Jogging fat loss - HR zone question

Discussion in 'Strength & Conditioning Discussion' started by NLBJJ, Oct 2, 2010.

  1. NLBJJ

    NLBJJ Orange Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    So-Cal
    I'm a noob just starting out to jogging, I've just been doing bjj for awhile.

    I've read that 60%-70% HR zone was great for fat loss, I'm in my 20's and that turns out to be 120-140bpm. My concern was that after a 45min jog I've done 3mi and I love that fact that I'm not trying to push myself but it just seems too good to be true.

    It seems too easy. The next level is 70%-80% 140-160bpm and wouldn't this rate allow me to lose fat faster? I'd obviously be losing more calories in a 45min jog than at 60-70 but just wanted some confirmation that the calories won't be at the cost of muscle mass.

    Should I up the HR or up the durations of the lower HR zone?

    Thanks!
     
  2. ozbrawler

    ozbrawler Orange Belt

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    1
    pure fat loss is best below 150bpm because of how hard it is to uncouple fat acids above that. above that point your body finds it easier to use glycogen (carbs or your muscle waste) as its primary fuel source. one problem with that is would you prefer to burn 500 calouries with 30% being fat or burn 900 calouries with 22% being fat? cause thats basically the way it is the harder your heart goes the more calories you burn but slightly less of that being purely fat.

    not telling you how to train but i would run at a pace that your comfy with for the aloted time or do your intervals to raise and lower your heart rate.

    also training at 130bpm-150bpm increases your anearobic recovery if your body is in need of that.
     
  3. Tosa

    Tosa Red Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    9,068
    Likes Received:
    242
    Location:
    Somewhere else
    Losing fat is more about diet than anything else. This is because gaining or losing weight/muscle/fat is dependant upon wether or are taking in more or less calories than you are burning, and it's far easier to eat X calories less, than burn X calories more.

    That said, additional activity, to help lose weight, does reduce how much you have to reduce calories, and it can be important to actively do something to lose weight, rather than just not eat more.

    The idea about a "fat burning zone" is because at lower intensities the body will get a greater percentage of it's energy from fat, but at higher intensities, it uses more glycogen. But here's the key bit...once your glycogen reserves are full, your body starts storing energy as fat, and when they start getting empty, your body has to rely more on energy from fat, even if it's not as efficient (side note: this is what causes the hitting the wall feeling in long distance runners).

    In other words, none of that changes the basic idea of calories in, calories out. So to feel free to run faster.

    If your concerned about maintaining muscle...it's quite likely that you may lose some muscle. If you do regular strength training, eat properly, get enough rest, and don't overtrain, the loss should be minimal if at all. If you haven't started strength training...then you could even manage to gain some size/strength while losing fat since you're a complete noob.
     
  4. NLBJJ

    NLBJJ Orange Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    So-Cal
    Thanks for the help guys. It all seems to revolve on that 150mark. What is a good duration for these jogs to stick with?
     
  5. Vortex177

    Vortex177 White Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry guys but this is not quite right. This subject is very much misunderstood because many have misinterpreted the studies.

    At lower intensities / lower heart rates the body does use more fat (than glycogen etc) but only in terms of RATIO i.e. you may burn 70% fat and 30% glycogen.

    At higher intensities / higher heart rates your body does use more glycogen (than fat etc) but, again, only in terms of RATIO i.e. you may burn 70% glycogen and 30% fat.

    This is where the misinterpretation starts.

    The reality is that so many more calories are burned at higher intensities / high heart rates that the overall AMOUNT of fat burned is significantly high at high intensities even in spite of the ratio of fat burned being lower. In a business deal this may be expressed as: would you rather have 70% of $100,000 or 30% of $10,000,000? Does that make sense?

    Also, another wrinkle....

    The debate becomes a bit pointless when we understand that both high and lower intensities must be included for maximum effect.

    For fat reduction to occur,TWO things must happen.

    1) fat cells must release fat into the blood

    2) the fat in the blood must be burned

    Now, get this. High intensity work like sprints is great at number (1). Low intensity work is great at number (2).

    So, I suggest an ideal workout for fat burning looks like this:

    Weight training - 30-45 mins
    Sprints - 15-20 mins
    Brisk walking / gentle jogging - 30 mins

    Combine this with correct nutrition (which is really the most important part anyway) and you, my friend, are going to get RIPPED.

    Hope this is useful.
     
  6. NLBJJ

    NLBJJ Orange Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    So-Cal
    See now that cleared some things up for me. I might be burning more calories from fat at lower intensity and less calories from fat at higher intensity but at higher intensity I'll be burning more calories. I might be getting a smaller percentage of calories from fat but I'll end up burning more calories from fat because of the higher number of overall calories.
     
  7. Da Speeit

    Da Speeit CANCEROUS POSTER Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    74,609
    Likes Received:
    32,977
    Location:
    In bed with your bitch, watching game of thrones,
    This thread is seriously a godsend, because i just got back from a well-paced jog and i was wondering the exact same thing
     
  8. pliftkl

    pliftkl Green Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I think you should focus on diet for fat reduction, and separately work on cardio to fix what is obviously a problem. If a 45 minute jog equals 3 miles, then you are jogging at 4 miles an hour, which is an easy walking pace. If that's putting you to 120-140 bpm, then you should probably focus on improving your resting heart rate.
     
  9. Tosa

    Tosa Red Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    9,068
    Likes Received:
    242
    Location:
    Somewhere else
    Because this is going to somehow magically change calories in, calories out...I.e thermodynamics. Eat fewer calories than you burn. That's all.
     
  10. KILL KILL

    KILL KILL Gold Belt

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,506
    Likes Received:
    13,359
    Location:
    New Jersey / Georgia
    Are you using a heart rate monitor?
     
  11. NLBJJ

    NLBJJ Orange Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    So-Cal
    How would I go about lowering my resting heart rate? Isn't cardio going to allow me to do this?

    I'm putting just as much effort into my diet as I am to my cardio.
     
  12. NLBJJ

    NLBJJ Orange Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    So-Cal
    Yeah, Timex T5G971. It's a really basic monitor, it has the chest and wrist pieces and beeps to let me know I'm outside my HR zone. The chest piece allows for home battery replacement which you don't get in a bunch of other monitors. Some of them you have to send it out to have battery replaced. It was $45 too.
     
  13. KILL KILL

    KILL KILL Gold Belt

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,506
    Likes Received:
    13,359
    Location:
    New Jersey / Georgia
    that was a silly comment he made. just keep running......even though it is incredibly slow lol.
     
  14. pliftkl

    pliftkl Green Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    "Cardio" is a horrible word that should probably be banned from the English language, as it has such a wide range of meanings that it's difficult to tell what the person who is using the word actually means.

    To lower your resting heart rate, you need for your heart to pump more blood in each beat (therefore requiring your heart to beat less frequently). The best way to do this is to exercise at low intensity (on the order of 60% MHR) for long periods of time (90 minutes). Your heart adapts to this particular type of exercise by stretching the left ventricle. What you are doing now (running at a slow pace) is actually a pretty good way to do this, but you may have better luck doing this for longer if you simply walked. I point this out because you seem to be considering working at a higher heart rate. You do get some cardiac adaptation that reduces heart rate when you work at higher heart rates, but the adaptations do not occur as quickly, because at higher heart rates your left ventricle doesn't have time to fill completely, so the stretching effect is smaller.

    Once your resting heart rate is below 60, think about working on other aspects of your energy production systems.


    That's where it is for fat loss. :)
     
  15. pliftkl

    pliftkl Green Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    It wasn't meant that way. If he's running a 15 minute mile and he's at 120-140 bpm, then he's actually at a good pace to improve his resting heart rate. If he increases to a pace that is 160 bpm, he may burn more fat, but it won't be as helpful for lowering his RHR (which is probably way high right now if 15 minute miles put him to 130 bpm).
     
  16. KILL KILL

    KILL KILL Gold Belt

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,506
    Likes Received:
    13,359
    Location:
    New Jersey / Georgia
    I gotcha. you were addressing the fact that he may want to increase intensity.
     
  17. Vortex177

    Vortex177 White Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I didn't define what I meant by "correct nutrition" so you're contradicting me for no reason.

    I agree that calories are KEY but they are not the only thing to take into account, as I'm sure you know. Eating 1000cal of sugar and 1000cal of chicken are not going to yield the same result.

    In short, make sure you are in a caloric surplus whilst still meeting minimum protein, fat and micronutrient intake requirements. That's fat loss nutrition in a nutshell.
     
  18. DrBdan

    DrBdan Something clever

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    12,080
    Likes Received:
    962
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    I'm assuming you mean caloric deficit?
     
  19. HH

    HH Fighting The Dork

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    6,026
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Finland
    High intensity training is much better for fat loss.

    Circuits, sprinting, hill sprints, tabatas...
     
  20. Tosa

    Tosa Red Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    9,068
    Likes Received:
    242
    Location:
    Somewhere else
    It won't have the same effect on health, performance, insulin levels etc...but it will have the same effect on caloric balance.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.