Training Heart Rate too high to lose fat.

[Jakarta]

I've always been fairly fit, in the military I could manage a 9 minute 1.5 mile run, in my late thirties I managed a sub 20 minute 5km (although I did screw up my hamstring for a couple of years).
I still do a decent amount of trail running, including a few jungle marathons and longer (longest was 64km).
I'd be quite happy to step out the door tomorrow and do a full marathon through the jungle and with 1500m of ascent in around 6.5 hours.

However, I'm a little soft in the belly and want rid of it. A normal run for me mid-week is a hash run of 6-8km followed by plenty of beer. At the weekend it will be around 10-12km followed by plenty of beer.
I know the sensible answer is to stop drinking beer but that isn't going to happen.
On to the subject at hand, I have a treadmill at home and often get on it when I get home from work for a short session before dinner.
Can comfortably maintain 11kmh on a slight incline, if I set it to much more then I start to aggravate the hamstring earlier mentioned.
At this pace, my HR starts at around 150 and slowly increases to a little over 180 over about 20 minutes and then seems to plateau.
My question is, is this too high to lose the chubby belly?
Some research would suggest my Maximum HR is 220 minus my age (I'm 41), I can blast through that quite easily, and with a concerted effort can easily reach 200.
One suggestion is that I should be training at around 75% of max = 134 as a maximum, others that I should be at 180 - age plus 5 (as I'm already fit) = 144 as my maximum.

These seem extremely low and I'm sure I would be at an uncomfortably slow jog doing this.

TL:DR
I'm slightly overweight in my belly (87kg), strong legs, 41 years old and well adjusted to long and short runs. What HR should I be at to lose fat.

[grumbledoak]

As a side-earner I grow magic beans that will make you thin if you eat six. Say a grand each, I'll throw in the P&P? Done.

[inabox]

You're not going to lose the belly while drinking the beer. It's called a beer belly for a reason. Sorry, dude

[Kneedragger95]

inabox said:

You're not going to lose the belly while drinking the beer. It's called a beer belly for a reason. Sorry, dude

Most likely this. Beer is very high in calories so you either need to cut down on the beer or reduce food intake to bring your calories down to below what you are burning.

[Jakarta]

inabox said:

You're not going to lose the belly while drinking the beer. It's called a beer belly for a reason. Sorry, dude

[stuthemong]

One reason to be hit lower HR is you can maintain it for much longer, burn more calories.

Myfitnesspal

Properly calorie count

Aim for 500/day defecit

Wait three months, lose 6kg

Cjances are you need to run a lot further (not faster) than you are!

[Smitters]

The disappointment when I quit drinking and lost weight effortlessly was palpable.

Note that by continuing to drink and also going for a calorie deficit, you'll have almost no allowance for actual food, so you may well end up losing weight, but feeling horrendous. Because what did I try before quitting the beer? Yup. I'm that hard of thinking.

[clonmult]

Kneedragger95 said:

inabox said:

You're not going to lose the belly while drinking the beer. It's called a beer belly for a reason. Sorry, dude

Most likely this. Beer is very high in calories so you either need to cut down on the beer or reduce food intake to bring your calories down to below what you are burning.

Weight loss is 80% diet, 20% exercise. Or 70/30 - something between those two. The beer is definitely the problems - as cutting down the food intake is a rather dubious suggestion. Cut down the beer, it just isn't needed.

If the beer is needed, then no chance of weight loss.

[WinstonWolf]

clonmult said:

Kneedragger95 said:

inabox said:

You're not going to lose the belly while drinking the beer. It's called a beer belly for a reason. Sorry, dude

Most likely this. Beer is very high in calories so you either need to cut down on the beer or reduce food intake to bring your calories down to below what you are burning.

Weight loss is 80% diet, 20% exercise. Or 70/30 - something between those two. The beer is definitely the problems - as cutting down the food intake is a rather dubious suggestion. Cut down the beer, it just isn't needed.

If the beer is needed, then no chance of weight loss.

I disagree, you can lose weight while still drinking but you still have to pay it back somehow. I probably have ten pints of real ale over a weekend, the rest of the week I'm a bloody saint. Salmon, chicken, rice etc is my staple. I also move a lot, three mile swims, a couple of hours in the gym plus a bit of cycling. My progress is a lot slower during winter as I cycle less but I'm still losing weight slowly.

You have to make sacrifices elsewhere if you want a pint but it can be done

[Kenny Powers]

Glossing over the details of carbohydrate metabolism, you’re basically pouring pints of glucose into your bloodstream that either have to get used or stored. So cut down on the beer or run three time further. Your choice

[Scabutz]

Jakarta said:

Some research would suggest my Maximum HR is 220 minus my age (I'm 41), I can blast through that quite easily, and with a concerted effort can easily reach 200.
One suggestion is that I should be training at around 75% of max = 134 as a maximum, others that I should be at 180 - age plus 5 (as I'm already fit) = 144 as my maximum.

Do some more research. 220 - age is largely considered to be so generic that its almost always wrong. The original study used 11 subject to come up with that. Even if it was correct the "fat burning" zone is largely a myth anyway. Sure at higher intensities you use more glycogen stores than fat, but if you burn more than you consume you will burn fat one way or another.

Just run, cut down the booze.

[Jakarta]

Scabutz said:

Just run more cut down the booze.

Fixed that for you me

[anonymous-user]

You either need to run more (i.e. use more calories) or consume fewer (beers) calories

What combination of that works best for you is something only you can decide

There is, despite what many say, no magic wand

[super7]

I have the same issue, but not a marathon runner..... I'm nearer 50 but when in the Gym my Heart Rate is up in 150's. Trying to exercise comfortably in the 130's just doesn't work...

I also HAD a bit of a belly (actuallly a large one!) but i've got rid of it and still kept the local brewery in business....

Since last November i've pretty much lost close to 20kg from my heavyiest. Body weight now sitting at 102kg. I've done this by using the 5/2 diet. So i'm eating drinking normally for 5days and on Monday's and Thursday's I make sure that I only have 600calories.

Works for me :-)

[The Ferret]

It's like everything in life, it needs to be managed. Your normal habits lead you to put on a little weight, so that needs to be addressed then you can get back to an adjusted normal to make sure the problem doesn't reoccur.

As above, the beer is preventing you getting the results, and if you want to see a real change you need to either cut it out, or cut it right down while sorting the problem. Yes it's possible to keep drinking it and lose the gut, but trust me it's not worth the hassle. You'll either end up starving your body of the fuel needed for exercise, and in turn the exercise itself will suffer (in this case, your speed and distance will both be hampered by not having the right fuel), or you'll simply not see any progress and end up running for months if not years with little to show for it.

I'm guessing from you're post you've got a slight beer gut, nothing major, and would be happy losing a couple of inches from the waist. If that's the case, I managed it in one month last year just by cutting out the beer and continuing exercise as normal. The weight literally fell off, all because those 500 odd calories each night I drank were no longer maintaining the weight I'd accumulated over a few years.

Try it for a month, and if you can't then you either don't need to lose it that badly or you have to start asking why you can't.

I'll admit, I only lasted a month, but managed to lose nearly a stone in that time. I've put some of that back on now and tonight the process starts over again to get in shape for the summer.

[Kenny Powers]

I suspect the OP isn’t actually all that interested in any advice.

[feef]

Jakarta said:

I've always been fairly fit, in the military I could manage a 9 minute 1.5 mile run, in my late thirties I managed a sub 20 minute 5km (although I did screw up my hamstring for a couple of years).
I still do a decent amount of trail running, including a few jungle marathons and longer (longest was 64km).
I'd be quite happy to step out the door tomorrow and do a full marathon through the jungle and with 1500m of ascent in around 6.5 hours.

However, I'm a little soft in the belly and want rid of it. A normal run for me mid-week is a hash run of 6-8km followed by plenty of beer. At the weekend it will be around 10-12km followed by plenty of beer.
I know the sensible answer is to stop drinking beer but that isn't going to happen.
On to the subject at hand, I have a treadmill at home and often get on it when I get home from work for a short session before dinner.
Can comfortably maintain 11kmh on a slight incline, if I set it to much more then I start to aggravate the hamstring earlier mentioned.
At this pace, my HR starts at around 150 and slowly increases to a little over 180 over about 20 minutes and then seems to plateau.
My question is, is this too high to lose the chubby belly?
Some research would suggest my Maximum HR is 220 minus my age (I'm 41), I can blast through that quite easily, and with a concerted effort can easily reach 200.
One suggestion is that I should be training at around 75% of max = 134 as a maximum, others that I should be at 180 - age plus 5 (as I'm already fit) = 144 as my maximum.

These seem extremely low and I'm sure I would be at an uncomfortably slow jog doing this.

TL:DR
I'm slightly overweight in my belly (87kg), strong legs, 41 years old and well adjusted to long and short runs. What HR should I be at to lose fat.

Try cutting out carbs, and do a bit of reading into LCHF/banting as a diet (and I mean diet as in terms of long-term lifestyle change, not something you do for a few months to lose weight). By becoming fat-adapted/keto, your body becomes used to using your fat stores as an energy source rather than carbs. With a carb rich diet, insulin production means that the unburnt carbs are converted into fat.

it's worth doing a little research, especially if there's any hint of diabetes or heart disease in your family history

[popeyewhite]

Scabutz said:

Do some more research. 220 - age is largely considered to be so generic that its almost always wrong. The original study used 11 subject to come up with that. Even if it was correct the "fat burning" zone is largely a myth anyway. Sure at higher intensities you use more glycogen stores than fat, but if you burn more than you consume you will burn fat one way or another.

Just run, cut down the booze.

Spot on.

clonmult said:

Weight loss is 80% diet, 20% exercise. Or 70/30 - something between those two.

Consistent (ie maintained, rather than fad diet) weightloss is roughly 60% exercise. Exercise has many more effects on health that will contribute to sustained weightloss over time than a strict diet.

[grumbledoak]

popeyewhite said:

Consistent (ie maintained, rather than fad diet) weightloss is roughly 60% exercise.

Cobblers. You can do it without any exercise at all, and no amount of exercise will overcome a bad diet.

It is better to be fit as well as thin, but they are independent.

[popeyewhite]

grumbledoak said:

Cobblers. You can do it without any exercise at all, and no amount of exercise will overcome a bad diet.

Cobblers yourself. Both can be mutually exclusive. Plenty of runners and cyclists I know have an appalling/poor diet and are thin as rakes.

grumbledoak said:

It is better to be fit as well as thin, but they are independent.

Could you show me where I disputed that?

It's one of the most long lasting internet myths that diet is more important than exercise. Exercise is responsible for so much more than just physical fitness.