Yesterday I completed a 2hr. base building ride at 60%-70% of my max heart rate. I burned 1000 calories. During the off season I’d like to loose 5-10 pounds to help my performance for my 07’ Triathlons and Cat5 races.
So here is my question: If I burned 1000 calories and I’m in a low fat burn zone, does that mean the calories I eat that day don’t get burned? In other words, if I can eat 2000 calories per day without any weight gain and I eat 3000 on a day I do a 1000 calorie fat burn ride, do I gain weight because I was burning stored fat rather than glucose in my system?
I’m certainly not an expert so take this for what it’s worth. Don’t worry about the ‘fat burning’ zone when training. I think some folks here may say that zone doesn’t even exist (I don’t know if it exists or not). Also, if you eat 3,000 calories/day and burn 3,000 calories on the same day, you will not gain weight.
In short, the answer to your question is yes and no.
Yes, you gain weight. If you eat 3000 calories and you burn 1000 calories (plus your BMR - 1700 cals or so and any incidental activity that you do). Probably not much weight, but my guess is you won’t hit the 3000 with you exercise, BMR, incidental activity and the thermogenic effect of the food that you eat.
But,
No, you are not gaining weight because of the low intensity of your exercise (not directly anyhow). It is a little complicated. You could potentially burn more calories by increasing the intensity of your activity beyond the ‘fat burning zone’. However, by so doing you will increase the contribution of your CHO stores. This is important because your sense of hunger (esp. carbohydrate cravings) are very dependent on your blood sugar concentration and how depleted your CHO stores are at any given time. The body wants to replete these stores. Period. It doesn’t care so much about your fat stores. So, I would say, if weight loss is the goal, stick to the low HR zones but increase your daily expenditure or decrease your daily intake by 500 cals or so.
Do not believe those who say the fat burning zone is a “myth”. This view is one dimensional and doesn’t consider the hormonal implications of weight loss/gain.
Hope this helps.
Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science), Certified Nutritionist.
Do not believe those who say the fat burning zone is a “myth”. This view is one dimensional and doesn’t consider the hormonal implications of weight loss/gain.
I don’t think those that say “The fat zone is a myth” are suggesting you don’t burn more fat calories at one intensity level than another. I believe they are arguing the ideology that you will somehow lose fat/weight quicker by staying at a lower intensity. I’d say that is the myth.
Without much doubt the ratio of CHO to Fat burned changes according to intensity, time, availability etc etc. However in the end it really boils down to burning more calories than your eating. As you state you may have fewer cravings or better success going one way or another then maybe someone else may not.
Do not believe those who say the fat burning zone is a “myth”. This view is one dimensional and doesn’t consider the hormonal implications of weight loss/gain.
Hope this helps.
Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science), Certified Nutritionist.
You’re not burning adipose tissue per se. You’re burning the free fatty acids and glycerol that have been liberated from the triglyceride molecules within the adipose tissue.
Either way, the net effect is that the adipose tissue gets smaller.
“As you state you may have fewer cravings or better success going one way or another then maybe someone else may not.”
Based on personal experience with 100+ clients (ranging from obese clients to pro triathletes), I can say conclusively that those who exercised at relatively low intensities and watched the macronutrient composition of their food in addition to calories were more successful at losing weight and keeping it off long-term.
Don’t make this a priority if your goal is to shed 5 to 10 lbs. for the 2007 season; your training time would be much better spent on technique this early in the year. You’ll burn through the 5 to 10 lbs in no time later in the year (when it matters) if you’re training right. From what I’ve read, weight management is a huge waste of time during base training. Focus on the extra lbs a month or two before race day (the only time it will matter) if it is still a concern. Most people, myself included, avoid the scale this early in the season.
It’s what is called disinformation. A kernal of the truth is woven around a lies. Kind of like what the KGB used to be so good at. At a lower HR (say 50%max) you are expending a larger percentage of calories as fat than you would at 75% max…but If you run for a hour at each of those HR’s you’ll expend more **total **fat calories than you would at the lower intensity. Follow me?
If the myth were true you’d spend all day on your ass and burn more fat than if you worked out.
Good arguments all around. I take neither side but offer the “common wisdom” of Iron Distance Racing.
Most Ultra distance athletes agree that there is in fact a heart rate zone in which the body looks more to fat stores in search of fuel. This is best professionally measured but for us armatures it’s believed to be 70%-80% of your maximum heart rate. At HR’s above 80% you run the risk of “bonking” or running out of fuel.
In every Iron distance training article I’ve ever read, the importance of “training” your body to look to those fat stores (vs. muscle glycogen) is heavily emphasized. My question then is, if there is no “fat burning zone”, why do most coaches insist on LSD (long slow distance) workouts to affect this attribute?
Now… that said, if anyone has a method of doing a 70.3 or a 140.6 at 85%-95% MHR without bonking, please let me know.
You are ignoring the hormonal response of the body (namely the insulin-glucagon relationship) that determines hunger & satiety post-exercise.
Yes, you may burn 1500 calories with a 60min session at 90% v’s 800 calories in a base session but what happens following the exercise when your post-exercise cravings lead you to binge on a pint of ice cream?
Based on personal experience with 100+ clients (ranging from obese clients to pro triathletes), I can say conclusively that those who exercised at relatively low intensities and watched the macronutrient composition of their food in addition to calories were more successful at losing weight and keeping it off long-term.
I don’t dispute this whatsoever. However the above statement has very little to nothing to do with the “Fat burning” myth. In short what you say above is pretty straight forward and something we all already know as common knowledge, simply eat right and excercise and you’ll achieve and maintain a healthy weight.
You are ignoring the hormonal response of the body (namely the insulin-glucagon relationship) that determines hunger & satiety post-exercise.
Yes, you may burn 1500 calories with a 60min session at 90% v’s 800 calories in a base session but what happens following the exercise when your post-exercise cravings lead you to binge on a pint of ice cream?
Neither insulin nor glucagon play a significant role in determining hunger/satiety.
