I don't know if this question has come up before, so I hope I am not repeating something. I walk on a treadmill after work, and it can be set up for a weight loss pace and an aerobic pace, by programming in weight and age. It monitors my pulse rate and will tell me to slow down if my pulse gets too high. So, when I choose the "weight loss" program, it will alert me that my pulse is too high and I need to slow down. So, I walk about 3.5 mph to keep my pulse down. If I program it for an aerobic workout, then it will allow my pulse to get into a higher range, and I can walk faster. So the question is, does this make a difference? Will I truly burn more fat if I walk slower at the "weight loss pace", or should I try to pump up the pace and get an aerobic work out ?

There are actually benefits to both. First off, before embarking on an exercise program, make sure your physician has given you the green light. A good physical can go a long way... Given that, here are benefits of each: Slow workout: Good fat burning potential. Dues not overstress joints and muscles. Allows for gentle warm up and cool down period .Creates a good foundation for further efforts. Vigorous workout: Pushes the body to the burn (without oxygen). This can lead to greater growth hormone and testosterone releases (especially in AM). The resulting increase in muscle mass will burn more energy. You might consider alternating workouts. A slow, loosening up workout on one day, a difficult one the next.

[quote:8376b32d64="jjjj"]Vigorous workout: Pushes the body to the burn (without oxygen). This can lead to greater growth hormone and testosterone releases (especially in AM). The resulting increase in muscle mass will burn more energy. [/quote:8376b32d64] I believe a bit of clarification is in order here. "Pushing to the burn" is talking about hard sprinting. Not the kind of running one does on a treadmill. This will not produce muscle mass - show me a heavily-muscled distance runner. Heck, show me a good distance runner that you can't see through if the light is behind him! :) They have NO muscle mass.

Perhaps I need to explain what I meant. First of all, I agree with the comment about muscle on runners. However, if you look closely, while their upper bodies are thin, the legs are quite well defined. Personally, here is how I approach a "tough" treatmill workout, and it works well for me: 1. Start out with a five minute warmup. During this time, I increase speed to desired level. 2. At a set interval, I increase the slope I am walking on. Keep in mind, that the slope continues to increase throughtout the workout. 3. Towards the end of the workout, I could be walking (stiff pace) at up to a 10 to 15 percent grade. Now keep in mind that I am almost 48 years old, and this gets my respiratory rate to a good level. At 25, this might have been different. While I am not completely "breathless", the desired effects are reached. 4. Finally, I set the slope back to "zero", slow the speed, and cool down while continuing to walk. Admittedly, this is not as difficult as a weight workout. I do that as well. In fact, I often combine a 30 minute "slope walk", with a round of weights for upper body strength.

All of this information is very interesting. However, I just want to know if I work at the "weight loss" pace, which seems to be at a level that keeps my pulse lower than the targeted aerobic range, will I burn more fat? Or should I pump it up and get my pulse rate into the aerobic range? I walk 20 min on the treadmill, then I do 10-15 minutes of weight machines.

To actually answer your question, my opinion is the aerobic level will do more for you toward losing weight. The factor making this the better choice is your time of 20 minutes. My personal experience is also my guideline, as I've done both and noticed a big difference with the faster pace. hth Bob

Given the 20 minute schedule, then I would also go for the aerobic approach as well. There is a lot of debate on this issue. However, more research is now suggesting that aerobic not only builds muscle mass, but supports cardiovascular health as well.

Thanks again for all the input. I think that I feel better after working at the aerobic pace. I definitely feel more like I worked out! And, I am having trouble losing weight, I have been on a plateau for way too long, so anything I can do to jump start my metabolism will help. I have increased my speed on the treadmill so that I am walking at 3.9 (started at about 3.4-3.5). And, on my weights, I am pushing the weights up a notch, as I feel that the original weight levels are becoming easy for me. You are probably going to tell me that muscle weighs more than fat. I am patiently waiting for the moment when the added muscle starts to burn off the fat and I start to see the scale move downward again! I wish I had more time to exercise, but I work full time and have 3 kids at home that I need to get home to. I do other things as well, always take the steps, park in the furthest spot in the lot, etc.

[quote:e80e39f581="cranberrycat"]Thanks again for all the input. I think that I feel better after working at the aerobic pace. I definitely feel more like I worked out! And, I am having trouble losing weight, I have been on a plateau for way too long, so anything I can do to jump start my metabolism will help. I have increased my speed on the treadmill so that I am walking at 3.9 (started at about 3.4-3.5). And, on my weights, I am pushing the weights up a notch, as I feel that the original weight levels are becoming easy for me. You are probably going to tell me that muscle weighs more than fat. I am patiently waiting for the moment when the added muscle starts to burn off the fat and I start to see the scale move downward again! I wish I had more time to exercise, but I work full time and have 3 kids at home that I need to get home to. I do other things as well, always take the steps, park in the furthest spot in the lot, etc.[/quote:e80e39f581] [color=darkred:e80e39f581] Keep in mind that dietary adjustments will most likely do more to break a weight loss plateau than exercise changes. [/color:e80e39f581]

Thanks, Sue. I am still trying your suggestions to stay away from the fruit. I thought I would have good results, actually stepped on the scale and saw a little bit of a decline. Then I blew it on Super Bowl Sunday, was following the blocks until the game. Still, I don't think one evening should blow the entire week, so not sure if my temporary loss was just some fluid shifting instead. I really played it strictly all last week, though, so not really sure what else to adjust besides the activity. I will post more about this on the weight loss thread.

I've always been told that it is good to start at an aerobic pace to get yourself into fat-burning mode. Then you can switch. I like to get my heart-rate up for several minutes and then let it slow down and continue with this cycle. I had a lot of success losing weight this way last year and I wasn't dieting or anything.

I agree that "fat burning" (which sounds so postive) doesn't help you burn calories (and therefore, fat) the way aerobic exercise does. I have to walk a lot longer and farther for the same results I used to get when I ran. If you had hours to do it, fat burning might be beneficial, but with limited time, aerobic is so much better. Also, what the post before me mention was "interval training:" going fast for a period of time and then slowing down and it really does burn so much fat. I hope this helps! Katie

Thanks, Katie. I definitely will keep the pace up. I think the intervals work well, too. I had some success with that a few years ago, a bunch of us were in a class together and did the circuit. They don't have that class here anymore, though.

A lot of excellent suggestions given here. As others have already heard, I can relate to the three (young) kids and the full time job bit. I used to ride a bicycle on century rides. Now a workout needs to be carefully scheduled in order to deal with the "important" things. I totally agree with the diet suggestions. I too had a "bad" Super Bowl Sunday, but getting back on the program is totally worth it. The key with the Zone is patience. For myself, the scale doesn't matter that much. What I look for is how my clothing fits. If pants are a little more comfortable in the waist, then I am on the right track. Not that I don't check my weight. It is just that I can see a difference in the mirror (better muscle tone, etc) Yes, muscle does weigh more than fat, but having a higher lean muscle mass will increase energy consumption, since all those muscles like to eat... :lol:

I agree, and I am happy to share that my pants are fitting really great, and I do feel that I am gaining more tone! So, maybe some weight loss is around the corner!!!

[quote:d499e25c00="cranberrycat"]I agree, and I am happy to share that my pants are fitting really great, and I do feel that I am gaining more tone! So, maybe some weight loss is around the corner!!![/quote:d499e25c00] [color=darkred:d499e25c00]This indicates you've probabaly lost some stored fat and gained a little LBM. Because the amounts of loss and gain are almost equal you don't see a difference on the scale. Also you mentioned you went out of the Zone during the Superbowl. This could have been enough to make you retain fluid for a few days which would mask any fat loss when you step on the scale. What's your present bodyfat %?[/color:d499e25c00]

My present bodyfat% is 33.72. The calculator calculates out that I have 50# bodyfat weight and lean body mass of 100#. My current weight is 150, and I am aiming for 120. I started at 170. I posted a new question on what would be an effective work out for me. I run short on time, but I may be able to squeeze in some extra minutes.

[quote:493b892672="cranberrycat"]My present bodyfat% is 33.72. The calculator calculates out that I have 50# bodyfat weight and lean body mass of 100#. My current weight is 150, and I am aiming for 120. I started at 170. I posted a new question on what would be an effective work out for me. I run short on time, but I may be able to squeeze in some extra minutes.[/quote:493b892672] [color=darkred:493b892672]Hi, At 100 LBM a good goal wt. range would be 122 to 128, which would represent 18 to 22% body fat. Anything below 18% would be too low for a female, with the exception of some athletes. I'm assuming you're at 11 blocks a day which would be appropriate, but I'm curious about one thing? What is your height? If you're under 5 feet tall, you may do well with only 10 blocks a day. I'd consider it worth trying 10 blocks if you're at 5 feet or under. It may help break your platueau. If you do try this and begin to experience hunger, lack of energy, etc., go back to 11 blocks.[/color:493b892672]

I am just over 5', I am 5'1". I feel more comfortable sticking with 11 blocks. I don't want to push myself into starvation mode. Unless, you are suggesting that I alternate blocks so that one day I do 10 and the next day I do 11? Anyway, I think I will stick with 11 and make smarter carb choices. And, with the added activity, I really look forward to that snack waiting for me! I had originally made my goal to be 125, but I recalled that when I was in high school I was 125-130, and still felt that I was a little heavy. However, now, looking at pictures, I sure would like to have that body back. And, no, I wasn't one of those girls who dieted in high school, I really didn't care about the size jeans I was wearing (which, by the way, was not small, I have never been like a size 3-4). I think I was wearing 8 back then. Actually, I do think that they have changed the size charts since then (20+ years ago). Thanks much for the suggestions! Let me know if you think I would do okay alternating between 10-11 blocks. [/quote]

[quote:ace8b13384="cranberrycat"]I am just over 5', I am 5'1". I feel more comfortable sticking with 11 blocks. I don't want to push myself into starvation mode. Unless, you are suggesting that I alternate blocks so that one day I do 10 and the next day I do 11? Anyway, I think I will stick with 11 and make smarter carb choices. And, with the added activity, I really look forward to that snack waiting for me! I had originally made my goal to be 125, but I recalled that when I was in high school I was 125-130, and still felt that I was a little heavy. However, now, looking at pictures, I sure would like to have that body back. And, no, I wasn't one of those girls who dieted in high school, I really didn't care about the size jeans I was wearing (which, by the way, was not small, I have never been like a size 3-4). I think I was wearing 8 back then. Actually, I do think that they have changed the size charts since then (20+ years ago). Thanks much for the suggestions! Let me know if you think I would do okay alternating between 10-11 blocks. [/quote:ace8b13384] [color=darkred:ace8b13384]No, I wasn't suggesting alternating block amounts from day to day. Stay at 11 blocks. It's best to base wt goals on body fat% rather than past weight, because you probably don't know what your LBM was back then. When you get to 18% body fat, size 8 will probably be too big! :D [/color:ace8b13384]

Two points: 1) The concept of the "fat burning zone" is a myth, or at least completely misapplied. Although lower-intensity exercise (i.e. walking) burns a greater percentage of fat, higher-intensity exericse burn a greater absolute amount of fat per unit of time. In other words, 30 minutes of hard running burns more total fat than 30 minutes of easy running even though the percentage of fat burned is lower. 2) The claim that bigger muscles burn more calories is also false. Inactive muscle tissue actually burns very few calories at rest; probably no more than 5-10 calories per day per pound of muscle mass. It is true that the muscle-building process burns extra calories, but simlpy having bigger muscles does not.

Thanks, Sue, I will stick with 11 blocks. And I can't wait for the day to come when size 8 is too small! That will be wonderful! And, thanks Brian for your information. I wondered about that, as well. I feel like the issue is much clearer now.