» Site Navigation | | | » Tag Cloud | | Search Tags | » Stats |
Members: 35,979
Threads: 16,626
Posts: 173,709
Top Poster: maleficent (21,586) | | Welcome to our newest member, skinny4baby | | | Welcome to Weight Loss Forum - This information will disappear after Registration.
| | |
Welcome to the Weight Loss Forum forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
Note: After registering, you will receive an activation email. This will contain a link required to fully activate your account and allow you to post. Some email providers may put this in your JUNK or SPAM folder.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
|  | 
May 1st, 2007, 06:07 AM
| | Newb | | Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 0 | | | Polar Watch Question Can anyone tell me which of these two days is the better workout for losing fat? Day 1 I ran slow for 3 miles; day 2 I ran slow for a mile and then walked fast for the last 2 miles. Here are the stats from my Polar watch:
Day 1: 46 minutes; 236 calories; 45% fat; heart rate @ 90% with a high of 151, average of 125, or 74%.
Day 2: 48 minutes; 181 calories; 56% fat; heart rate @ 106% with a high of 178, average of 106, or 63%.
If someone could break down exactly what the watch is telling me, I'd be appreciative. Thanks! | 
May 1st, 2007, 06:20 AM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: southern california
Posts: 2,705
Rep Power: 2237 | | | First of all, it sounds like you haven't set your HR correctly in the monitor. I'm not sure how old you are, but if 151 is 90% of your max, that would mean you are about my age - 58. However, if that's the case, I doubt very much you would be able to get up to 178 bpm; you'd be dead first.
So figure out how to set your max hr correctly first.
The best way to lose fat is to burn more calories - period. Also, it's good to break up your cardio sessions -- 1 day do steady state; the next intervals; the next, HIIT, etc. | 
May 1st, 2007, 06:31 AM
| | Newb | | Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 0 | | | I'm 52. The watch automatically adjusts the max heart rate, I believe. It just asks me for my age, height, weight, sex, and it tells me where the heart rate should be.
On day 2, it lists 236 calories as opposed to day 1, which is 181 calories, but the fat percentage is higher. So which is better? | 
May 1st, 2007, 06:44 AM
| | Member | | Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 693
Rep Power: 32 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Betts On day 2, it lists 236 calories as opposed to day 1, which is 181 calories, but the fat percentage is higher. So which is better? | It says the fat percentage is higher because you stayed in the fat burning zone longer, which is misleading. You may have burned more fat while actually doing a lower intensity exercise, but since you burned more overall calories, you'll burn fat past the point where you stopped exercising. The fat burning zone should pretty much be ignored, especially if you're only exercising for less than an hour. You don't go straight to burning fat anyway, it takes awhile for that to kick in. So yeah, the higher intensity workout is definitely the winner. | 
May 1st, 2007, 07:42 AM
| | Newb | | Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 0 | | | Thanks Corndoggy. I'll stick with the running. I say, "running," but obviously if you look at the stats, I'm barely "running." It took me only 2 minutes more to walk the same course. But, as you pointed out, I did burn more calories running. So, I think I'll stick with that. Thanks again for your input! | 
May 1st, 2007, 07:46 AM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: southern california
Posts: 2,705
Rep Power: 2237 | | At 52, your max hr using the 220-age formula is 168. However, this formula is often way to conservative for people over 40, and is even more wrong for people over 40 who are in good shape.
Here's a site with 3 different calculation methods that will probably yield more accurate results for you. |  | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread | Linear Mode | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | |