A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Aerobic
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Weight Loss Heart Rate vs. Cardio



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 21st 03, 07:15 AM
Giganews
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Weight Loss Heart Rate vs. Cardio

I understand the most important thing for weight loss is to burn more
calories per day then one takes in, but to help that, that a lower heart
rate while exercising burns more than a higher heart rate.

Specifically, is the cardio benefit of a higher heart rate in place of the
weight loss benefit of the lower rate, or are both benefits realized by the
higher (cardio) rate?

Thanks for any advice.


  #2  
Old December 21st 03, 02:18 PM
Bob Garrison
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Weight Loss Heart Rate vs. Cardio


"Giganews" wrote in message
...
I understand the most important thing for weight loss is to burn more
calories per day then one takes in, but to help that, that a lower heart
rate while exercising burns more than a higher heart rate.



Say what?


Specifically, is the cardio benefit of a higher heart rate in place of the
weight loss benefit of the lower rate, or are both benefits realized by

the
higher (cardio) rate?

Thanks for any advice.






  #3  
Old December 21st 03, 03:10 PM
Isiafs5
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Weight Loss Heart Rate vs. Cardio

Specifically, is the cardio benefit of a higher heart rate in place of the
weight loss


Wrong assumption in my opinion. Weight loss is not just a matter of cardio.

See the site below for further explanation.


Sling Skate

My recommended reading for body fat control:
http://www.geocities.com/~slopitch/drsquat/fredzig.htm










  #4  
Old December 21st 03, 05:20 PM
Giganews
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Weight Loss Heart Rate vs. Cardio

I'll try again.

I have been told that a higher heart rate while exercising (say 85% of max
recommended rate) produces cardio benefits.

And that lower rate than this (65-75%) produces weight loss, as opposed to
cardio.

Question is, is the above essentially true, and if so, when the rate is
elevated to cardio benefit (beyond weight loss rate), is weight loss benefit
still in effect?

That is, does higher rate = cardio benefit PLUS weight loss, or just cardio
benefit?


"Bob Garrison" wrote in message
...

"Giganews" wrote in message
...
I understand the most important thing for weight loss is to burn more
calories per day then one takes in, but to help that, that a lower heart
rate while exercising burns more than a higher heart rate.



Say what?


Specifically, is the cardio benefit of a higher heart rate in place of

the
weight loss benefit of the lower rate, or are both benefits realized by

the
higher (cardio) rate?

Thanks for any advice.








  #5  
Old December 21st 03, 05:59 PM
frank-in-toronto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Weight Loss Heart Rate vs. Cardio

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:20:27 -0500, "Giganews"
wrote:

I'll try again.

I have been told that a higher heart rate while exercising (say 85% of max
recommended rate) produces cardio benefits.

And that lower rate than this (65-75%) produces weight loss, as opposed to
cardio.

Question is, is the above essentially true,

none of this is TRUE. all of it is sorta true. 85% will give
cardio benefits. low heart rate will use fat. so will the reverse.

I try to view exercise from a health/fitness perspective.

if i get fit (as measured by ability to do 5Ks and longer
without falling down dead), and eat well to get myself more
healthy (as measured by how I feel and numbers
of times i get headaches/illnesses...), i bet i will
have reduced bodyfat, gained some muscle, improved
my cardio capability and a lot more. even chanegd my
outlook on life as every day is another success story.

so, i'd suggest you look around on the net, find a routine
that combines weights and cardio and get crackin'.
...thehick
  #6  
Old December 21st 03, 06:43 PM
Bob Garrison
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Weight Loss Heart Rate vs. Cardio


"Giganews" wrote in message
...
I'll try again.

I have been told that a higher heart rate while exercising (say 85% of max
recommended rate) produces cardio benefits.


True.


And that lower rate than this (65-75%) produces weight loss, as opposed to
cardio.


Totally false.



Question is, is the above essentially true, and if so, when the rate is
elevated to cardio benefit (beyond weight loss rate), is weight loss

benefit
still in effect?

That is, does higher rate = cardio benefit PLUS weight loss, or just

cardio
benefit?


Weight loss occurs when you burn more calories than you eat. Period!



"Bob Garrison" wrote in message
...

"Giganews" wrote in message
...
I understand the most important thing for weight loss is to burn more
calories per day then one takes in, but to help that, that a lower

heart
rate while exercising burns more than a higher heart rate.



Say what?


Specifically, is the cardio benefit of a higher heart rate in place of

the
weight loss benefit of the lower rate, or are both benefits realized

by
the
higher (cardio) rate?

Thanks for any advice.










  #7  
Old December 22nd 03, 01:35 AM
Peter Webb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Weight Loss Heart Rate vs. Cardio

Wrong.

A higher heart rate produces cardio benefits and better weight loss than a
lower heart rate.

The confusion derives from what is sometimes called the the "fat burning
zone myth". Essentially, the lower your heart rate, the higher percentage of
your energy is derived from metabolosing stored fat. Indeed, as you sit here
reading giganews, 100% of your energy consumption (about 100 kCals/hr) is
from fat - your body is not using its glycogen stores; it doesn't have to.
Doesn't mean that it is efficient exercise.

As you increase your heart rate, your body metabolises fat faster, but also
draws in other sources of energy (eg glycogen). So your rate of using up
calories increases, but the percentage directly obtained from fat decreases
(because other sources of energy are used). But you are still burning way
more calories, which ultimately means (assuming the same amount of food is
consumed) that you will lose more weight.

Bottom line, more intense exercise is much better for BOTH weight loss and
cardio conditioning. Exercising at 65 - 75% is pretty much a waste of time.
Exercise at 85 - 90% and you will get much fitter, which means that you will
be able to burn way more calories in a given time.




"Giganews" wrote in message
...
I'll try again.

I have been told that a higher heart rate while exercising (say 85% of max
recommended rate) produces cardio benefits.

And that lower rate than this (65-75%) produces weight loss, as opposed to
cardio.

Question is, is the above essentially true, and if so, when the rate is
elevated to cardio benefit (beyond weight loss rate), is weight loss

benefit
still in effect?

That is, does higher rate = cardio benefit PLUS weight loss, or just

cardio
benefit?


"Bob Garrison" wrote in message
...

"Giganews" wrote in message
...
I understand the most important thing for weight loss is to burn more
calories per day then one takes in, but to help that, that a lower

heart
rate while exercising burns more than a higher heart rate.



Say what?


Specifically, is the cardio benefit of a higher heart rate in place of

the
weight loss benefit of the lower rate, or are both benefits realized

by
the
higher (cardio) rate?

Thanks for any advice.










  #8  
Old December 26th 03, 10:34 PM
Proctologically Violated©®
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Weight Loss Heart Rate vs. Cardio



"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
Wrong.

A higher heart rate produces cardio benefits and better weight loss than a
lower heart rate.

The confusion derives from what is sometimes called the the "fat burning
zone myth". Essentially, the lower your heart rate, the higher percentage

of
your energy is derived from metabolosing stored fat. Indeed, as you sit

here
reading giganews, 100% of your energy consumption (about 100 kCals/hr) is
from fat - your body is not using its glycogen stores; it doesn't have to.
Doesn't mean that it is efficient exercise.

As you increase your heart rate, your body metabolises fat faster, but

also
draws in other sources of energy (eg glycogen). So your rate of using up
calories increases, but the percentage directly obtained from fat

decreases
(because other sources of energy are used). But you are still burning way
more calories, which ultimately means (assuming the same amount of food is
consumed) that you will lose more weight.

Bottom line, more intense exercise is much better for BOTH weight loss and
cardio conditioning.


Everything stated up until this point is absolutely correct.

Exercising at 65 - 75% is pretty much a waste of time.

This, however, just spoiled it.

Exercise at 85 - 90% and you will get much fitter, which means that you

will
be able to burn way more calories in a given time.


This is true depending on the context--likely true aerobically,
as long as people realize that aerobic fitness is not the only type of
fitness, and likely not even the best type of fitness.

Overall, not a bad post, which makes the dreadfulness of the
HRM post all the more curious, as opposed to the predictably wrong or
cliched Garrison.
--
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll




"Giganews" wrote in message
...
I'll try again.

I have been told that a higher heart rate while exercising (say 85% of

max
recommended rate) produces cardio benefits.

And that lower rate than this (65-75%) produces weight loss, as opposed

to
cardio.

Question is, is the above essentially true, and if so, when the rate is
elevated to cardio benefit (beyond weight loss rate), is weight loss

benefit
still in effect?

That is, does higher rate = cardio benefit PLUS weight loss, or just

cardio
benefit?


"Bob Garrison" wrote in message
...

"Giganews" wrote in message
...
I understand the most important thing for weight loss is to burn

more
calories per day then one takes in, but to help that, that a lower

heart
rate while exercising burns more than a higher heart rate.


Say what?


Specifically, is the cardio benefit of a higher heart rate in place

of
the
weight loss benefit of the lower rate, or are both benefits realized

by
the
higher (cardio) rate?

Thanks for any advice.












  #9  
Old December 26th 03, 10:40 PM
Proctologically Violated©®
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Weight Loss Heart Rate vs. Cardio



"frank-in-toronto" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:20:27 -0500, "Giganews"
wrote:

I'll try again.

I have been told that a higher heart rate while exercising (say 85% of

max
recommended rate) produces cardio benefits.

And that lower rate than this (65-75%) produces weight loss, as opposed

to
cardio.

Question is, is the above essentially true,

none of this is TRUE. all of it is sorta true. 85% will give
cardio benefits. low heart rate will use fat. so will the reverse.

I try to view exercise from a health/fitness perspective.

if i get fit (as measured by ability to do 5Ks and longer
without falling down dead), and eat well to get myself more
healthy (as measured by how I feel and numbers
of times i get headaches/illnesses...), i bet i will
have reduced bodyfat, gained some muscle, improved
my cardio capability and a lot more. even chanegd my
outlook on life as every day is another success story.

so, i'd suggest you look around on the net, find a routine
that combines weights and cardio and get crackin'.
..thehick


Amen.
And, I suspect, all without a HRM!
--
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll


  #10  
Old December 27th 03, 12:23 AM
Isiafs5
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Weight Loss Heart Rate vs. Cardio


Exercising at 65 - 75% is pretty much a waste of time.


An example of a silly, narrow minded statement.


Sling Skate

My recommended reading for body fat control:
http://www.geocities.com/~slopitch/drsquat/fredzig.htm










 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
heart rate vs blood sugar [email protected] Aerobic 49 September 13th 12 06:50 AM
weight loss frustration Mikey Aerobic 1 November 20th 03 01:13 PM
heart rate? ultrasoni_c Aerobic 9 November 18th 03 10:21 PM
Heart Rate During Cardio Shaun Brown Aerobic 8 September 24th 03 05:45 PM
Heart Rates: Am I doing myself harm? daisho Aerobic 2 July 7th 03 10:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.