Fat burning mode? Difference

[noideawhattodoatall]

Hi, not sure how to explain what I'm asking, so hope it makes sense...

I don't 'get' fat burning mode. As in, if I did a 30 min workout, say, on an exercise bike and was in the fat burning zone - and burned 500 calories is it more effective than doing a 60 min workout on the exercise bike, burning the same amount of calories, but not being in the 'fat burning zone'? Surely 500 calories burnt, is just that?

I keep being told I have to get my heart rate up for the exercise to be effective!

Many thanks

[EauRouge]

I think the fat burning theory is more to do with endurance than weight loss (could be wrong) because there is more fuel available for the body to use if it's burning fat.

A lot of people think it's bollocks though. Have a read of this.

Yes, 500 calories is 500 calories. The best way to make your workouts more effective is to mix it up- intervals, short fast sessions, long slow sessions, and strength training to build muscle.

[Suzannewithaplan]

It's a complex and contentious issue, I say don't worry about it, and follow the advice from EauRouge!

[Sleepwhenidie]

It depends what you mean by 'effective' - if you want to just burn calories and you are starting from a low base of fitness, walking is fine. (And 500 calories is just that, however you burn it).

If you want to improve your fitness more quickly, then you need to push your cardiovascular system harder.

If you then aim to run or walk long distances, then you need to work for increasingly long sessions of this in steady state to build up your endurance.

The currently held wisdom is that for fat burning, interval training is best, but IMO it's best to have reached a good base level of fitness eg, can jog continuously at steady pace for 20/30 mins before you do this.

[MelanieCheeks]

I believe it to be bollocks.

Work out at whatever rate allows you to complete your training.