And adding some more to the discussion. I don't know how many people know about the fat burning zone and the cardio zone for your heart, but it apparently works something like this.

If you are in the fat burning zone 50% of the calories you burn are from fat, 50% of the other calories would thus come from the energy you consume.

At an aerobic level heart rate, 35% comes from fat, 65% would come from the caloric energy you consume.

You will burn both forms of calories slower in the fat burning zone then you will in the cardio. But hour for hour, you will burn more fat calories in the cardio zone then the fat burning zone because your body needs more.

This is how the science behind it is supposed to work.

If the science is 100% accurate, and I'm not saying it is or isn't. Then if I sit in the cardio zone and burn 200 calories in 20 minutes I will burn 70 fat calories and 130 other calories. Now if I sit in the fat burning zone for 20 minutes and burn 100 calories, 50 of those calories will be fat calories, 50 of it will be other calories.

So essentially if I do cardio level heart rate for an hour, I will burn 210 fat calories, if I do fat burning zone for an hour, I will burn 150. These are all made up numbers by the way. The difference becomes how hungry I am. An hour in the fat burning zone will only make me hungry for about 150 calories worth of food. An hour in the cardio zone will make me hungry for 390 calories worth of food. In both scenarios you will likely need that food to replenish your body's energy need for that day.

I guess the difference comes from what you desire to accomplish, yes you will burn more fat more quickly in the cardio zone, but I find that how hungry I feel after the cardio zone for extended periods of time puts me at greater risk of over eating beyond my needs. Does it mean I will do that for sure? Not necessarily, but I bet I could keep up my calorie restrictions better spending 6 hours in the fat burning zone then I could in the cardio zone.

Just some food for thought.

I appreciate the reply Nola, and that you took time to read my post.

What my post was meant to do, and I apologize if you got the wrong idea, was not that if I can do it anyone can. It was to not have people pretty much think that what these shows are showing is impossible.

If a person, as average as I am, at as low a body fat percentage as I am, can in one week lose 6 pounds of fat by exercising more often then I was before, and maintaining healthy eating, without a personal trainer or someone supervising me, then what I ask is why think that what is on these shows is physically impossible to do without being unhealthy.

Unrealistic to accomplish for the average person yes. Impossible without doing it in an unhealthy manner, not so much.

I had a week off, I was curious if doing workouts for a lot longer period of time had not only bigger effects, but if it was possible to do it while being healthy.

I know a lot of the people in these shows are much less healthy then myself, and possibly most people here. But I'd like to think that if I can do it in a healthy manner and get a loss that great in a week, then maybe these shows are not quite as unrealistic or unhealthy as a lot of people out there think (My family included believes it is unhealthy and completely unrealistic period)

Again my point was not to say anyone can do it. My point was that more exercise can and does bring greater results and can still be done in a healthy way, was more of pointing out that these shows might not be as unhealthy as people want to believe.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Sorry if I'd misinterpreted it as an "if I can do it, anyone can" kind of thing--because while I applaud what you've done wholeheartedly, I can't even keep up with a guy in his 40s, let alone a younger one.

I agree that many people can indeed have some shockingly big results from really attacking their weight loss full-on. In one sense the losses on these shows are realistic in that they're not necessarily falsified or enhanced with dehydration or clever editing that makes a TV "week" ten days long. It is possible to have "Heavy" style results.

But! It's possible only if you're leading a "Heavy" style life. Jodi, one of the earlier participants on "Heavy," has a thread around here in which she described some of what her time at the resort was like. They exercised four or five hours a day and ate a rigidly calorie-controlled diet for a month. The vast majority of us don't have the luxury of doing these things, and I think most folks know that from that standpoint, it's unrealistic that most of us will have that kind of big loss.

So, it's realistic in that you don't have to damage yourself for it--but it's unrealistic in that you have to set everything else in your life aside to get that kind of result, and the very act of doing that is unrealistic for most people. I think you and I agree on that, we're just agreeing from different angles.

I'd love to see a comparison of "TBL" weight losses and "Heavy" weight losses. It seems to me that the people on "Heavy," although showing extraordinary losses, aren't even approaching the kinds of huge numbers on "TBL." That suggests to me that reports about dehydration and other unsafe practices at "TBL" are accurate--but then, when there's so much money at stake in a contest format, the show is about the money for contestants as much as it is about the weight loss.

This is not how it works, at all. You might want to check your sources.

The reason they call it "The Fat Burning Zone" is because at lower intensity your body can supply all the energy necessary from fat stores. Note this does not mean you are going to be burning all fat but your body can supply fat fast enough to maintain this intensity. At higher intensity your need carbs and/or muscle glycogen. How it works is fairly complicated and depends on a lot of variables but it really doesn't make a single bit of difference in a hypocaloric (deficit) situation. Wether you burn fat, digesting carbs, or muscle glycogen you're still utilizing energy which contributes to the total amount of energy utilized through the day.

The simple way to look at it is that exercise burns calories. Higher intensity burns calories at a faster clip than lower. It really doesn't need to be any more complciated than that for someone who just wants to get in a little better shape and lose weight.

As for how intensity relates to hunger this is highly dependant on the individual. Some people get hungry from doing low intensity cardio, others not. Some people get really hungry from high intensity work, others not. Using myself as an example low intensity cardio makes me hungry while after high intensity cardio I have no appetite at all for hours.

Obviously you're single and have no kids. Great job with the weight loss dispite your questionable science.

That isn't how fat burning and cardio burning zone works at all?

http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardiow.../aa022601a.htm

As for the hunger example, I was more referring to the bodies need of replacement energy if the science behind this is correct.

When I read your post however it sounds like you are saying the same thing I did worded differently. Fat burning can grab your energy from fat stores, cardio grabs less fat from fat stores. Both utilize energy, one simply utilizes more energy from what you have consumed as opposed to what you have stored, the other grabs more energy from what you have stored then what you have consumed.

Reading what you said it sounds like the "Science" I heard about is spot on.

While of course there will always be variables, the reason a science exists in the first place is that it generally falls into it works a good portion of the time.

I sit corrected! I did a little google-ing and what I said is totally wrong. More exercise = more benefits.

I don't understand... Higher intensity, you are still burning more fat calories - but the ratio changes. Does the ratio matter? More fat burned is more fat burned.

The problem I have with the "fat burning zone" is the charts say my target heart rate should be at 112 - 130 given my age and my being an average exerciser (max being 187). If I keep my heart rate at that level - I won't improve. 112 is like a fast walk for me. Whoop dee doo. I want to be able to run an entire 5k. And do it in under 30 mins. So I have to push myself. When I really push - my HR gets up to 190. When I am not going crazy, I do intervals and get my HR up to about 160 - 170.

The difference lies in how much energy you expend it seems. One needs more food to go into your body quicker, one you move slower, but there is a good chance that by the time you reach the same distance (Assuming you could keep up a pace that has your heart racing at 170 and higher) at a lower pace you might forseeably burn the same amount of energy you got from food.

I have no clue what so ever what the overall difference lies in other then how long it allows you to exercise. If you can keep your heart rate going at 170 and higher for an hour or however long you want to try and use cardio to burn fat, by all means, don't let those charts stop you. All I can gather from it, is that you get more efficient results from going a little slower, but you can gain faster results if you go a little faster, at the cost of obviously, more energy used.

The reason I mentioned it anyway was that it makes sense that contestants in TBL can work out for as long as they do doing cardio while eating so little if they are maintaining a proper heart rate (Not saying they do one way or the other) Thus allowing them to burn more fat and have more weight loss, and require less food to do it. Where going above that heart rate would likely begin a process of the body hitting starvation under TBL conditions.

Again this is also assuming that the science behind it is fairly accurate or accurate enough that it works for most individuals.

I GET what you are sayin'! <<Instert smiley with lightbulb over head here>>

Now that I have read your follow up thoughts I can reinterpret your first post. You understood the main point of, simply put, higher intensigty burns more calories and that is what matters even though it burns less fat calories directly.

What I have a problem with from your first post is your specific ratios of where energy is coming from and (looking back) how you are artculating your point. What if we do intense cardio first thing in the morning? Our bodies use stored glycogen. It is not fat stores nor energy from what we have recently consumed. It is "stored energy" in our muscles. All energy we use is from food we have consumed. I still have no idea where you're coming from regarding hunger because in my experience hunger after cardio (or not) is highly dependant on the individual.

Hopefully this makes sense and I apologize for any umbrage I may have caused you.

Excellent post, Nola!

Just on a tangent but that could easily be a 300 calorie meal. You have no idea if there is 1 tablespoon of olive oil used. One of the biggest shock for most overweight/obese people is portion size when you use a scale, etc. It is scary how much we used to overeat.

I see what your saying about hunger, what I am talking about is hunger and need at the same time.

I don't always articulate well on the little sleep I sometimes get after a graveyard shift, but what I am saying, is if the science is more or less correct, then does it not stand to reason, that the way the people on these shows can lose so much weight, and eat so little, might have something to do with the fat burning zone?

While you individually might get hungrier after lower intensity, and not be hungry for hours on a higher intensity, the question becomes an issue of your hunger vs. your caloric need.

You become hungry after lower intensity this is true, but how hungry? Are you hungry to the point that a banana can satiate you for an hour or two? Or are you hungry to the point that you need say a 400 calorie sandwich with meat, lettuce, tomato and cheese to be satisfied.

Likewise after a higher intensity, in those hours to come, will you be hungry for just that banana, or will you need something more filling?

All metabolisms work differently as to when we get hungry, it is how much we need where issues start to rise as to how fast we may or may not lose weight correct?

What I am saying about this science, is that in order for you to create a lesser caloric need in a day, IE what must be consumed so you aren't hungry all the time, a lower intensity, by the science, will offer better results as to caloric values, where as a higher intensity, while you may burn more creates a higher need for more calories assuming the science is correct.

In other words. After an hour of low intensity, my replacement need will normally be, less then the need of someone who went at a higher pace. While the higher intensity will burn the fat quicker, you, by the logic of the science, will need higher replacement calories for your body to maintain itself energy wise. My body will burn fat at a slower pace, but still a reasonable pace, but I will require less replacement energy.

Fat percentage for fat percentage, the higher intensity does the job quicker. But I will need less to eat then the higher intensity work out by that science, assuming the two different bodies act in accordance to the science.

Meaning that in the biggest loser tv show. Perhaps the reason they can eat so few calories and lose so much weight, and perhaps even still do it in a healthy way, may have to do with the logic behind the heart rate zones.

It is my guess that the person who works at a less intense rate will appear to be eating less then a person working at a higher intensity, but still be able to shed a fair share of fat and pounds just as much as the person who works at the higher intensity. While the difference between the two may not make a huge impact on the scale one way or the other. The amount of food we have to eat may look far disproportionate to each other.

In other words at the end of the day. I might need 2000 calories to burn my fat and sustain myself, but you might need 2300 to sustain yourself by the end of the day.

The difference is quite minimal true, but my only reasoning for mentioning it has to do with how it might be possible to eat so little, lose so much, and workout so long. The need a higher intensity creates, is 15% larger then the need a lower intensity can create. Does that mean it will always hold true from person to person? No of course not. We are all built differently enough that there can be huge differences in responses to different things.

But as far as the science behind the heart rates goes, it stands to reason that if we are only burning 35% from our fat, and 65% from other stores of energy from a higher intensity, where the lower intensity is 50/50 that we are going to normally be hungrier and need more that day then if we went at the lower rate.

Sorry if it sounds like I am rambling, I am trying to make it as clear as possible, good discussion so far though.

I would not attribute fat vs cardio zones as having a hunger causing quotient as a general rule. You have to take endorphins and other hormones and chemicals released by various physiological responses from physical activity into account. Also pre-workout calorie consumption with regard to type (fat, protein, carb) as well as timing of consumption and of course hydration pre, during and post workout.

Calories in and calories out.

Hey girl there is no competition. You are good enough. You are doing this weight loss because you love yourself and you care about yourself. You cannot be loving and caring with a quick weight loss. It is good for the body, slowly but surely. Be nice to yourself, give yourself the gift of time!