Subject: Loosing weight the Pulse Monitor way OK I am reposing this (original posting was in the weight loss forum). I see allot of posts about HR monitors and "training in the zone." But all of them that I found in searching the site are about figuring the appropriate training zone through which to stay aerobic (vs. anerobic). I have a bit differnet question. I currently weigh 265 and am doing triathlons to give me motivation to get my butt in the gym or put on the running shoes. I use a pulse monitor and work out by having it pegged at 140 to 150 bpm the entire hour (very comfortable at this rate). I work out six days a week -- an hour a day and am 38 yrs old Here's the thing . . . . . . . I was told that if I have to keep my pulse at no more than 120 bpm or else I am not buring fat. Any higher and, while I am gaining conditioning, I am burning carbs only and my body will not look to fat for its needed energy. OK - I get the theory - one version burns fat, the other burns calories and, as long as I don't eat move calories than I burn, I loose weight. No brainer. Here's the question: Knowing I have only an hour a day to work out - and assuming I eat thesame amount on both scenerios - for maximum weight loss is it better to train at 120 bpm (to be in the "fat burning zone" or train at the 140 - 150 zone (aerobic zone) where I am burning more calories overall? What's the math? Which strategy is best t loose weight? Any thoughts out there? Either from experience or knowledge? Please help - really, really confused. |