You are reading a single comment by @hippy and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@hippy
So if the guy concerned is as unfit/overweight as he says, I think he's more likely to burn more fat by exercising at 60% than 80% because he'll just be plain knackered and stop quickly, which is more what I was getting at originally.
If you look at the table on http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardioworkouts/l/aa022601a.htm (the source they got it from seems reasonable) there's only a 10% difference in the number of fat calories burned, but he's more likely to maintain 30min at 60% than 30min at 80%, and consequently burn more fat overall at 60%. So, I think in this case considering everything, I am not as wrong as you make out.
And also, why does every piece of CV equipment in my uni gym have a table with the headings age, then target heart rate for fat burn and cardio, if it's as flat-out wrong as you suggest? I think it applies for most people who are interested in loosing excess body fat.[/quote]
Above the table you linked to is this comment: "The body does burn a higher percentage of calories from fat in the 'fat burning zone' or at lower intensities. But, at higher intensities, you burn a greater number of overall calories which is what you should be concerned about when trying to lose weight." which is exactly what I said.
The reason gyms have tables with Fat Burning Zones is because they do what the public want and make it all nice and easy to burn fat, laadeedah, here you go sir just plod along in this zone and you will be burning more fat..
They don't bother explaining that burning more calories overall at 80% HRmax is better because the public 1) don't want it any harder and 2) this fat burning zone thing is a fairly well published mistake.
I thought the same thing a few years ago but I've read enough physiology/training books to know better now and when I spot a chance to dispel the myths I do it.
If the guy (I wish he had a shorter name so I'd actually type it!) was previously a cyclist then he should be able to start off with a week or two of easy 60% stuff and then he should look at whacking in some 80% efforts and see how they go. It will get results quicker (if it doesn't kill him ;)).