45minute At An Average 175bpm: Fat Burning Or Not?

[[old] sbasol]

Hi,<br />I am a university rower from Turkey. I have to lose some weight in order to be fitter.<br />I usually row for 45 minutes at an average heart rtae of 170-175 bpm.<br />I wonder if it is fat burning or not? They say we should row at a low intensty ın order to burn fat. But when I row at a low pace I burn less calorıes than I would rowıng at a faster pace.<br />If you help I would be very pleased.

[[old] michaelb]

This question seems to be hotly debated, and I don't pretend to have an answer. However, I am "old school" when it comes to losing weight: you want to burn more calories than you take in each day, and the more calories you burn, the more you will lose, within reason.<br /><br />To me, the reason to row slower is if that will let you row farther, and let you row more often with no rest days. So 60min at a lower intensity may burn more calories. At least for me, if I let myself row slow, I will row when I am tired or lazy or late at night, and I won't be affected the next day, so I can always row slow.

[[old] sbasol]

<!--QuoteBegin-michaelb+Dec 15 2005, 09:38 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(michaelb @ Dec 15 2005, 09:38 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This question seems to be hotly debated, and I don't pretend to have an answer.  However, I am "old school" when it comes to losing weight: you want to burn more calories than you take in each day, and the more calories you burn, the more you will lose, within reason.<br /><br />To me, the reason to row slower is if that will let you row farther, and let you row more often with no rest days.  So 60min at a lower intensity may burn more calories.  At least for me, if I let myself row slow, I will row when I am tired or lazy or late at night, and I won't be affected the next day, so I can always row slow. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I am asking this because people say at high intensity we burn carbohydrates and at low intensity we burn fats. But do they mean with high intensity exercises with short intervals? Is it possible that I burn carbohydrates for 45minutes at an average of 175bpm? Of course rowing slower is easier for me too. I also think that I can do more execrices in a week when I row at a slower pace than I do now.

[[old] Bayko]

First, I think that michaelb is absolutely right. The only reason to go slower is to enable you to row longer or more often.<br /><br />Several times I have posed this question that has yet to be answered by the proponents of low intenisity to burn fat: IF it is true that you can row at an intensity that burns only fat, then what happens to the carbohydrates in your body that do not get burned? My understanding of nutrition and physiology is that unburned carbohydrates get converted to fat and stored by the body for future use. So, instead of burning carbohydrates today for fuel during exercise, you have to burn them tomorrow in the form of stored fat. What then, was the point of burning only fat during the workout? A vicious cycle.<br /><br />Watching calories in v. calories burned probably gets you 95% of what you need to know. Maybe even 99%.<br /><br />Rick

[[old] Steelhead]

<!--QuoteBegin-sbasol+Dec 15 2005, 01:00 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(sbasol @ Dec 15 2005, 01:00 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-michaelb+Dec 15 2005, 09:38 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(michaelb @ Dec 15 2005, 09:38 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This question seems to be hotly debated, and I don't pretend to have an answer.  However, I am "old school" when it comes to losing weight: you want to burn more calories than you take in each day, and the more calories you burn, the more you will lose, within reason.<br /><br />To me, the reason to row slower is if that will let you row farther, and let you row more often with no rest days.  So 60min at a lower intensity may burn more calories.  At least for me, if I let myself row slow, I will row when I am tired or lazy or late at night, and I won't be affected the next day, so I can always row slow. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I am asking this because people say at high intensity we burn carbohydrates and at low intensity we burn fats. But do they mean with high intensity exercises with short intervals? Is it possible that I burn carbohydrates for 45minutes at an average of 175bpm? Of course rowing slower is easier for me too. I also think that I can do more execrices in a week when I row at a slower pace than I do now. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Fat Burning? Forget the myths about rowing slower or at a lower intensity to burn more fat. Yes, your body chooses a slightly higher percentage of fat as fuel at lower intensities, but the total number of calories is also lower. Rowing at the highest intensity you can comfortably stick with for the distance without hurting yourself will use more total calories and, in the long run, more total body fat. The more calories we burn vis-a-vis the fewer calories we consume, the more weight we lose and the more fat reserves we burn.<br /><br />So, here's an article:http://www.shapefit.com/exercise-questi ... -fast.html <br /><br />Exercise Questions - Should I Do Cardio Slow or Fast For Best Results?<br /><br />fitness-advice Exercise Question:<br />I just got back to the gym and use the elliptical trainer (love it) about 1 hour per day and losing about 1 pound of fat per week. I find that going slower with higher resistance burns up to 250 more calories per hour than going faster with less resistance, (heart rate is the same for both). It seems logical that the higher calorie burn method would yield faster weight loss results. Which of these methods (slow & heavy vs. fast & light) is truly better for overall weight loss and heart health?<br /><br />fitness-advice Exercise Answer:<br />That is a great cardio question. <b>The simple fact is that the more calories you burn per session, the more body weight you will lose. </b>So, by going slower with higher resistance, this will be the ideal way to drop weight since your burning 250 more calories per hour. In terms of the benefits to the heart, both types of training should offer similar advantages since the heart rate level is the same. It might also be great to incorporate both styles of training into your cardio routine and even think about adding high intensity interval training (HIIT) to your regime also.<br /><br /><b>High Intensity Interval Training supercharges your metabolism and burns major amounts of calories. </b>With a H.I.I.T routine, you will basically work in intervals of intensity through your workout. For example, if you're on the stationary bike, you will warm up for 2 minutes at about a 50% exertion rate. Then, for the next full minute you will go all out as fast as you can at about a 90%-95% exertion rate. Then, cool down for 30 seconds at about 50%-60% and do it all over again. Do this for the next 16 minutes and then finally cool down for the last 2 minutes at 50% exertion. Trust me, you will be absolutely burnt out at the end and will be screaming to get off the bike. This is a good thing <br /><br /><a href='http://www.bodybuildingforyou.com/artic ... bolism.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.bodybuildingforyou.com/artic ... ism.htm</a>

[[old] Steelhead]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bayko+Dec 15 2005, 01:15 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bayko @ Dec 15 2005, 01:15 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First, I think that michaelb is absolutely right.  The only reason to go slower is to enable you to row longer or more often.<br /><br />Several times I have posed this question that has yet to be answered by the proponents of low intenisity to burn fat:  IF it is true that you can row at an intensity that burns only fat, then what happens to the carbohydrates in your body that do not get burned?  My understanding of nutrition and physiology is that unburned carbohydrates get converted to fat and stored by the body for future use.  So, instead of burning carbohydrates today for fuel during exercise, you have to burn them tomorrow in the form of stored fat.  What then, was the point of burning only fat during the workout?  A vicious cycle.<br /><br />Watching calories in v. calories burned probably gets you 95% of what you need to know.  Maybe even 99%.<br /><br />Rick <br /> </td></tr></table><br />If I remember my nutrition course information correctly, the body uses carbohydrates when it is burning fat efficiently, so you are correct in that it is impossible to row at an intensity that burns only fat -- actually, if we don't have enough glycogen stores then the body will burn muscle and fat. For example, on my Mt. Everest trek, I lost 20 pounds in less than two weeks, but it was mostly the muscle from my upper body (based on the fact my pecs shrunk and when I got back State-side I could barely lift my minimum bench press), and I still had the fat stores.<br /><br />Tip: No Fat Burning Zone<br />Although we burn a higher percentage of fat calories at slow and moderate aerobic intensities, we burn more total calories, and more total fat calories, when we do aerobic exercise at higher intensities. We may choose to do longer or slower (or both) aerobics for various reasons, but we should never slow down just because we think that is necessary to be in a "fat burning zone." There really is no significant fat burning zone except the zone we get in when we get off our backsides and exercise.<br />

[[old] PaulS]

Excellents posts on this topic: I've come across a headline from 2029 that seems to confirm how good they are, or would that be "will be"?<br /><br />"85-year, $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise is the key to weight loss."<br /><br />

[[old] ljwagner]

Consult a good exercise physiology text. Also try lookng in www.findartcles.com .<br /><br />One phrase I've read is that we burn fat in a carbohydrate flame. As carbs get used up, more calories from fat are used. At 60 minutes it is about 80% fat calories used. 175 bpm HR is really high for 45 minutes. Also, more intensity, somehow a bit less fat burned. Oddly enough, we're supposed to burn more fat calories at about a 60-75% max HR pace. Check with some skinny women who do a lot of (too much ?) aerobics.

[[old] Steelhead]

<!--QuoteBegin-ljwagner+Dec 15 2005, 03:06 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ljwagner @ Dec 15 2005, 03:06 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consult a good exercise physiology text.  Also try lookng in www.findartcles.com .<br /><br />One phrase I've read is that we burn fat in a carbohydrate flame.  As carbs get used up, more calories from fat are used.  At 60 minutes it is about 80% fat calories used.  175 bpm HR is really high for 45 minutes.  Also, more intensity, somehow a bit less fat burned.  Oddly enough, we're supposed to burn more fat calories at about a 60-75% max HR pace.  Check with some skinny women who do a lot of (too much ?) aerobics. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Also, I forgot to add that during the first 15 minutes of aerobic exercise no fat is burned; the body uses the glycogen, but after 15 minutes then it utilizes the glycogen (carbs) and the fat.<br /><br />Also, also, for cardio effect, anything over 30 minutes really doesn't improve the heart that much, so if all you want is to help your heart then get in at least 30 minutes every day -- on the other hand, if your goal is to lose weight, then, hey, put in all the time and meters that you can. And, if you want to increase muscle mass, then that's where interval training comes into play.<br /><br />I read something today (some study) indicating that each cardio-workout should burn at least 300 calories to have an real positive effect on the body -- I don't remember where I read that.

[[old] sbasol]

<!--QuoteBegin-Steelhead+Dec 16 2005, 07:16 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Steelhead @ Dec 16 2005, 07:16 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-ljwagner+Dec 15 2005, 03:06 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ljwagner @ Dec 15 2005, 03:06 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Consult a good exercise physiology text.  Also try lookng in www.findartcles.com .<br /><br />One phrase I've read is that we burn fat in a carbohydrate flame.  As carbs get used up, more calories from fat are used.  At 60 minutes it is about 80% fat calories used.  175 bpm HR is really high for 45 minutes.  Also, more intensity, somehow a bit less fat burned.  Oddly enough, we're supposed to burn more fat calories at about a 60-75% max HR pace.  Check with some skinny women who do a lot of (too much ?) aerobics. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Also, I forgot to add that during the first 15 minutes of aerobic exercise no fat is burned; the body uses the glycogen, but after 15 minutes then it utilizes the glycogen (carbs) and the fat.<br /><br />Also, also, for cardio effect, anything over 30 minutes really doesn't improve the heart that much, so if all you want is to help your heart then get in at least 30 minutes every day -- on the other hand, if your goal is to lose weight, then, hey, put in all the time and meters that you can. And, if you want to increase muscle mass, then that's where interval training comes into play.<br /><br />I read something today (some study) indicating that each cardio-workout should burn at least 300 calories to have an real positive effect on the body -- I don't remember where I read that. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />I burn around 600-650calories per workout. I think that's adequate.<br />So we can say in weight loss the importance is on the number of calories we burn. Right ?

[[old] Steelhead]

<!--QuoteBegin-sbasol+Dec 17 2005, 03:45 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(sbasol @ Dec 17 2005, 03:45 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[snip]<br /><br />I burn around 600-650calories per workout. I think that's adequate.<br />So we can say in weight loss the importance is on the number of calories we burn. Right ? <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Correct. Force times mass equals calories burned (or something like that), so the slower you row, the longer you have to row to burn the same number of calories that you would burn if you rowed faster for a shorter time. The slower you row, the easier it is for the body to utilize glycogen and fat, but at some point you could row so slow that not much would be going on. So, burn calories and burn a lot of them and you will notice a decrease in weight and size, and an increase in strength and stamina.<br /><br />Mike

[[old] John Rupp]

You are always burning fat calories during exercise.<br /><br />Up to a certain level, the higher the intensity the more fat calories you are burning.<br /><br />The higher the intensity the higher the percentage of glycogen you are using.<br /><br />Thus you want to reach the intensity where you are burning a lot of fat calories but not so high that you are depleting your stores of glycogen.<br /><br />You are probably not going to deplete your glygogen stores burning only 600 calories a day though, so you don't need to worry so much about going at a higher intensity.<br /><br />Another thing though is that if you are going a high intensity all the time then it's not as easy for your muscles to relax and you also would not have the same flushing of the waste products in your system, as when you include some easier exercise in your program.

[[old] ljwagner]

John, a question (!),<br /><br />"You are probably not going to deplete your glygogen stores burning only 600 calories a day though, so you don't need to worry so much about going at a higher intensity."<br /><br /> Some years ago, in weight workouts of 45 minutes or longer with not too much rest between sets (about a minute), I'd get to a point where I really needed a break. Really tired, just sit and recover for 5 minutes or so. Then I could continue as before. What had I depleted that I needed this recovery period ? Is that the glycogen ?

[[old] John Rupp]

ljwagner,<br /><br />You had built up the acidity in your muscles where they were no longer able to function and you needed a break.<br /><br />This is like if you sprint all out for a 500 meters. Then the acidity in your muscles is high, and you need to take a break before continuing rowing. <br /><br />Training can increase the level of acidity you can tolerate and still continue on rowing.

[[old] John Rupp]

Related to this systemically are the levels of acidity in the lungs, based on one's method of breathing. Over breathing of oxygen and/or washing out of co2 buffers from the lungs can upset the ph balance in the body, and cause asthma and panic attacks, where the lungs shut down to try and preserve this delicate balance.