their output and they are not bottom out their glycogen stores during a stage.

How about pro triathletes during full distance Ironman races? Those are the extremes. Even an average age cyclist is oxidizing fat if they ride their bike for 3+ hours, even with carb intake.

Well most posters here are not pro athletes, but slightly overweight middle aged women. So this theory is true but doesn’t matter too much, just be more active than a rock, and eat less will do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:220-your age is supposed to be your maximum heart rate during exercise.

NP so if I'm 48 and when I exercise my heart rate stays around 105-115 is that "good enough" to burn any fat?

You heart rate doesn't matter as far as metabolizing fat.

What matters is your carb intake. Eat excessive carbs, then your body uses carbs for fuel and your body reserves most of your fat deposits.

Eat less carbs to none, and you start using up that fat stored on you.

Heart rate doesn't matter. You could walk 10 miles at a slow pace or jog it at a fast pace, the calories used is the same.

I don’t want to be rude, but this is fundamentally wrong. Though it may sort of be accurate for an average person.

You don’t think pro tour cyclists are extremely efficient at oxidizing fat? Have you considered their heart rate profile? Those boys are taking in 120g / hour. That’s not matching their output and they are not bottom out their glycogen stores during a stage.

How about pro triathletes during full distance Ironman races? Those are the extremes. Even an average age cyclist is oxidizing fat if they ride their bike for 3+ hours, even with carb intake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:220-your age is supposed to be your maximum heart rate during exercise.

NP so if I'm 48 and when I exercise my heart rate stays around 105-115 is that "good enough" to burn any fat?

You heart rate doesn't matter as far as metabolizing fat.

What matters is your carb intake. Eat excessive carbs, then your body uses carbs for fuel and your body reserves most of your fat deposits.

Eat less carbs to none, and you start using up that fat stored on you.

Heart rate doesn't matter. You could walk 10 miles at a slow pace or jog it at a fast pace, the calories used is the same.

Anonymous wrote:If you can alter your metabolism so your body is burning more calories throughout the day while you're going about your business, that would be best of all.


How do you do this? ⬆️

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:220-your age is supposed to be your maximum heart rate during exercise.

NP so if I'm 48 and when I exercise my heart rate stays around 105-115 is that "good enough" to burn any fat?

Anonymous wrote:If you can alter your metabolism so your body is burning more calories throughout the day while you're going about your business, that would be best of all.


How do you do this? ⬆️

Anonymous wrote:None of the heart rate zones are all that relevant until you are training significantly. Just don’t worry about it. You aren’t doing 10+ hours of cardio a week, so it’s literally doing what is tolerable and what you enjoy. You’ll know when what you are doing is either too hard or not hard enough just using motivation as your guide. It would take way more than what you are doing for years to become more efficient at fat oxidation, so just don’t stress out about it.

This is all more about your intake anyways. That’s your answer. Not doing 30 minutes of running while not eating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how valid it is, but look into information on "Zone 2" training. It ends up being a little counterintuitive, but there is some thought that if you do a lot of comparatively easy Zone 2 training, it will improve your overall fitness and ability to burn fat more than if you spend a lot of time in Zones 3 and up.

Zone 2 training is good for increasing endurance, that's not OPs goal, she wants to lose weight.

Again - I don't want to pretend to know whether there is any validity behind the claims, but I've read folks who say it's good for weight loss because it improves your body's ability to burn stored fat for fuel during exercise.

That sounds like a lazy approach. You can burn 50 calories doing an hour of yoga (zone 1) or 350 calories running (zone 3). Coupled with a calorie deficit through food, which do you think will help you lose weight?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how valid it is, but look into information on "Zone 2" training. It ends up being a little counterintuitive, but there is some thought that if you do a lot of comparatively easy Zone 2 training, it will improve your overall fitness and ability to burn fat more than if you spend a lot of time in Zones 3 and up.

Zone 2 training is good for increasing endurance, that's not OPs goal, she wants to lose weight.

No zone will help you lose weight creating a calorie deficit through diet does that. Why do people make things so complicated?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how valid it is, but look into information on "Zone 2" training. It ends up being a little counterintuitive, but there is some thought that if you do a lot of comparatively easy Zone 2 training, it will improve your overall fitness and ability to burn fat more than if you spend a lot of time in Zones 3 and up.

Zone 2 training is good for increasing endurance, that's not OPs goal, she wants to lose weight.

Again - I don't want to pretend to know whether there is any validity behind the claims, but I've read folks who say it's good for weight loss because it improves your body's ability to burn stored fat for fuel during exercise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how valid it is, but look into information on "Zone 2" training. It ends up being a little counterintuitive, but there is some thought that if you do a lot of comparatively easy Zone 2 training, it will improve your overall fitness and ability to burn fat more than if you spend a lot of time in Zones 3 and up.

Zone 2 training is good for increasing endurance, that's not OPs goal, she wants to lose weight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how valid it is, but look into information on "Zone 2" training. It ends up being a little counterintuitive, but there is some thought that if you do a lot of comparatively easy Zone 2 training, it will improve your overall fitness and ability to burn fat more than if you spend a lot of time in Zones 3 and up.

Zone 2 training is good for increasing endurance, that's not OPs goal, she wants to lose weight.