optimal fat burn zone

Transform

Thought you all might like this though it may be a little complicated.

About a month ago i had a full VO2max test done - oxygen intake measured to see how much you are actually using. This is a max test so you basically have to run at increasing speeds until you cannot continue.

The results were very revealing as they showed the optimal levels for me to run at for what i want to train for - increasing fitness and run marathon.

Weight 80kg Height 186cm Body fat 6%

Start speed 10kpm and every 3 mins speed increased by 1kpm for as long as you could last - finishing speed for me was 17kpm after 24mins. Every 3 mins a blood test is done to test for lactate production (you are still running while this is being done and its very minor).

My VO2 max was 52ml/kg/min

Lactate threshold or anerobic threshold happened at 178bpm and at 15.1kpm
Aerobic threshold. This means above these levels i would not be using body fat as and energy source (so if i was looking to drop body fat i would not go above this level very often).

Aerobic threshold 158-165bpm+ up to anerobic threshold at speed of 13-15kpm - this means for increasing fat burning i should stay ideally at my lower zone of 158-165bpm but for fitness i would have to follow every hard high intensity session e.g. 30mins-60mins at 162bpm-170bpm with a lower intensity session e.g. 150-160bpm.

Why this is interesting is that for most sessions i would just run hoping to just improve without considering the exact ranges to work within. Also i have had some clients of mine get tested and showed totally different zones than i thought they should be working within - this is why the old formula of 220-age is not always exact. For example when i run with a friend of mine who is in the army and going for the rangers he is producing lots of lactic acid at 160bpm but for me that is a managable and easy enough level.

So basically if you want to drop fat go long slow and steady pace to remain using fat as an enegy source but for fitness higher heart rate sessions followed by easier sessions will do the trick.

I mention this as soooo many people have been recommending doing high intensity sessions for dropping fat but this is the exact opposite of what should be done unless you have built up a good aerobic base first by doing longer slower sessions for about 2 months.

All the best

Easygainer

I've always advocated, and think it is the general practice, moderate intensity. That is 50 - 70% MHR. The reason is that this can also be done on an empty stomach to prmote the highest rate of fat loss by not having to burn carbs and speeding up metabolism for the day.

An ideal way to do this is on an incline treadmill, using, say, 35 incline at 4 - 5 kph.

You can't really be 6% man :O ??? I'd like to see pics if you are cos it's damn rare unless you're a few weeks out from a bodybuilding comp - what method did they use for measuring (please don't say calipers, please don't say calipers...)

Transform

Would love to post a pic but have no idea how?

cormie

So the more overweight you are the slower you go, for longr? As you do it more often, you pick up the pace to burn the same amount or would you continue to go at the slower pace if you JUST want to burn fat?

joejoem

Where can you get a test like that done?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

kasintahan

That's confirmed my suspicions.

I've been running hard (at about 180-200 BPM, 25 min's) regularly (3 times a week + cycle daily) for the last 5 months or so and seen virtually no fat loss. Stamina has sky rocketed though.

The cardio has also funked up any weights I do (in the same session) so muscle gain has been negligible. Muscle tone is much better though.

I might try switching to lower intensity cardio and see what happens.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

joejoem

Where can you get the full VO2max test done ???????

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Easygainer

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I disagree. Optimal fat burning zone uses fat as the main energy source. Higher intensities use carbs and even muslce to get energy for the slow twitch fibres - this is why marathon runners are stringbeans - the smaller slow twitch fibres are advanced at the expense of the larger fast twitch fibres. This is why weight lifting sets, generally, go up to a max of 15 reps.

By keeping the intensity that high, which is ridiculously high, he won't gain any muscle or be losing as much fat as he could. Instead, as he said, he'll just increase his cardiovascular fitness.

Boru.

Hi all,

I agree and disagree with an awful lot of what's been said here. I've recently been writing an exercise guide for Heart Rate Based training and although it is true that at the lower range of 50%- 60% and 60-70% you will burn calories, of which 80-85% will be fat. However this does not necessarily mean you will lose more weight doing low intensity cardio. Granted this is what I say in the manual at the nmoment and what I peronally advocate to my clients, but it is true onlly for those at that level. By this I promarily refer to beginers and intermediates.

By training at the higher levels 85% + you will burn off more calories (due to a more intense work rate) and more weight as a result of that because your metabolism is significantly increased both during and after the exercise. This is backed up by numerous studies including, one of the ones that comes to mind is the Canadian Study by Laval University.

The best way to achieve resuts is to do both. Take a few nice light workouts at 60-70% and then maybe once a week do an intense cardio at over 80%.

Interval training is great option.

This has just confused things more, hasn't it?

Boru.
BoruFitness@gmail.com

Easygainer

I've read there's no difference between hiit and regular cardio for metabolism of fats post workout and effect on metabolism. I think it's just people looking for a way of losing fat in 10 minutes...

Transform

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Davegirl did you even read the post properly - the higher the intensity the most lactic acid that is produced!!

Will get on to that site about posting an old yoga pic of me and caliper readings today are - just a minute - chest - 2-3mm, abdomen - 5mm, thigh 7-8mm

Peak performance in sandyford industrial estate for the test. All other discussions on optimal ranges for fat loss are not necessary as the zones are individual. Though i do recommend keeping the HR low to start with and gradually build up with just one day per week with a higher HR- its amazing how many people i see in spinning classes killing themselves and looking the same week in week out!! Take it earier and look after your nutrition i scream!!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Pherekydes

When wondering about the correct intensities for fat burning, we need look no further than the skinniest athletes on the planet.

Are they power walking around your local park, or are they racing (not running) marathons or cycling in 7 hour races?

is_that_so

kasintahan wrote:

That's confirmed my suspicions.

I've been running hard (at about 180-200 BPM, 25 min's) regularly (3 times a week + cycle daily) for the last 5 months or so and seen virtually no fat loss. Stamina has sky rocketed though.

The cardio has also funked up any weights I do (in the same session) so muscle gain has been negligible. Muscle tone is much better though.

I might try switching to lower intensity cardio and see what happens.

Whatever happened to "I'm going just going out for a walk" ?

Easygainer

Slow coach wrote:

When wondering about the correct intensities for fat burning, we need look no further than the skinniest athletes on the planet.

Are they power walking around your local park, or are they racing (not running) marathons or cycling in 7 hour races?

Skinny? I'd wager money Sonia O' Sullivan has more bodyfat than most swimmers who never run simply because she has no muscle. Bodybuilders are who you need to look to for fat burning.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Transform

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Sorry should be read daveirl - the only thing is you still don't get it!!

At high intensities you burn NO BODY FAT, it will not be used as an energy source.

Eg results from one of my clients

143-150bpm speed - 10-11kpm Carbs - 3.4 Fat - 0.34
151-157bpm speed 11.1-11.9kpm Carbd - 4.09 Fat - 0.17
158-164bpm Speed 12- 12.9kpm Carbs - 4.9 Fat - 00000 Yes thats 0

This result is similar in all my clinets and yes i do agree some people who take regular exercise will not even get their heart rate up to an even moderate level.

My recommendations from EXPERIENCE not books still stands

All the best

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Pherekydes

Easygainer wrote:

Skinny? I'd wager money Sonia O' Sullivan has more bodyfat than most swimmers who never run simply because she has no muscle. Bodybuilders are who you need to look to for fat burning.

I don't think it would be possible to run at the kind of speeds she runs at without muscle.

Endurance athletes have the lowest overall % body fat. And not IMHO.

Swimmers have a higher % body fat because their sport is non-weight bearing, and also because there is little or no temperature gain during exercise. The body is cooled by the water, obviously.

Low body fat percentages can trigger amenorrhoea, and this occurs in endurance runners more often than other groups, with the exception of anorexics.

Transform

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

What i was emphasising was that my experience is based not only on my personal experience but from training clients week in week out. Yes high intensity will work for some though most will wonder why their progress is stuck due to working out at too high of an intensity.
Also you did not reply to the results i posted which again confirm my original post that again at high intensity the amount of body fat being used as an energy source can be exactly ZERO!

pS I am also doing a marathon later this year so fair play for doing the marathon

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Easygainer

Slow coach wrote:

I don't think it would be possible to run at the kind of speeds she runs at without muscle.

Endurance athletes have the lowest overall % body fat. And not IMHO.

Swimmers have a higher % body fat because their sport is non-weight bearing, and also because there is little or no temperature gain during exercise. The body is cooled by the water, obviously.

Low body fat percentages can trigger amenorrhoea, and this occurs in endurance runners more often than other groups, with the exception of anorexics.

Yes, but it's slow twitch muscle. Let me explain for those who don't know. Sprinters run fast and explosively and have massive legs - fast twitch muscle. This is built from lower reps with power movements like squats and the Olympic lifts.

Slow twitch muscle fibre is smaller and less powerful but more enduring. Marathon runners are predominantly red muscle fibered.

More muscle = more calories burned resting. I'm an OK example of this. I can diet on 4000 calories without doing cardio becuase I carry a lot of muscle. On 4000 cals an inactive marathon runner type would become obese.

Now to relate this back to physiques, bf % is measured relative to lbm. A 300lbs bodybuilder with 10lbs of bf will have only 3.5%bf (the minimum needed to live, so below 4% is never gonna REALLY happen). A 130 lbs marathon runner with 10lbs bf is 8% bf. To attain the same 3.5% bf, our marathon runner must only have 4.5lbs of bodyfat, which is pretty much impossible.

Case in point, Flex Wheeler with the same 10lbs of bodyfat a marathon runner would carry looking significantly more ripped!

Easygainer

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Sorry to nitpick but that must be with calipers because NO WAY are long distance runner 4%bf. They'd fall below the minimum needed to live in a long race and die if that was the case. Anything below 6% in most sports is useless as you can't function like a human (bodybuilders can hardly concentrate pre-contest and are functioning at a fraction of normal levels - such extreme condition ie sub 5% is very dangerous to health). Anything below 10% in contact sports is risky. Without enough fat on your kidneys any sort of blow would have you on a dialysis machine.

Sorry to go on about bf% because anything sub 12% with good mucsle mass looks spectacular but when people throw around figures like 4% bodyfat, it gets to me. This is a measured 4% bf by radiation emission, the most accurate type. I don't see these veins on runners...

Pherekydes

Easygainer wrote:

Sorry to go on about bf% because anything sub 12% with good mucsle mass looks spectacular but when people throw around figures like 4% bodyfat, it gets to me. This is a measured 4% bf by radiation emission, the most accurate type. I don't see these veins on runners...

If you can show me a body builder who has 10lbs of BF and weighs 300lbs, I'll believe you. In fact, if you can show me a 300lb body builder who has lower BF% than Sonia O'Sullivan, I'll eat my hat, in fact I'll eat Sonia without salt.

As regards, method:

The DEXA machine is a test that is used to measure bone density. However, it can also measure body fat percentage and can show you where it's located. DEXA uses a whole body scanner and two different low-dose x-rays to read bone mass and soft tissue mass.

I presume this is what you're referring to? It doesn't measure radiation emission. You can't determine BF% by measuring radiation emission.

marathon runners have been found to have body fat percentage as low as 3.3 percent

Easygainer

Slow coach wrote:

If you can show me a body builder who has 10lbs of BF and weighs 300lbs, I'll believe you. In fact, if you can show me a 300lb body builder who has lower BF% than Sonia O'Sullivan, I'll eat my hat, in fact I'll eat Sonia without salt.

As regards, method:



I presume this is what you're referring to? It doesn't measure radiation emission. You can't determine BF% by measuring radiation emission.

Get your hat ready. Ronnie Coleman - competed last year's Olympia at 296lbs DEHYDRATED and 308lbs a week later in the British GP. I chose this pose to illustrate the extreme low body fat and dehydration. Note the striated glutes - NO runner has that.

Pherekydes

Easygainer wrote:

Get your hat ready. Ronnie Coleman - competed last year's Olympia at 296lbs DEHYDRATED and 308lbs a week later in the British GP. I chose this pose to illustrate the extreme low body fat and dehydration. Note the striated glutes - NO runner has that.

Note: I'll need a verified BF% reading (and not just a picture of a muscle-bound hulk) , before I'll eat anything.

And on a technical note, all voluntary, skeletal muscle is striated.

The actual appearance of striations is down to dehydration more than lack of subcutaneous body fat.

Easygainer

Slow coach wrote:

Note: I'll need a verified BF% reading (and not just a picture of a muscle-bound hulk) , before I'll eat anything.

And on a technical note, all voluntary, skeletal muscle is striated.

The actual appearance of striations is down to dehydration more than lack of subcutaneous body fat.

:rolleyes: so you're saying a fatass could take a lasix tablet an look like that? I don't have his bodystat unfortunately but all top bodybuilders attain under 5% bf. He came up as a negative bf on a calipers test somehow though because of his lbm. Striated glutes is the ultimate in physical conditioning and was only done for the first time in the 80s.

How about you post a pic of a runner who LOOKS that ripped seen as I've done my part?

Pherekydes

Easygainer wrote:

so you're saying a fatass could take a lasix tablet an look like that?

Haha, Where?

I don't have his bodystat unfortunately but all top bodybuilders attain under 5% bf.

You'll have to come up with something more concrete than the opinions of some BBers.

He came up as a negative bf...

I've seen enough. That is laughable.

Striated glutes is the ultimate in physical conditioning and was only done for the first time in the 80s.

Voluntary skeletal muscle has always been striated. The fact that it 'appeared' in the 80's shows that it's down to dehydration techniques more than anything else.

How about you post a pic of a runner who LOOKS that ripped seen as I've done my part?

The key word in that request is the word, and you've been kind enough to highlight it, is "looks". Appearances can be deceptive. Runners don't generally deliberately dehydrate themselves just for appearances sake.

Easygainer

Slow coach wrote:

The actual appearance of striations is down to dehydration more than lack of subcutaneous body fat.

This would imply muscle striations could be seen through skin even with subcutaneous fat which means you don't have a clue what you're on about. Without actually testing them myself I can't show you a bodystat but the physical conditioning is self evident. Google bodybuilders bodyfat and you'll prob see something.

Note: by saying he came up negative I was showing the inaccuracy of calipers - I've already stated in this thread that sub 3% is impossible.

Pherekydes

Easygainer wrote:

This would imply muscle striations could be seen through skin even with subcutaneous fat which means you don't have a clue what you're on about.

Surely I didn't have to specify that subcutaneous fat would have to be at a minimum?

Who has a clue?

It was too bleeding obvious to state.

Easygainer

Slow coach wrote:

Surely I didn't have to specify that subcutaneous fat would have to be at a minimum?

Who has a clue?

It was too bleeding obvious to state.

OK look, this argument is going noweher and I don't want it to get personal, so I'll state as clearly as I can what I'm trying to get across.

BF% is not equal to bf. It is dependent on body weight and more importantly on lbm.

Seen as a higher lbm will give for a lower bf% at the same amount of bf (10lbs in the example above), that would mean a heavier person (300lbs in Ronnie's case) could carry twice the AMOUNT of bf of a 130lbs runner and still be far less bf% on the basis of having 3x lbm. (or over 2x anyway)

In essence, carrying more muscle, means you don't need as low a bodyfat to look "ripped" and will also have a lower bf% with less effort, especially with a faster resting metabolic rate.

Fast twitch muscle, seen in power athletes, is far bigger than slow twitch muscle in endurance athletes - case in point is a sprinter's legs v a marathon runner's legs.

Thus, a bigger person can hold more total bf, be less relative bf%, burn more calories resting and look more ripped and all this regardless of water levels.

Finally, certain elements of physical conditioning are indicative of bf%, and though these will change from person to person, in general they hold through.
Typically, 10% will give a full on 6 pack. No blurred "in the right light" caliper measured six pack - a genuine 10% ripped. This will also mean vascular forearms and a protruding biceps vein.

8% means the serratus will be starting to get fairly ripped and separation between the quad muscles will be very apparent.

5% means full on vascularity, NO visible bf except maybe on the glutes and no energy. Nearly impossible to function normally at this bf for long. You would get too cold too easily.

4% Absolute minimum attainable without dying, even your ass is ripped, nothing covering organs so you're very vulnerable (esp at kidneys). 3% is what covers your brain and cell membranes and that's it.