# Target Heart Rate for fat burning?



## melsi (May 26, 2010)

Does anyone hear know the best way to calculate what heart rate i should be hitting to burn fat?

Im 22 years old, weigh approx 13stone height 5ft 10, resting heart rate 70bpm


----------



## kernowgee (Jan 30, 2011)

It's a myth mate that there is a target rate for burning fat, the body has a set amount of energy to burn how you achieve this is down to personal preference, what exercise you do and what you have had to eat. A good marathon runner hits the wall around 90 minutes whereas a rower can exhaust energy supplies within an hour.

Were you to sprint 100m and walk 100m and keep doing this you would burn all energy within 30 minutes


----------



## DB (Oct 31, 2003)

melsi said:


> Does anyone hear know the best way to calculate what heart rate i should be hitting to burn fat?
> 
> Im 22 years old, weigh approx 13stone height 5ft 10, resting heart rate 70bpm


65% of your max heart rate is classified as the fat burning zone

220 - your age x 0.65 will give you the correct answer

I'm 27 and my target fat burning zone is 125bpm

Strongly disagree with Kernowgee's response


----------



## kernowgee (Jan 30, 2011)

Cool, one quick google found 215,000 answers first of which is;

(thus I am not alone in holding this theory DB)

http://www.novafeel.com/fitness/myths.htm

Fat Burning and other Myths

Theory: "Only exercising in the fat burning zone reduces body fat."

In many magazines and fitness studios one always reads or hears: "If you want to lose weight, you should exercise in the fat burning zone. The only way to reduce body fat is to exercise with a low heart rate (ca. 120-130). Whoever exercises with a high heart rate will not lose any fat."

How could this incorrect information be circulated so often?

The problem is that no distinction has been made between absolute and relative fat consumption.


----------



## Big Gunz (Jun 9, 2009)

In theory DB's right in response to the OP's question. Training at approx 65% will use stored fat for use of energy. However, there's no set way as long as you burn a good amount of kcal's whilst exercising, whether that be in the 65% or 85% range.

Long steady state cardio and HIIT both are good for burning fat, just try each one and find out what suits your lifestyle.


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2011)

I believe the best cardio is the one you burn the most calories at.

I can do high intensity stuff (mma, boxing) for hours and hours, some days I can do 4 hours. I get bored of running after about 10 miles....so the one thats gonna help me lose the most weight is mma/boxing cuz in several hours of that I'll burn a hell of a lot more cals than an hour/hour 20 of running


----------



## DB (Oct 31, 2003)

As this forum is called *uk muscle*

I assume the jist of the post to be..

''What BPM should I be reaching to burn fat without the expense of burning muscle,?'' hence my answer..

Why mention marathon runners and hours of boxing and MMA?


----------



## H22civic (Oct 6, 2009)

kernowgee said:


> Cool, one quick google found 215,000 answers first of which is;
> 
> (thus I am not alone in holding this theory DB)
> 
> ...


No-one said that 'the fat burning zone' is the ONLY way to burn fat. As DB mentioned, its just the most efficent way to burn fat while maintaining as much muscle mass as possible.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

DB said:


> As this forum is called *uk muscle*
> 
> I assume the jist of the post to be..
> 
> ...


Yeah I agree with this also. BUT what I do want to know, hopefully you can answer.

Does the type of cardio matter when it comes to running a cycle alongside it, surely the cycle will maintain muscle enough to allow you to do hard cardio, whats the deal here?


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2011)

DB said:


> As this forum is called *uk muscle*
> 
> I assume the jist of the post to be..
> 
> ...


Yeah, look at all those teeny heavyweights who do hours of boxing and mma and lose all their muscle?!??!


----------



## Ninja (Apr 28, 2010)

H22civic said:


> No-one said that 'the fat burning zone' is the ONLY way to burn fat. As DB mentioned, its just the most efficent way to burn fat while maintaining as much muscle mass as possible.


X2


----------



## DB (Oct 31, 2003)

JPaycheck said:


> Yeah I agree with this also. BUT what I do want to know, hopefully you can answer.
> 
> Does the type of cardio matter when it comes to running a cycle alongside it, surely the cycle will maintain muscle enough to allow you to do hard cardio, whats the deal here?


Try it and see mate, AAS helps you stay anabolic, just helps, you nail too much cardio with too few calories and u will burn muscle regardless of running AAS or not unfortunately.



ALR said:


> Yeah, look at all those teeny heavyweights who do hours of boxing and mma and lose all their muscle?!??!


Totally agree mate! Can't wait to see David haye KO a klitchko and then dominate cutler at the next olympia!  :lol: :lol:

Leagues apart mate, saying a boxer has a physique to compare to a bodybuilder,

some boxers and MMA guys have decent physiques, they are top of their games, remember, anyone who is a top pro is a genetic freak in many forms anyway, we're talking about average joes here


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

Cheers DB, currently cutting so I will give it a shot and see how I respond.


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2011)

DB said:


> Try it and see mate, AAS helps you stay anabolic, just helps, you nail too much cardio with too few calories and u will burn muscle regardless of running AAS or not unfortunately.
> 
> Totally agree mate! Can't wait to see David haye KO a klitchko and then dominate cutler at the next olympia!  :lol: :lol:
> 
> ...


Maybe this forum should say "Uk muscle, only for bodybuilders not for anyone else who's interested in gaining muscle/lifting weights for a sport.

90% of this forum aren't particularly big anyway, most of them could do lots of high intensity cardio w/o a problem. Not to mention these "genetic freak" pro's are naturals and lots of people on here seems to run a gram of test and tren year round.

For your average 200lb bodybuilder on gear is 2 hours of high intensity cardio going to lose him muscle mass? In all likelihood no, unless he's doing a contest prep and is very low on calories anyway.

And it's not just genetic freaks, plenty of guys 200lbs + at my MMA gym, some on gear, some not, all doing lots of high intensity work daily.


----------



## kernowgee (Jan 30, 2011)

DB said:


> As this forum is called *uk muscle*
> 
> I assume the jist of the post to be..
> 
> ...


With the greatest of respect DB

I was pointing out the differences in types of Cardio - burn rates, the problem with your logic is it negates the fact the body will normalise any cardio you do, thus making it less effective the more often you do the same routine.

Returning to the thread - The OP asked what is the best heart rate for burning fat, fact is as I said there is no optimum level, the answer would require hundreds of factors to be answered correctly, it remains a fact that many people belief the myth that there is an optimum level for burning fat which there is not

The answer DB gave in "comment three" confirms he believes this myth where he stated 65% as an absolute fact, which it can not be, perhaps next time when you state you strongly disagree with someone as you did here and are proved wrong you would either properly counter evidence or retract your comment against me rather than switching the subject as is common on these forums, the answer I gave is to do with the question about Cardio, which is important for everyone including those seeking to build muscles


----------



## DB (Oct 31, 2003)

ALR said:


> Maybe this forum should say "Uk muscle, only for bodybuilders not for anyone else who's interested in gaining muscle/lifting weights for a sport.
> 
> 90% of this forum aren't particularly big anyway, most of them could do lots of high intensity cardio w/o a problem. Not to mention these "genetic freak" pro's are naturals and lots of people on here seems to run a gram of test and tren year round. MMA stars natural? I assume you don't know any then mate, I have a fair few pro fighters at my gym and some have competed in the UFC- They are NOT natural, GH, IGF, Insulin u name it
> 
> ...





kernowgee said:


> With the greatest of respect DB
> 
> I was pointing out the differences in types of Cardio - burn rates, the problem with your logic is it negates the fact the body will normalise any cardio you do, thus making it less effective the more often you do the same routine.
> 
> ...


 No offense bud but you quoted from a random website, I could start one saying chickens are actually born with 2 cocks and soon enough someone around the world would quote it. Are you being pedantic as I said 65% not 65%ish?

Ok, I think everyone is getting abit over the top about how the majority of people drop fat with a low calorie diet..

cardio AROUND the 65% HR zone will be low intensity, glycogen levels will be at a minimul due to have just trained with weights (assuming its PWO)

SO the car is basically out of petrol so to speak..

Like a hybrid car it now has two energy stores left in reserve- fat and protein/muscle (carbs/gylocgen are gone from working out or a fast (am cardio)

The body finds it easier to burn muscle for energy rather than fat under stress.

If you do high intensity cardio in a depleted state then the demand for energy will be so high muscle will be burnt to be used as fuel as the body will not be able to metabolise fat fast enough to meet the demands of the body.

Slow steady state cardio around 65% MH will allow the body time to use fat as fuel,


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2011)

kernowgee said:


> Cool, one quick google found 215,000 answers first of which is;
> 
> (thus I am not alone in holding this theory DB)
> 
> ...


The only incorrect bit is this red bit. hitting circa 65% of my MHR will burn fat and is a steady pace where you can spend alot of time doing so. Try spending an hour at 80% + MHR

Theres more than one way to skin a cat.


----------



## Andrew Jacks (Sep 29, 2010)

The myth is encouraged by so called personal, trainers who pretend to train people, if you want to loose fat look at your diet, Cardio is about exercising the most important muscle in the human body


----------



## Magic Torch (May 30, 2005)

H22civic said:


> No-one said that 'the fat burning zone' is the ONLY way to burn fat. As DB mentioned, its just the most efficent way to burn fat while maintaining as much muscle mass as possible.


This is exactly right and what the googled 'evidence' stated too, which I dont think DB was debating.

Kernowgee, I too would disagree with your knowledge, not because I can search google, but because I have done both low intensity and high intensity cardio, both lost BF but I held more body mass with low intensity....simple.

The OP asked for the calculation to workout the optimal level to burn fat (not total body mass), and the evidence points 95:5 in this being optimal, add to that the fact that every piece of cardio equipment, training manual and book on the subject would say the same......


----------



## DB (Oct 31, 2003)

Andrew Jacks said:


> The myth is encouraged by so called personal, trainers who pretend to train people, if you want to loose fat look at your diet, Cardio is about exercising the most important muscle in the human body


Did you read the original post mate? I assume from your post you have never done a proper diet and learnt to implement cardio to your advantage when it comes to BURNING FAT like the original question?


----------



## kernowgee (Jan 30, 2011)

No MT my orignal comment was made without using google, I used google to back up my comment after DB personal attacked it and me. I will not be drawn into flamers comments


----------



## Magic Torch (May 30, 2005)

kernowgee said:


> No MT my orignal comment was made without using google, I used google to back up my comment after DB personal attacked it and me. I will not be drawn into flamers comments


Personal attack? Flamers? What are you on mate, its a discussion thread? You think everyone is gonna argee? LMAO

EDIT* LMFAO!!!! Thanks for the Neg too:

"THINK YOU TONGE IS UP dbS ****" I'm guessing the stars are arse?


----------



## MissBC (Apr 29, 2008)

Magic Torch said:


> Personal attack? Flamers? What are you on mate, its a discussion thread? You think everyone is gonna argee? LMAO
> 
> EDIT* LMFAO!!!! Thanks for the Neg too:
> 
> "THINK YOU TONGE IS UP dbS ****" I'm guessing the stars are arse?


OMFG what a knobend.....

Not you J, i like you


----------



## Incredible Bulk (Sep 19, 2007)

i have completed cardio on my last prep with the HR around 115-120BPM

This prep i am hitting cardio around 125-130BPM and i feel i am getting leaner a lot quicker with the latter than the former.

I just have to dig deeper during the cardio to keep on going, especially when i'm shattered


----------



## Hampy71 (Jan 18, 2011)

MissBC said:


> OMFG what a knobend.....
> 
> Not you J, i like you


Which one is J?


----------



## Hampy71 (Jan 18, 2011)

Incredible Bulk said:


> i have completed cardio on my last prep with the HR around 115-120BPM
> 
> This prep i am hitting cardio around 125-130BPM and i feel i am getting leaner a lot quicker with the latter than the former.
> 
> I just have to dig deeper during the cardio to keep on going, especially when i'm shattered


Do you do this post wo or completely separate? When I do cardio after workout I aim for around 135bpm which is really no more than an easy walk on treadmill.


----------



## Incredible Bulk (Sep 19, 2007)

i do AM cardio and PWO cardio, PWO cardio is far easier as you say, heart rate is already high


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

DB said:


> As this forum is called *uk muscle*
> 
> I assume the jist of the post to be..
> 
> ...


totally agree Baz, the goal for cardio in bodybuiling is different to that of boxes, mma and marathon runners so i fail to see why the comparison is being made....the goal in bodybuilding is to reduce fat whilst preserving muscle.....the target HR does this, performing cardio above this range burns more calories but the ratio of Fat:Glycogen favours the glycogen more which is not what you want......


----------



## DB (Oct 31, 2003)

kernowgee said:


> No MT my orignal comment was made without using google, I used google to back up my comment after DB personal attacked it and me. I will not be drawn into flamers comments


'I strongly disagree' was my original post.. I apologise for my vicious spiteful words and really how agressive they seem  :lol:

Settle down mate, perhaps all the high intensity cardio you are doing is doing some damage to you CNS and u need to rest more 

This is a forum, a place for people to come ask questions and get a varied response, in this case more people, of which the majority compete and have 'been there done that' so to speak agreed with me, one of those things, chill


----------



## DB (Oct 31, 2003)

Incredible Bulk said:


> i have completed cardio on my last prep with the HR around 115-120BPM
> 
> This prep i am hitting cardio around 125-130BPM and i feel i am getting leaner a lot quicker with the latter than the former.
> 
> I just have to dig deeper during the cardio to keep on going, especially when i'm shattered


I'm with u dude, 65% is the minimum for me, 125-130 works alot better than 115-120bpm imo

115 feels like you're just wasting your time,


----------



## MarkFranco (Aug 26, 2010)

I dont see how a slowler heart rate helps to burn more fat, surely if you can keep a higher heart rate, you are working harder thus burning more calories/fat?

I know **** all about fat loss other than its hard.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

MarkFranco said:


> I dont see how a slowler heart rate helps to burn more fat, surely if you can keep a higher heart rate, you are working harder thus burning more calories/fat?
> 
> I know **** all about fat loss other than its hard.


the zone so to speak is between 65-75% it is not set at 65%....if you did cardio at 90% yes you would use more calories but the majority of these calories would be from glycogen(carbs)yes you would burn fat that is a given but the goal should be to burn the most amount of fat in the least amount of time and effort....you will burn more calories from fat performing cardio at say 75% than you would at 90% although you would burn more calories performing cardio at 90%......

it is all about goals....if all you want is to lose weight no matter the form then smash your cardio and you will drop weight.....but if like most bodybuilders you want to drop fat as efficiently as possible then keeping your HR between 65-75% is best......now i have no studies to back this up, i have 22yrs of experiance on both myself and others.....

just remember for a study to be practical it needs to be carried out on bodybuilders living the bodybuilding lifestyle there is no point in looking at studies that show how effective a certain HR is for marathon runners as the two dynamics are poles apart....


----------



## Ashcrapper (Jul 3, 2008)

Low intensity stationary bike always works for me, either am on an empty stomach or pwo.

Incidentally, has anyone heard that chickens are born with two cocks? fascinating


----------



## mal (Dec 31, 2009)

i love the stationary bike,go about 60-70% i think for30-45 min's

only downside i get a numb cok when i get off?


----------



## Ashcrapper (Jul 3, 2008)

seat on mine kills my arse


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Ashcrapper said:


> Low intensity stationary bike always works for me, either am on an empty stomach or pwo.
> 
> Incidentally, has anyone heard that chickens are born with two cocks? fascinating


yea i heard this guy called DB who is a proffessor or somefink like that said they do....


----------



## martin brown (Dec 31, 2008)

MarkFranco said:


> I dont see how a slowler heart rate helps to burn more fat, surely if you can keep a higher heart rate, you are working harder thus burning more calories/fat?
> 
> I know **** all about fat loss other than its hard.


From memory you tend to burn the highest % of fat at rest.

Maybe bodybuilders should rest all day to get lean 

Which could be why some prefer not to do any cardio and use lower cals I suppose (refering back to another thread..).

Low HR training may be beneficial to competitive bodybuilders but isn't needed for someone of normal size. You cant lose muscle you aint built yet!


----------



## Ashcrapper (Jul 3, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> yea i heard this guy called DB who is a proffessor or somefink like that said they do....


simply frightening what these intelligent types discover these days


----------

