Fat burning vs Cardio

I'm still keeping with my new lifestyle resolution of going to the gym 3-4
times per week...

My aim at current is to lose weight, I'm watching my food, calories, etc and
have been going to the gym as I've said usually 4 times per week. I do a
mixture of exercises on all the cardio vascular machines - no weight
lifting/body building at all.

On all nearly all the machines there are the fat burn, and cardio heart-rate
zones listed as averages according to your age. As I tend to think 'no pain,
no gain', I do go at these workouts as intensely as I can. It's now become
apparent my weight loss is minimal if at all for the past month - which is a
knock when I think how hard I'm working to try and shed the flab!

So, the question is...

Should I only be getting my heart-rate in to the fat-burning zone to get rid
of my excess fat stores, or does the higher rate of cardio provide the same,
or supposedly improved fat burning?

I've seen all sorts of mixed opinions of what should be done, can anyone
please give me an answer as to what would be best?

Thanks.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:00:21 GMT, "Kontaminator"
wrote:

I'm still keeping with my new lifestyle resolution of going to the gym 3-4
times per week...

My aim at current is to lose weight, I'm watching my food, calories, etc and
have been going to the gym as I've said usually 4 times per week. I do a
mixture of exercises on all the cardio vascular machines - no weight
lifting/body building at all.
eat less.
....thehick

Kontaminator wrote:
Should I only be getting my heart-rate in to the fat-burning
zone to get rid of my excess fat stores, or does the higher
rate of cardio provide the same, or supposedly improved fat
burning?

The latter, assuming you can exercise for the same amount of
time in both cases.

What the term "fat-burning zone" means -- or should mean, if
it were explained correctly -- is that you __can__ lose fat
even if you exercise at a lower intensity, contrary to the
"no pain, no gain" mantra.

But that does __not__ mean that you will not burn fat at
higher intensities.

It does also mean that the __percentage__ of fat burned per
calorie is higher. But in fact, the __total__ fat burned
per unit time continues to increase throughout the aerobic
range.

Think of it this way .... Which is better: 80% of $100,000
or 20% of $1,000,000?

On the other hand, for the purposes of losing fat, what really
matters is the number of __calories__ burned, not so much the
exercise intensity. (Actually, what matters is the "calorie
deficit", which also takes consumed calories into account.)

So, it might be better to exercise for 30 min at a lower
intensity than to exercise for 10 min at a very high intensity.

I am speaking hypothetically. It depends on how many calories
you burn in each case. And unfortunately, that cannot be
measured accurately. Also, I reiterate: I am only speaking
from the perspective of fat loss.

There are significant holistic benefits when exercising at
higher intensities. These benefits contribute to warding off
the same lifestyle-related problems that reducing fat helps
to ward off.

Generally speaking, the best exercise program includes a mix
of medium and high intensity training. Opinions will vary
about whether the mix "must be" in the same or alternating
exercise sessions.

I've seen all sorts of mixed opinions of what should be done,

And that is probably all you will get here.

Part of the problem is: some people exaggerate one facet or
the other in order to compensate for exaggerations in the
other direction.

And part of the problem is: much of the claimed "knowledge"
about the effects of exercise and diet is based on
__interpretations__ of microbiological processes and
"macroscopic" statistical data, at best. (Then there are
the "quacks".)

The interpretations may or may not be right.

Think of it this way: can the laws of quantum (atomic)
physics explain the behavior of the universe? (No.)
Conversely, can the laws of physics that govern the
universe explain the behavior at the atomic level? (No.)

Or think of it this way: When paleontologists render a
picture of a new prehistoric species based on the finding
of a single jaw and some artifacts, how "scientific" is
that really?

It does not make any of those opinions necessarily wrong
(or right). But that is why there is no single
dispositive answer yet, and why the answers are ever-changing.

Kontaminator wrote:
On all nearly all the machines there are the fat burn,
and cardio heart-rate zones listed as averages according
to your age.

All MHR estimates based on a formula are just that:
estimates. Perhaps those estimates are low for you.

As I tend to think 'no pain, no gain', I do go at these
workouts as intensely as I can.

Based on what: those THR estimates, or "perceived exertion"
-- that is, how you feel during and after exercise?

I favor objectives measures of THR based on (real) MHR.
But in the absence of knowing your real MHR (based on
submaximal or maximal tests that measure VO2), I favor
estimating your MHR by empirical experiments based on
"perceived exertion".

It's now become apparent my weight loss is minimal
if at all for the past month - which is a knock when
I think how hard I'm working to try and shed the flab!

First, your goal should be fat loss, not weight loss.
Theoretically, you could build so much muscle that you
actually gain weight, even though you are losing fat.

Second, the weight (fat) loss might be "minimal" because
you are compensating for the heavy exercise by consuming
more calories.

Third, if you are losing fat at the "correct" rate, you
might not notice the results in just one month's time.
Conversely, quick results might not represent fat loss.

Conventional wisdom suggests a loss of 1 pound of fat per
week. That is "only" 4 pounds of fat per month. Reduce
that by even modest gain in muscle mass, and yes, your
"weight loss" might indeed be "minimal" after just one
month.

Finally, we cannot control where we lose fat. (Although
"toning" specific muscles can give that appearance.)
So you might not lost the "flab" as quickly as you want,
but you might be losing fat.

I do a mixture of exercises on all the cardio vascular
machines - no weight lifting/body building at all.

Some resistance training of the muscles that you exercise
might help. More exercised muscle burns more (fat) calories.

I agree...weight should be incorporated in your workouts. Building
muscle longterm will actually burn more calories even when your not
working out. The cardio part has been covered already...I keep my heart
rate at 130BPM and this burns alot of fat for me. However a strict diet
will burn the most fat of all.

Tony Kehl
Developing Fitness Programs for Individuals

www.simplefitness.biz

Hello,

To lose your weight you need your metabolism to be elevated this will burn
the excess calories. The easiest way to do this is with strength training
(the more functional muscle on the body the higher the metabolism). I see
that you are not strength training at all, you will really have to start if
you want to results in your weight loss endeavors. All you need to do is one
high intensity strength training session a week and no more (the body
requires a complete week of rest after these sessions and any more than
three or more strength training sessions a week don't work).

Add to this fasting walk every day for one hour per day (low level activity
attacks fat cells exclusively). Work out your daily calorie intake via a
weekly eating plan then subtract 500calories per day and no more, (any more
and the body is thrown into starvation mode and hangs onto fat and sheds
precious muscle they down go's the metabolism again). Stick to this plan
with no splurges for a month and you will lose between four and five pounds,
safely and easily without hunger pangs and goodbye plateaus.
http://www.maximumfitness.com/news.php

Kontaminator wrote in message
...
I'm still keeping with my new lifestyle resolution of going to the gym 3-4
times per week...

My aim at current is to lose weight, I'm watching my food, calories, etc
and
have been going to the gym as I've said usually 4 times per week. I do a
mixture of exercises on all the cardio vascular machines - no weight
lifting/body building at all.

On all nearly all the machines there are the fat burn, and cardio
heart-rate
zones listed as averages according to your age. As I tend to think 'no
pain,
no gain', I do go at these workouts as intensely as I can. It's now become
apparent my weight loss is minimal if at all for the past month - which is
a
knock when I think how hard I'm working to try and shed the flab!

So, the question is...

Should I only be getting my heart-rate in to the fat-burning zone to get
rid
of my excess fat stores, or does the higher rate of cardio provide the
same,
or supposedly improved fat burning?

I've seen all sorts of mixed opinions of what should be done, can anyone
please give me an answer as to what would be best?

Thanks.

Hello,

To lose your weight you need your metabolism to be elevated this will burn
the excess calories. The easiest way to do this is with strength training
(the more functional muscle on the body the higher the metabolism). I see
that you are not strength training at all, you will really have to start if
you want to results in your weight loss endeavors. All you need to do is one
high intensity strength training session a week and no more (the body
requires a complete week of rest after these sessions and any more than
three or more strength training sessions a week don't work).

Add to this fasting walk every day for one hour per day (low level activity
attacks fat cells exclusively). Work out your daily calorie intake via a
weekly eating plan then subtract 500calories per day and no more, (any more
and the body is thrown into starvation mode and hangs onto fat and sheds
precious muscle they down go's the metabolism again). Stick to this plan
with for a month and you will lose between four and five pounds, safely and
easily without hunger pangs.
http://www.maximumfitness.com/news.php

Kontaminator wrote in message
...
I'm still keeping with my new lifestyle resolution of going to the gym 3-4
times per week...

My aim at current is to lose weight, I'm watching my food, calories, etc
and
have been going to the gym as I've said usually 4 times per week. I do a
mixture of exercises on all the cardio vascular machines - no weight
lifting/body building at all.

On all nearly all the machines there are the fat burn, and cardio
heart-rate
zones listed as averages according to your age. As I tend to think 'no
pain,
no gain', I do go at these workouts as intensely as I can. It's now become
apparent my weight loss is minimal if at all for the past month - which is
a
knock when I think how hard I'm working to try and shed the flab!

So, the question is...

Should I only be getting my heart-rate in to the fat-burning zone to get
rid
of my excess fat stores, or does the higher rate of cardio provide the
same,
or supposedly improved fat burning?

I've seen all sorts of mixed opinions of what should be done, can anyone
please give me an answer as to what would be best?

Thanks.

To lose your weight you need your metabolism to be elevated this will burn
the excess calories.

You need to eat less calories than you expend. This can be done by
eating less or exercising more. Unfortunately you will have to do a
shedload of exercise to make a difference. Cardio is mainly for health
not for weight loss.

The easiest way to do this is with strength training
(the more functional muscle on the body the higher the metabolism). I see
that you are not strength training at all, you will really have to start if
you want to results in your weight loss endeavors.

An option not a necessity.

All you need to do is one
high intensity strength training session a week and no more (the body
requires a complete week of rest after these sessions and any more than
three or more strength training sessions a week don't work).

Ok which is it
1 session with a weeks rest
maximum of 3 sessions per week
maximum of more than three sessions per week?

I usually hear that three sessions a week with a day off between them
is optimal.

Add to this fasting walk every day for one hour per day (low level activity
attacks fat cells exclusively).

this is rubbish. Walking is a great way to start cardio, but it
doesn't do anything 'exclusively'.

Work out your daily calorie intake via a
weekly eating plan then subtract 500calories per day and no more, (any more
and the body is thrown into starvation mode and hangs onto fat and sheds
precious muscle they down go's the metabolism again).

Almost every commercial diet recommends between 500-1000 calories (1-2
pounds/week loss) deficit. What do you know that they don't?

Ray

--
2002 1.8i eternal red

Should I only be getting my heart-rate in to the fat-burning zone to get rid
of my excess fat stores, or does the higher rate of cardio provide the same,
or supposedly improved fat burning?

You need to control your calorie intake first, that is by far the most
important variable. Eat lots of protein.

Cardio is really good for health and it helps weight loss a bit. If
you like to do high intensity work then keep it up. The best exercise
you can do is exercise you DO do.

Weightlifting consumes loads of calories. If you can add some to your
routine it might help. Always do weights before cardio.

Ray

--
2002 1.8i eternal red

"Gary Matthews" wrote in message
...
Hello,

To lose your weight you need your metabolism to be elevated this will
burn
the excess calories.

No you don't.

The easiest way to do this is with strength training
(the more functional muscle on the body the higher the metabolism). I see
that you are not strength training at all, you will really have to start
if
you want to results in your weight loss endeavors.

No the OP doesn't "have" to. It certainly would help, but it is not
required (as you say).

All you need to do is one
high intensity strength training session a week and no more

Once a week and no more? Why?

(the body
requires a complete week of rest after these sessions and any more than
three or more strength training sessions a week don't work).

Boy you're really showing your ignorance here.

Add to this fasting walk every day for one hour per day (low level
activity
attacks fat cells exclusively).

WTF? You MLM your training "knowledge" but boy are you ignorant. For your
sake I hope you're more successful with your "affiliate" program then you
are giving good advice.

Work out your daily calorie intake via a
weekly eating plan then subtract 500calories per day and no more, (any
more
and the body is thrown into starvation mode and hangs onto fat and sheds
precious muscle they down go's the metabolism again).

Here you're taking a guideline and trying to turn it into gospel.

Stick to this plan
with no splurges for a month and you will lose between four and five
pounds,
safely and easily without hunger pangs and goodbye plateaus.
http://www.Know_Nothing_"trainers"_Spamming_Site.com

Gary's motto: "Bad advice is better than no advice at all!"