4 ms·
It's true there exists a "fat burn zone" where the ratio of fat burned to calories spent is higher. It's not true that's it's beneficial for people trying to lo
by lnanek2 5y ago
It's true there exists a "fat burn zone" where the ratio of fat burned to calories spent is higher. It's not true that's it's beneficial for people trying to lose weight to limit their calories burned to that zone, though. What governs weight loss is total calories in vs. total calories out:
https://www.whoop.com/thelocker/fat-burning-heart-rate-zone/ https://www.whoop.com/thelocker/fat-burning-heart-rate-zone/
- rojeee 5y agoYes, to lose weight, one must burn more than they eat. That’s not in dispute! I’m also not saying you only need to run in aerobic zone to lose weight. My point was that, people who go for a run at a 160bpm+ HR are not doing themselves a favour because: 1) it stresses the body too much which releases cortisol and other hormones which don’t play well with weight loss 2) uses only the anaerobic system, so burns sugar, not fat 3) burning of sugar makes the body crave more sugar and refined carbs making it harder to eat healthier They would be better off running at a slower pace for weight loss and eating a diet mostly comprising fat and protein (whilst keep in calories less then out calories). If you build up the aerobic system well, you’ll be super healthy, fit and find it difficult to put on weight!! People who say running is too hard are not doing it right. Running is easy when doing it below aerobic threshold. We are literally designed to be able to run long distances. Your body has enough fat stores to run for tens of hours (providing you don’t deplete your glycogen stores!)