Cardio question

[Susan53]

Has anyone heard of fat-burning and cardio as being different?

My husband goes to a gym and they have him doing fat-burning at a lower heart rate than cardio. There are monitors on the machines he uses and he just has to keep track of where the numbers are and keep them in a certain range that they told him.

I have never heard of this and always thought cardio and fat-burning were the same thing. He is looking good and is losing fat too!...the bum ;-) He says that to keep his heart at the fat-burning level he finds it tedious, because it is so slow for him.....he'd rather work harder.

Anyone else heard of this?

 

[kristina]

The concept is old, although the buzz terminology is news to me.
In my world, there's cardio, which just means you are working your cardiovascular system generally and getting your heart pumping. THen there is a specific sub-type of cardio, working in your "target heart rate zone" (ie fat burning).
The idea is that the body only breaks down fat during certain heart rate zones....if you work out too hard, you burn muscle and not fat. If you don't work out hard enough, nothing happens. I have found the same thing...working out in my proscribed fat buring heart rate zone (135-145) feels like nothing. But there's lots of studies that support this training method, and obviously it works for your hubby!

 

[Debra]

fuel

Here's a slightly different response. When you work lower in your "target zone" you are burning more fat for fuel than carbs. Your body stores carbs in muscles & the liver as glycogen. When you work higher in your "target zone" you are burning less fat & more carbohydrate (not muscle fiber).

The "right" way to exercise depends on ones goals & fitness level. If your husband is trying to lose weight or lower his bodyfat, what ultimately matters is how many calories he burns, not the source of the fuel while he is exercising. Assuming he can exercise in his zone for 30 minutes, he's going to burn more calories if he works harder (duh!). Also assuming he doesn't down an extra "energy" bar or drink because he worked harder, he's going to lose weight quicker if he works harder.

To improve cardiovascular fitness (going beyond healthy towards fit), we have to work harder. Not all of the time, but some of the time. There are also benefits to working at an easier pace -for one, you train your body to metabolize fat for energy instead of drawing on limited glycogen stores.

If you wander into a bookstore or large library, check out heart rate training books (look for Ed Burke or Sally Edwards) & sports nutrition books (Nancy Clark or Liz Coleman come to mind). Heck, even "Fitness for Dummies" has this information.

If your husband is bored at the gym, he's not going to stick with it. Who would?

 

[Susan53]

RE: fuel

Thanks for the information you both provided.

I wasn't concerned about him giving up going because he is a stick to it kind of guy with lots of energy.....not a couch potato at all and he is seeing results by working out this way.

He doesn't have a lot of fat to lose and he does enjoy the cardio work and the weight machines.

I was more interested in the terminology of fat-burning and cardio...because I always thought that they meant the same thing, and you guys cleared that up for me. Thank you

 

[Debra]

Hi Susan

I presumed your husband wanted to lose body fat since he was told to stay at a lower intensity. No offense was intended. If he doesn't have any health or fitness issues, some of his workouts should be at a higher intensity. Once a week intervals are also a great fitness boost along with boosting the fun factor.

Working at too easy of a level during a cardio workout is the equivilent of using too light of weights. You don't get the same results.

I don't know why trainers & fitness instructors are still stuck on the "low end" training. If they're going to advocate heart rate training they should be current on training techniques.

Lucky you having a stick with it guy!

Debra

 

[Susan53]

Thanks Debra

No offense was taken...sorry if I sounded like it was.
It is hard to interpret someone elses words when they are just written, whether in the answer or the question, so I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was offended. It did sound....in rereading my question.....that the tedium was a big issue and I was just trying to put the emphasis back where I wanted it....on the fatburning/cardio question.

He does want to lose some fat but he doesn't look like a 'fat' guy....if you know what I mean. He is just doing what they told him to do at the gym and since it was not something I had ever heard of, (not that I am up on things) I just thought I would ask you people out there in Catheland if any of you knew what he was talking about...and you did.

Thank you again for responding...the information you gave me is just what I wanted. Hope to talk to you again!

 

[Debra]

RE: Thanks Debra

You didn't seem offended. But I "overestimated" your husband because of the training guidance he'd received. That's what happens when we assume instead of clarify!

 

[Susan53]

RE: Thanks Debra

Oh! so you thought he was a man of 'substance' ;-)......I didn't see that at first or even second! I didn't think I was quite that slow on the uptake!

It is rainy here today...a good day to stay inside and do a long workout and maybe finish with Pure and Simple Stretch!

Hope you are having a sunnier day over there in California.