Maths Problem

petethedrummer

With it being winter time.... I want to lose 1 kg of bodyfat by training in my fat burning zone. The first 2 questions I have are.... what is the Fat burning zone? And what % of max heart rate is it?

Lumen

petethedrummer wrote: »

what is the Fat burning zone?

It's the bit of the grillpan that just won't come clean no matter how many brillo pads you use.

nordicb

It's highly individual, but I like this graph...

Lusk_Doyle

^^^I just get a headache from looking at that! Ride more. Eat less crap!

RayCun

The 'fat-burning zone' is the heart rate zone in which the largest proportion of calories burned come from fat.
If you train harder, a lower proportion of calories will come from fat but you will still burn more calories and use more fat.

sconhome

And the benefit of working out at such a low intensity is that you can repeat again tomorrow and not have to worry about recovery from high intensity session that will burn more calories. Ideal time for fat burning workouts is first thing in the morning without any breakfast. Grab a coffee and go!

RonanCFD

Looking at that, I feel like I'm training all wrong. I'm early 40s, and tend to hit a heart rate just over 180 when feeling pretty maxed out going up the steep bit of Howth hill so the peak heart rate for my age doesn't look too unrealistic. But I feel comfortable holding a heart rate of 150-155 for 3 or 4 hours on a long ride. Surely I must be in an aerobic zone for that length of time? And to keep my pulse down in the Fat Burn zone I think I would hardly be putting any effort in at all...

kenmc

Much easier just to buy lighter bits. More fun too!

RayCun

RonanCFD wrote: »

Looking at that, I feel like I'm training all wrong. I'm early 40s, and tend to hit a heart rate just over 180 when feeling pretty maxed out going up the steep bit of Howth hill so the peak heart rate for my age doesn't look too unrealistic. But I feel comfortable holding a heart rate of 150-155 for 3 or 4 hours on a long ride. Surely I must be in an aerobic zone for that length of time? And to keep my pulse down in the Fat Burn zone I think I would hardly be putting any effort in at all...

Are you close to vomiting when you reach the top of that hill? Then it isn't your max heart rate.
The min HR on that chart is just a guess too.

Beasty

RonanCFD wrote: »

Looking at that, I feel like I'm training all wrong. I'm early 40s, and tend to hit a heart rate just over 180 when feeling pretty maxed out going up the steep bit of Howth hill so the peak heart rate for my age doesn't look too unrealistic. But I feel comfortable holding a heart rate of 150-155 for 3 or 4 hours on a long ride. Surely I must be in an aerobic zone for that length of time? And to keep my pulse down in the Fat Burn zone I think I would hardly be putting any effort in at all...

Forget the max HRs shown in that chart - everyone is different. Find out what yours is and work back from that. If you're feeling maxed out at 180 you can probably get nearer 190!

I'm 53 - my Max HR recorded is 186 (which means I must actually be 34!) - I suspect my Max HR should be a bit higher (they also reckon you can hit a higher HR running than cycling)

petethedrummer

nordicb wrote: »

It's highly individual, but I like this graph...

Ok this is getting somewhere. I am 35 next week, so until I work out the correct values my fat burn heart rate is between 111 and 130 bpm.

Next question: Is it better to keep it to the lower end or the higher end of that range or is it all the same?

Information Thus Far:
Age: 35 years
Height: 179 cm
Weight: 74 kg
Fat Burn Zone: 111-130bpm
Target bodyfat Loss: 1Kg
Target distance in Zone: ??km

DaithiMC

RonanCFD wrote: »

Looking at that, I feel like I'm training all wrong. I'm early 40s, and tend to hit a heart rate just over 180 when feeling pretty maxed out going up the steep bit of Howth hill so the peak heart rate for my age doesn't look too unrealistic. But I feel comfortable holding a heart rate of 150-155 for 3 or 4 hours on a long ride. Surely I must be in an aerobic zone for that length of time? And to keep my pulse down in the Fat Burn zone I think I would hardly be putting any effort in at all...

These charts can be misleading by using the terms Aerobic and Anaerobic - the reality is you are using both systems to a more or lesser degree depending on your exercise levels.

The formulas that relate HRmax to age can be way off and need to be considered as a VERY general guide and your observations of an above 180 max are more accurate and specific to you so you could take your observation as being your HRmax. This may go up slightly as you get fitter so keep an eye on it. If you take a HR monitor and measure your HR as soon as you wake up in the morning this is as good an estimate of your resting HR and with now HRmax and HRmin you can figure out (or put into your software on the phone or HRMonitor) the different zones.

Also as someone pointed out, exercising by getting your HR to 120 is better for engaging fat energy sources. Some research shows that doing this fasted also trains your body to use these reserves more efficiently, so for instance, doing an hour first thing in the morning and then waiting for an hour or two before eating is a protocol that some trainers go by for fat burning and training the body to use these sources.

Always hydrate well though. It seems that the volume of exercise is important too so this is why a lot of trainers recommend long rides at lower HR for fatburning.

I read a lot about this recently and it seems to me that doing alternate low HR hour long+ sessions and higher intensity shorter sessions is a good plan to follow. So thats what I plan to do until the boredom kicks in!!

petethedrummer

OK OK we'll not worry about upper end or lower end of heart rate. it will vary. Next question. How do I measure effort in this zone to know how much energy I have outputted per hour or per km?

Information Thus Far:
Age: 35 years
Height: 179 cm
Weight: 74 kg
Fat Burn Zone: 111-130bpm
Energy per hour: ??
Target bodyfat Loss: 1Kg
Target distance in Zone: ??km

Lumen

Pete, just join the Breatharians. They have the ultimate low-everything diet.

You'd have no choice but to burn fat.

Prana toast, prana bhuna, prana crackers. The permutations are endless.

petethedrummer

Lumen wrote: »

Pete, just join the Breatharians. They have the ultimate low-everything diet.

You'd have no choice but to burn fat.

Prana toast, prana bhuna, prana crackers. The permutations are endless.

Maths will solve my conundrum. I don't want feelings or opinions, I want numbers.

DaithiMC

petethedrummer wrote: »

OK OK we'll not worry about upper end or lower end of heart rate. it will vary. Next question. How do I measure effort in this zone to know how much energy I have outputted per hour or per km?

Information Thus Far:
Age: 35 years
Height: 179 cm
Weight: 74 kg
Fat Burn Zone: 111-130bpm
Energy per hour: ??
Target bodyfat Loss: 1Kg
Target distance in Zone: ??km

I didn't suggest not worrying about upper and lower HR - just that over a period of time (months depending on your training and level of fitness) they can change. It is reasonably straightforward to measure both the way I suggested above.

In relation to energy - some apps calculate your calorific expenditure over a total spin so just divide that by the number hours the spin lasted for. Caution though is that most of these are also general estimates so unless you know your BMR and can then observe level of effort from a power metre then it will always be an estimate and you just have to find a system that you think is close to your specific case.

petethedrummer

DaithiMC wrote: »

In relation to energy - some apps calculate your calorific expenditure over a total spin so just divide that by the number hours the spin lasted for.

Which apps? I want their numbers.

RonanCFD

I don't want to hijack Pete the drummer's thread, but thanks for the very interesting & detailed replies - lots to look into & think about!

DaithiMC

petethedrummer wrote: »

Which apps? I want their numbers.

Strava, Sports Tracker, Mapmyride all have an estimate of calories use - not sure but if you use these with a HR monitor they may be more accurate. I find wide differences between estimates made by Strave and Sports Tracker.

petethedrummer

My fitnesspal says this

How Many Calories Did I Burn?
Bicycling, 12-14 mph, moderate (cycling, biking, bike riding)

Your Weight: 75Kg
How Long: 60 Minutes
Calories burned: 592

is this including what I would have burned had I been lying down or is it over and above my basal rate?

DaithiMC

petethedrummer wrote: »

My fitnesspal says this

How Many Calories Did I Burn?
Bicycling, 12-14 mph, moderate (cycling, biking, bike riding)

Your Weight: 75Kg
How Long: 60 Minutes
Calories burned: 592

is this including what I would have burned had I been lying down or is it over and above my basal rate?

That should be specific to the exercise period you did. So if your basal rate for a day is say, 2000, you just used, according to your software, (592/2000)*100% of your daily need. If you did nothing for the rest of the day then you should be able to calculate your caloric deficit for the day normalising your BMR to 23 rather than 24 hours and then summing the exercise calories with your BMR calories and subtracting a normal day's BMR.

This is also an estimate though as you would probably continue for a few hours after your exercise to burn at a higher rate than your BMR.

petethedrummer

According to here my BMR is 1736.8 Calories/day according to here it is 1,689 calories/day.

That seems awful low! Can someone verify these.

And there is a 3% discrepancy.

petethedrummer

DaithiMC wrote: »

So if your basal rate for a day is say, 2000,

What is my Basal rate?

niceonetom

Abs are made in the kitchen etc. but it's probably necessary to leave diet out of this thread or there'll be worms all over the gaff but... Has anyone ever actually gotten leaner from low intensity exercise like this? I mean weight loss preferentially from fat without also losing muscle etc? I never have and I haven't noticed it in others. Maybe for very heavy people who are starting from such a low level of fitness that any exercise would have that impact. The leanest athletes I see tend to be the ones that do lots of very explosive/anaerobic stuff...

Is the "fat burning zone" not debunked yet? Shouldn't we be doing HIIT and basking in the afterglow or whatever it's called?

i_surge

Is the LCHF diet not working?

I've had good results in the past with daily 2 hr spins in the upper endurance/low tempo zone with a recovery drink and balanced meal afterwards. Constantly pedaling and staying in the zone.

You're training the aerobic system and feel like you've had a good workout yet it's easy enough that you don't need to eat carbs on the bike to get home and can do it day after day.

Pottling around at the lower end is good for fat burning but a waste of time in terms of aerobic benefits unless you're putting in BIG hrs on the bike.

While they work well for fat burning short term, there's some evidence that fasted training or too much intensity can screw up the hormonal systems causing burnout and illness long term.

petethedrummer

Quiet you two. Right now, all i want to know is my Basal Metabolic rate.

niceonetom

I'm beginning to question the ingenuousness of this thread.

Ole Rodrigo

Why can't you count calories?

Ikg = 7700 cals.

petethedrummer

ror_74 wrote: »

Why can't you count calories?

Ikg = 7700 cals.

Yes but I want to know how far I have to cycle to achieve this.

diomed

I'm in my 60s. According to that chart I'm always in the maximum effort zone when cycling. If I was in the fat burn zone I wouldn't be moving.

AstraMonti

The answer is 42.

In a more serious note.. copy paste from your previous thread



Fats contribute a greater percentage (and amount) of energy at 25% VO2max (i.e. walking pace), around 50% of the energy at 65% VO2max (i.e. steady state pace), and around 25% of the energy at 85% VO2max (i.e. an intense aerobic bout with some significant anaerobic energy involved)

So start walking Pete and when you reach Belfast you should be grand.

The diagram in post no3 has no correlation between my age, my hr and what I consider anaerobic. I am completely off the scale.

petethedrummer

According to here my BMR is : 2388 Calories Per Day.

*note I chose the 1-3 day exercise option.

Information Thus Far:
Target bodyfat Loss: 1 Kg
Age: 35 years
Height: 179 cm
Weight: 74 kg
Fat Burn Zone: 111-130bpm
Basal Metabolic Rate: 1,689 - 2388 cal/hr
Energy per hour (not exercising): 70.375 - 99.5 cal/hr
Energy per hour (Zone 3): X cal/hr
Energy per hour from fat (Zone 3): X*(0.75) cal/hr
Target distance in Zone: Y km

What is X and Y?

ROK ON

Pete
To the extent that this is a mathematical issue that implies that it can be solved by testing and experimentation.

To the extent that you want answers from the interweb suggest that you lack motivation go experiment and you want to know what others may have done relating to this issue.

You have some of the data, but have some missing variables.
Why not get on your bike and measure how long it takes to burn that 1kg of fat.
When you get the answer be a nice chap and let us know.

NeedMoreGears

petethedrummer wrote: »

Yes but I want to know how far I have to cycle to achieve this.

At 30kph you'd put about 185W on the pedals. (flat , still air)

Assuming a typical efficiency for your body of 24% thats 771W fat/carb consumption. At 4182kj/kcal, that equates to 0.84kcal/s or 663kcal/hr.

The key is the fat/carb ratio. Some suggest that the fat/carb ratio at low effort/rest is about 50/50. At 30kph you're probably working so this might drop to 35/65 . (http://www.active.com/triathlon/Articles/The-Myth-of-the-Fat-burning-Zone.htm). In effect you're burning 232 kcal of fat per hour or 7.74 per km.

Therefore you need to cycle 995km at 30kph to burn off 1kg of fat ; although you'd have also had to consume about twice that energy in carbs.

Sounds a bit much to me but even if all the energy came from fat it still comes to 348km at 30kph.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

The leanest athletes I see tend to be the ones that do lots of very explosive/anaerobic stuff

I read a few pro cyclist autobiographies, though probably fewer than you.

They're all totally obsessed with being light and eating almost nothing. I'm not convinced that the Riis fizzy-water-and-sleeping-pill approach has been completely abandoned, even in the Age Of Sky.

Whereas non-pro cyclists, particularly new ones, seem obsessed with feeding themselves as much as possible. If it's not on-the-bike "nutrition" it's recovery drinks. Even the retrogrouches bang on about bowls of porridge before a "spin". I believe this to be rooted in the fact that fatties are overrepresented in the body of recreational cyclists on account of people taking up cycling to lose weight.

So, whilst I acknowledge that there are anecdotes about amateurs losing weight and getting slow/sick/overtrained/underecovered, I just don't see why if pros can eat relatively nothing and get faster then amateurs can't do the same. Unless a necessary component is lounging around like a pro for 8 hours a day and avoiding all contact with humanity.

killalanerr

Lumen wrote: »

So, whilst I acknowledge that there are anecdotes about amateurs losing weight and getting slow/sick/overtrained/underecovered, I just don't see why if pros can eat relatively nothing and get faster then amateurs can't do the same. Unless a necessary component is lounging around like a pro for 8 hours a day and avoiding all contact with humanity.

Ya im with Lumen on this one,i have cut my pre ride meal down to one banana and a cupa tea in an effort to louse some weight and have had no problem geting round a 100k club spin on a few litres of water,the trick is not to eat rings round yourself when you get home,
I wouldnt try this as a complete newbie but any one with a few winters under their belt might be surprised how little they need to eat

Ole Rodrigo

I make it 350 km at 27 kph.

Round it off at 400 and do the extra bit in the rain. Be grand.

RayCun

petethedrummer wrote: »

Information Thus Far:
Target bodyfat Loss: 1 Kg
Age: 35 years
Height: 179 cm
Weight: 74 kg
Fat Burn Zone: 111-130bpm
Basal Metabolic Rate: 1,689 - 2388 cal/hr
Energy per hour (not exercising): 70.375 - 99.5 cal/hr
Energy per hour (Zone 3): X cal/hr
Energy per hour from fat (Zone 3): X*(0.75) cal/hr
Target distance in Zone: Y km

The three lines I have crossed out are not 'information', they are ranges so broad as to be meaningless. If you want actual information, try this place
http://www.ucd.ie/sportandhealth/sss/laboratory/
or somewhere like it

Lumen

Also consider spending more time cold and naked, particularly at night time.

22C->16C would raise your BMR by 5.6%.

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n4/full/1601308a.html

Maths!! Academic references!

petethedrummer

RayCun wrote: »

The three lines I have crossed out are not 'information', they are ranges so broad as to be meaningless. If you want actual information, try this place
http://www.ucd.ie/sportandhealth/sss/laboratory/
or somewhere like it

Thanks Ray but I can't pick through that. weight loss is supposed to be simple. reading through all that is not simple.

DaithiMC

petethedrummer wrote: »

According to here my BMR is : 2388 Calories Per Day.

*note I chose the 1-3 day exercise option.

Information Thus Far:
Target bodyfat Loss: 1 Kg
Age: 35 years
Height: 179 cm
Weight: 74 kg
Fat Burn Zone: 111-130bpm
Basal Metabolic Rate: 1,689 - 2388 cal/hr
Energy per hour (not exercising): 70.375 - 99.5 cal/hr
Energy per hour (Zone 3): X cal/hr
Energy per hour from fat (Zone 3): X*(0.75) cal/hr
Target distance in Zone: Y km

What is X and Y?

Ok, so if you do a workout on the bike and use, say, Strava, it will give you an estimated caloric value for the entire ride. If your spin is two hours divide that by two to get X. You will also have the total distance travelled so if your spin was uniform in intensity (assume you spend calories at a linear rate over the total distance) you can graph a number of points and extract your Y target value.

petethedrummer

I made a mistake earlier, I should have picked the sedentary option. 2084 is the new upper BMR value.

Information Thus Far:
Target bodyfat Loss: 1 Kg
Age: 35 years
Height: 179 cm
Weight: 74 kg
Fat Burn Zone: 111-130bpm
Basal Metabolic Rate: 1,689 - 2084 cal/hr
Energy per hour (not exercising): 70.375 - 86.83 cal/hr
Energy per hour (Zone 3): X cal/hr
Energy per hour from fat (Zone 3): X*(0.75) cal/hr
Target distance in Zone: Y km

What is X and Y?

petethedrummer

DaithiMC wrote: »

Ok, so if you do a workout on the bike and use, say, Strava, it will give you an estimated caloric value for the entire ride. If your spin is two hours divide that by two to get X. You will also have the total distance travelled so if your spin was uniform in intensity (assume you spend calories at a linear rate over the total distance)

Do I have to buy a smart phone or a fancy bike computer to do this? Do they give out their formulas for calculating the spent calories?

DaithiMC wrote: »

you can graph a number of points and extract your Y target value.

We may need to graph a few things here but I'm hoping to keep this as simple as possible.

DaithiMC

petethedrummer wrote: »

I made a mistake earlier, I should have picked the sedentary option. 2084 is the new upper BMR value.

Information Thus Far:
Target bodyfat Loss: 1 Kg
Age: 35 years
Height: 179 cm
Weight: 74 kg
Fat Burn Zone: 111-130bpm
Basal Metabolic Rate: 1,689 - 2084 cal/hr
Energy per hour (not exercising): 70.375 - 86.83 cal/hr
Energy per hour (Zone 3): X cal/hr
Energy per hour from fat (Zone 3): X*(0.75) cal/hr
Target distance in Zone: Y km

What is X and Y?

By the way, if weight loss is the absolute goal here many physical trainers will tell you it is something like 80% food, 20% exercise that will produce best results. So starving yourself in a systematic way will yield faster and more significant results than exercise and caloric intake at or above your BMR.

DaithiMC

petethedrummer wrote: »

Do I have to buy a smart phone or a fancy bike computer to do this? Do they give out their formulas for calculating the spent calories?


We may need to graph a few things here but I'm hoping to keep this as simple as possible.

You will have to do some experimental work to get some of the variables for you're calculations. If you have s gym membership you could do it on a bike there, they give all the numbers but again would be estimates.

Otherwise, yes a smartphone, but not necessarily a fancy bike computer would be needed. At the very least it would be good to have a speedo to keep your rate consistent

petethedrummer

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Assuming a typical efficiency for your body of 24% thats 771W fat/carb consumption. At 4182kj/kcal, that equates to 0.84kcal/s or 663kcal/hr.

how did you go from 4182kj/kcal to 0.84kcal/s

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

The key is the fat/carb ratio. Some suggest that the fat/carb ratio at low effort/rest is about 50/50. At 30kph you're probably working so this might drop to 35/65 . (http://www.active.com/triathlon/Articles/The-Myth-of-the-Fat-burning-Zone.htm). In effect you're burning 232 kcal of fat per hour or 7.74 per km.

I want this as efficient as possible so I will be going slow. So 50/50 sounds reasonable.

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Therefore you need to cycle 995km at 30kph to burn off 1kg of fat ; although you'd have also had to consume about twice that energy in carbs.

995Kms? So if someone was 20kg overweight they would have to do 995*20 kms to get down to their correct weight. How far away is that? anyway we'll do the full maths just to confirm everything.

Also why would I need to eat twice the energy in carbs? I don't understand the reasoning.

petethedrummer

Lumen wrote: »

Also consider spending more time cold and naked, particularly at night time.

22C->16C would raise your BMR by 5.6%.

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n4/full/1601308a.html

Are you volunteering to take my temperature?

petethedrummer

petethedrummer wrote: »

995Kms? So if someone was 20kg overweight they would have to do 995*20 kms to get down to their correct weight. How far away is that? anyway we'll do the full maths just to confirm everything.

It's this distance x 4.

Where as I only have to go from Elmshorn, Germany to auxerre, France plus a 2km diversion for lunch.

I think it helps to visualise goals but I don't think those numbers are correct.

slideshow bob

petethedrummer wrote: »

995Kms? So if someone was 20kg overweight they would have to do 995*20 kms to get down to their correct weight.

That's the distance that would burn 3kg of fat if only fat were used as fuel. As NeedMoreGears says, his assumption is about a third of these come from fat, and two thirds from carbs.

Back to losing 1kg of bodyweight...
1) Train med-high intensity at lunchtime
2) Dont eat until evening
3) Repeat until bodyweight down 1kg.

2) helps because the metabolic rate is elevated for some time after exercise. Once your glycogen is gone, your body has to burn fat. A few iterations will do it.

petethedrummer

slideshow bob wrote: »

That's the distance that would burn 3kg of fat if only fat were used as fuel. As NeedMoreGears says, his assumption is about a third of these come from fat, and two thirds from carbs.

It's not clear what he meant, he never mentioned 3kgs.


"Some suggest that the fat/carb ratio at low effort/rest is about 50/50. At 30kph you're probably working so this might drop to 35/65 . (http://www.active.com/triathlon/Arti...rning-Zone.htm). In effect you're burning 232 kcal of fat per hour or 7.74 per km.

Therefore you need to cycle 995km at 30kph to burn off 1kg of fat ;"


I'm confused.

petethedrummer

slideshow bob wrote: »

Back to losing 1kg of bodyweight...
1) Train med-high intensity at lunchtime
2) Dont eat until evening
3) Repeat until bodyweight down 1kg.

2) helps because the metabolic rate is elevated for some time after exercise. Once your glycogen is gone, your body has to burn fat. A few iterations will do it.

How long do glycogen stores last if I take this approach? I want to get at the fat and only get 30 mins for lunch.

Edit: Actually don't answer that, I want to keep this to Fat burning zone only. This will only complicate things.