I was wondering if doing 40 min of cardio in the afternoon then 40 min of cardio at night make the rate of fat lose double then just doin 40 min either at night or the afternoon.

often once a day is enough and for some too much. two 40 minute sessons in one day is way to much. some folks split it up... 15 morning... 15 night. there is no need on doing two a days such as this. if you do this you run the high risk of overtraining and thus slowing down your metabolism...its actually counterproductive.

if you do do two a day like this... which i am against... make sure you are eating to for it. the more energy your body puts out the more it needs in.... energy balance. if you dont give it enough in with the amount of work you are doing... PLATEAU!.. OVERTRAINING! be careful.

Ahh man lol, so i'm actually slowing down the rate of losing fat by working 2 much? I kinda been at this for 3 weeks, first was 2 X 20 min session in 1 day then 3 x 20 min session in 1 day, then 2 x 40 min 1 day.

well... are you loosing wieght?

whats your stats?
when did you start?
hows your diet?


i dont think you are eating enough for two a days like this. i would suggest keeping it once a day (if you must) and 5 to 6 days a week... im guessing you are doing fasted 40 minute cardio and that you started trying to loose wieght recently... correct?

just give more info if you can. but i gurantee you.. you dont need to be doing two 40 minute sessions a day. i made a similar mistake and never saw the fat burn off.

well... are you loosing wieght?

whats your stats?
when did you start?
hows your diet?


i dont think you are eating enough for two a days like this. i would suggest keeping it once a day (if you must) and 5 to 6 days a week... im guessing you are doing fasted 40 minute cardio and that you started trying to loose wieght recently... correct?

just give more info if you can. but i gurantee you.. you dont need to be doing two 40 minute sessions a day. i made a similar mistake and never saw the fat burn off.

try this link, http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/showthread.php?t=18739 this is a thread i created previously, I think it might be able to tell u a little more. And my diet has changed a little i suppose but not greatly different then the 1 typed out. and i would love to have tips for a betetr routine if you are willing to share one :) , I am always open for help :)

edit: forgot link hehe ^^

I was wondering if doing 40 min of cardio in the afternoon then 40 min of cardio at night make the rate of fat lose double then just doin 40 min either at night or the afternoon.


Farm, I want to share with you a short story. It is a true story. When I was in college I got a job working 8 hours a day in the hot sun doing construction. I was working my arse off. And, for lunch all I had was a sandwich, the same old cold cuts every day. For dinner, sometimes a little of this sometimes a little of that. After only 1.5 months, I passed myself in the mirror in a store and did not recognize myself at all. Why?
Because in that short amount of time I had been working out 40 hours a week...literally! I had dwindled down to a mere stick figure. I hated being that skinny, I wanted to be muscular. But, I couldn't help what happened to me because I had to work. And, work hard to live. Period.

You see, most of us only repeat what we hear or read. Even nutritionists and doctors are constantly changing their opinion about what works and what doesn't work. I know this because for the last 16 years of my life I have read books and well established magazines on the subject of body building and exercise. And, that's what I've learned...that there are many, MANY opinions out there from so called experts. So, what I am saying to you is that you have to really learn to think for yourself at some point. In my case experience and life were major teachers. If I were to follow this recommendation or that one too often, I'd be all over the place.

The bottom line is this it is scientifically impossible to put out energy without burning energy. If you are moving your body and exercising then that energy has to be burned from somewhere. It amazes me what people will buy into sometimes. Just think about it. Do you really think that if you exercise to a certain number of minutes...all of a sudden your body's going to go on auto-pilot and stop burning calories? No. The fact of the matter is you could almost exercise yourself to death. So, if you can work out for several hours a day and you like it, go for it. In fact, some of the most successful and physically beautiful people I have discovered throughout the years workout anywhere from 4 to 8 hours a day, as much as 5 days a week!
Now most of us don't have that much time. And, I'm not recommending that!
I'll leave you with this final note: Don't burn yourself out...but, lead a well balanced life. In the end, you will be happier if you stay balanced and keep the other areas well maintained.
p.s. sorry if I've been too blunt.

Farm, I want to share with you a short story. It is a true story. When I was in college I got a job working 8 hours a day in the hot sun doing construction. I was working my arse off. And, for lunch all I had was a sandwich, the same old cold cuts every day. For dinner, sometimes a little of this sometimes a little of that. After only 1.5 months, I passed myself in the mirror in a store and did not recognize myself at all. Why?
Because in that short amount of time I had been working out 40 hours a week...literally! I had dwindled down to a mere stick figure. I hated being that skinny, I wanted to be muscular. But, I couldn't help what happened to me because I had to work. And, work hard to live. Period.

You see, most of us only repeat what we hear or read. Even nutritionists and doctors are constantly changing their opinion about what works and what doesn't work. I know this because for the last 16 years of my life I have read books and well established magazines on the subject of body building and exercise. And, that's what I've learned...that there are many, MANY opinions out there from so called experts. So, what I am saying to you is that you have to really learn to think for yourself at some point. In my case experience and life were major teachers. If I were to follow this recommendation or that one too often, I'd be all over the place.

The bottom line is this it is scientifically impossible to put out energy without burning energy. If you are moving your body and exercising then that energy has to be burned from somewhere. It amazes me what people will buy into sometimes. Just think about it. Do you really think that if you exercise to a certain number of minutes...all of a sudden your body's going to go on auto-pilot and stop burning calories? No. The fact of the matter is you could almost exercise yourself to death. So, if you can work out for several hours a day and you like it, go for it. In fact, some of the most successful and physically beautiful people I have discovered throughout the years workout anywhere from 4 to 8 hours a day, as much as 5 days a week!
Now most of us don't have that much time. And, I'm not recommending that!
I'll leave you with this final note: Don't burn yourself out...but, lead a well balanced life. In the end, you will be happier if you stay balanced and keep the other areas well maintained.
p.s. sorry if I've been too blunt.


Well I get your point but I am still seeing results and I seem pretty okay so would you still recommend my routine? And your saying after you have worked those long hours every day you turned into somewhat a stick? Well would it be okay to stop at a certain weight and then starting weight lifting? Anyhow thanks for the input I see some positive and negative results in what my routine will result in but I am still open up for more comment/answers ^^

I was wondering if doing 40 min of cardio in the afternoon then 40 min of cardio at night make the rate of fat lose double then just doin 40 min either at night or the afternoon.

No. Because the rest of the day you are still burning the same calories in either alternative. You are doubling the _additional_ calories burned, but not the total calories burned.

The rate at which you lose fat will be determined by the amount of caloric deficit you have each day. You will increase the caloric deficit by adding activity, but you might decrease the caloric deficit if you decrease the calories burned the rest of the time. Some people call this overtrainingm etc.

The easy solution I found is to wear a heart monitor a lot of the time - not just when I am exercising. I check my VO2max roughly weekly to make sure these calorie counts have some relation to truth. For example today I burned about 700 calories in five hours of non-exercise normal activity. OK so I can guess that in the typical daily 15 hours of non-exercise normal activity I have about 2100 calories burned. Sleeping my heart rate drops pretty low now from training and so I burn maybe another 650. (I checked once by wearing the heart monitor overnight while sleeping). 2750 isn't out of the question for these numbers so I know that my six hours of hard cardio and three hours of strength with occasional extra hours hasn't dropped my metabolism very much if at all.

So get a heart monitor, start using it to calibrate your calorie expenditures to make sure you can trust the results. Then you can use it to tell how much cardio you can do without wasting effort by lowering your metabolism.

If you have enough time to devote to two sessions of cardio, you are FAR better off using one of those for weight training, and the other for cardio. This way, given you have proper nutrition, you can slow some muscle loss that you would have if you are not lifting weights. If you just do cardio, and do it twice a day, with a caloric deficit, you will lose both muscle and fat.

Doing two cardio sessions a day hardly overtraining. Two 1hr+ lifting sessions will usually lead to overtraining, but lifting 3-4 days/wk coupled with 4-5 days/wk of cardio, granted you are in good health and are eating and sleeping enough, should be perfect for fat loss goals.

Put it into perspective- a typical competitive high school football team will practice 2x/day during the preseason, consisting of intense cardio training, footwork, conditioning, lifting, power drills, etc, up to 6 days/wk. While you're probably not a high school or college athlete, you will not be overtraining.




Well I get your point but I am still seeing results and I seem pretty okay so would you still recommend my routine? And your saying after you have worked those long hours every day you turned into somewhat a stick? Well would it be okay to stop at a certain weight and then starting weight lifting? Anyhow thanks for the input I see some positive and negative results in what my routine will result in but I am still open up for more comment/answers ^^

Well I get your point but I am still seeing results and I seem pretty okay so would you still recommend my routine? And your saying after you have worked those long hours every day you turned into somewhat a stick? Well would it be okay to stop at a certain weight and then starting weight lifting? Anyhow thanks for the input I see some positive and negative results in what my routine will result in but I am still open up for more comment/answers ^^

Exactly, You are seeing results, because you are doing something right. I applaud you for the hard work you are doing. And if you want to see a leaner you, keep up the good work! But, remember, as one of the other experienced members said in your other thread, you probably did lose a lot of muscle. So, you'll need to modify your diet accordingly...usually means to simplify: eat enough protien. Now, most "experts" say (atleast this year) that is atleast 1 gram of protien per pound of body weight. But, as little as 30 years ago, that amount was only about 1 gram per 1/3rd pound of body weight. And, even then I would wonder if someone were, say, 40 lbs overweight..shouldn't they be calculating their protein for their goal weight? In other words, if you wanted to be 175 lbs, then it seems to me like you'd want to take in 175 grams of protien per day. Otherwise, you end up with an excess of calories that no matter how much cardio you do, you wouldn't be able to burn off. But that I'm not too sure about.

Just remember it's all in what you wan't. If you want to be big and strong, you can stop at a certain weight that you are happy with, then start building muscle. I would say it is quite difficult to get lean and build up muscle at the same time, though. Most recommend a cutting stage to get lean first. Then, if you ask me, I would be real careful and methodic about how I started to eat to bulk up. Sometimes I think that those guys who are eating double their body weight in protein per day are 1)on steroids, which would explain why the excess in calories never results in serious obesity. It's not like they'd tell you if they were. and 2)have a heck of a fat wallet! So, just be careful about all you read or hear. If you do decide to start increasing the protein then be positive that you lower your fat and carbohydrate intake enough to offset the extra calories. But, you don't want to lower your carbs to an unhealthy level either, as they are the fuel for the nervous system. Unless you like the 95 year old man look (shaky).

In other words, if ur losin' weight ur doin' great. Just keep it healthy. If you want to pack on the muscle, as far as nutrition goes, in a nutshell you want 3 things...1)water and plenty of it 2)nutrients, and not in a pill, in vegetables and well balanced meals and 3)enough protein...and you decide on that one how much is right for you.

Once again tennisball is right. You lose what you don't use so you might consider tennisball's routine if you want to keep the muscle. And, Zenpharoah just plain has information that I am not familiar with, which is how your body is burning calories while not exercising and how intense cardio might effect that. I'm sure it's worth looking into.

Exactly, You are seeing results, because you are doing something right. .

im not sure that this is correct. just because one sees results doesnt mean they are doing something right. case in point...

when i first started out i was getting way low caloric intake each day... maybe around 1400-1500... with nothing but protein....anything else was condiments. i wieght lifted hard and i did cardio 6 days a week... 45-60 minutes.

i dropped wieght QUICK.... i saw results. were they good results? i could have spared muscle loss a lot more if i got the adequat amount of calories for the day and either eased back on my training or upped my cals.

the results i saw were because my body wasnt used to what i was giving it... having come from a very sedate.. unactive... high fat... big meals 3 times a day (probably around 4000 cals a day) lifestyle.
i saw results no doubt... but i know i could of done a better job of loosing fat and keeping muslce if i had simply found out some important information.

Doing two cardio sessions a day hardly overtraining.


two 40 minute ones a day is not overtraining with the amount of cals he is getting a day?

really? i may just consider doing two 40 minute cardio sessions then... i love cardio. if this is the case that is.

im not sure that this is correct. just because one sees results doesnt mean they are doing something right. case in point...

when i first started out i was getting way low caloric intake each day... maybe around 1400-1500... with nothing but protein....anything else was condiments. i wieght lifted hard and i did cardio 6 days a week... 45-60 minutes.

i dropped wieght QUICK.... i saw results. were they good results? i could have spared muscle loss a lot more if i got the adequat amount of calories for the day and either eased back on my training or upped my cals.


This is a good point farm. If you want to keep the muscle you probably don't want to drop too fast. And you'd want to get proper nutrition.

two 40 minute ones a day is not overtraining with the amount of cals he is getting a day?

really? i may just consider doing two 40 minute cardio sessions then... i love cardio. if this is the case that is.


Keep in mind Krosspyder, that if that's your pic, then you already have a GREAT physique. If you increase your cardio, you may very well lose some hard earned muscle. Or at least make it hard to build more. Depending on your metabolism. I don't think I would increase too much.

Keep in mind Krosspyder, that if that's your pic, then you already have a GREAT physique. If you increase your cardio, you may very well lose some hard earned muscle. Or at least make it hard to build more. Depending on your metabolism. I don't think I would increase too much.

yah thats me in the pic. thanks Grandiosevision. I wont go overboard with the cardio.... ive decresed it recently and im noticing more muscle development. im just thinking that maybe if i increase my cals then i can do more cardio... but thats just thinking... i dont want to risk it in practice.

two 40 minute ones a day is not overtraining with the amount of cals he is getting a day?

really? i may just consider doing two 40 minute cardio sessions then... i love cardio. if this is the case that is.

First of all, what kind of cardio are we talking? HIIT, LISS, Fasted ?
I've been doing double session cardio (LISS) for a good 6 months with great results. I would agree that 2X sessions of HIIT could possibly lead to some trouble (muscle loss) but there's no way in hell you'll be tearing into muscle doing LISS 2x DAILY.

First of all, what kind of cardio are we talking? HIIT, LISS, Fasted ?
I've been doing double session cardio (LISS) for a good 6 months with great results. I would agree that 2X sessions of HIIT could possibly lead to some trouble (muscle loss) but there's no way in hell you'll be tearing into muscle doing LISS 2x DAILY.

Another question what do HIIT, LISS, Fasted stand for ?

Another question what do HIIT, LISS, Fasted stand for ?

HIIT = High intensity interval training
LISS = Low intensity Steady State
Fasted = Cardio done in a fasted state (haven't eaten in at least 3 hrs.)

I suggest you do some research in the forum on cardio. You can find a million and one threads on it. (and a million and two different opinions)

HIIT = High intensity interval training
LISS = Low intensity Steady State
Fasted = Cardio done in a fasted state (haven't eaten in at least 3 hrs.)

I suggest you do some research in the forum on cardio. You can find a million and one threads on it. (and a million and two different opinions)

it's fasted and HIIT.

it's fasted and HIIT.


3X / week. My opinion only.Actually, I wouldn't suggest doing HIIT fasted.

3X / week. My opinion only.Actually, I wouldn't suggest doing HIIT fasted.

okay thanks i'll take it into consideration :tu:

it's fasted and HIIT.


With this, then, I'm pretty sure your going to tap into your bodies reserves the most. Whereas, you'll be burning more fat, you'll most likely burn more muscle as well. This is why the body builders always have a steady supply of protein gowing through their veines (as if hooked up to an I.V.!!) When you keep the protein supply steady you're telling your body "Here, use this to burn, don't use the muscle".

I really doubt that you're doing two 40 minute HIIT workouts a day. Are you sure you're getting that heart rate up to 90% of maximum for all those intervals?

Most people max out on HIIT at about the 30 minute mark. If you can go a lot longer, usually it's because you aren't going at a high enough intensity.

First of all, what kind of cardio are we talking? HIIT, LISS, Fasted ?
I've been doing double session cardio (LISS) for a good 6 months with great results. I would agree that 2X sessions of HIIT could possibly lead to some trouble (muscle loss) but there's no way in hell you'll be tearing into muscle doing LISS 2x DAILY.

reallY? im talking about 45 minute fasted cardio.... 135 - 140 HR.... 75% range. is this true? i hear that in fasted cardio the risk of muscle loss is higher then in HIIT.

reallY? im talking about 45 minute fasted cardio.... 135 - 140 HR.... 75% range. is this true? i hear that in fasted cardio the risk of muscle loss is higher then in HIIT.

That's false. The reason bodybuilders do cardio on an empty stomach is because low-intensity cardio has a lower risk of muscle loss than high intensity cardio. Fasted state is necessary for the low-intensity cardio to be effective.

High intensity cardio (just like weight lifting) starts catabolism, which is why you should not do either for more than 45 minutes to an hour at a time, not do either one fasted (that, and that you'll have difficulty getting maximum effort when fasted), and feed yourself after either one.

In general, though, people way overhype the risk of muscle loss from cardio, especially among people who haven't come close to their genetic potential. It's not that high, unless you're not eating right (mainly - enough carbs). I think there's a bias against cardio because it's seen as effete, whereas lifting is macho.

That's false. The reason bodybuilders do cardio on an empty stomach is because low-intensity cardio has a lower risk of muscle loss than high intensity cardio. Fasted state is necessary for the low-intensity cardio to be effective.

High intensity cardio (just like weight lifting) starts catabolism, which is why you should not do either for more than 45 minutes to an hour at a time, not do either one fasted (that, and that you'll have difficulty getting maximum effort when fasted), and feed yourself after either one.

In general, though, people way overhype the risk of muscle loss from cardio, especially among people who haven't come close to their genetic potential. It's not that high, unless you're not eating right (mainly - enough carbs). I think there's a bias against cardio because it's seen as effete, whereas lifting is macho.


im lost.

fasted state cardio for 45 minutes has lower muscle loss then HIIT at 20 minutes on a non empty stomach? you know if there is any muscle to be loose.

i heard that catabolism is greater in a fasted state... then a non fasted state. so is this the only distinction? basically no matter what excersize or cardio you do muscle loss is directly effected on whether or not you are on a fasted state... not really the intensity or duration?

im soo confused now.

im lost.

fasted state cardio for 45 minutes has lower muscle loss then HIIT at 20 minutes on a non empty stomach? you know if there is any muscle to be loose.

i heard that catabolism is greater in a fasted state... then a non fasted state. so is this the only distinction? basically no matter what excersize or cardio you do muscle loss is directly effected on whether or not you are on a fasted state... not really the intensity or duration?

im soo confused now.

Okay, part of why it is confusing is that we're talking about two different mechanisms.

One is the case where you're fasted. You haven't had anything to eat, so your body first uses glycogen, then it shifts more and more into a catabolic state for energy. But a catabolic state is what is necessary to burn fat, not just muscle. It breaks down a combination of fat and amino acids as you exercise. At a low intensity, it burns fewer calories, but also a much lower percentage of those calories come from amino acids and a much higher from fat. So it's a trade-off. Over time, if you do this too much, yeah, the amino acids will come from muscle tissue, and you'll lose some muscle. But considering people in the armed forces frequently do morning cardio in a fasted state and a fairly high intensity, I think you can figure out that it's not that much. Once you stop running, this process slows down, and once you've eaten, it goes back to normal.

The second mechanism is stress-related. When you put your body through a high-intensity workout, like lifting weights or sprints, it will burn glycogen and amino acids for energy (and other stuff, but it's going too intensely to burn much fat). If you do this for a while, the body starts feeling distressed. It knows it can't keep up this level of intensity indefinitely. It thinks this might be an emergency, so it releases hormones, including cortisol. These hormones lock down your long-term fat stores and start you burning more amino acids for energy (they're a much quicker source of energy than fat). This process does not stop when you stop exercising - it takes longer for your body to come down out of the stress zone. The longer you are in this high-stress, post high-intensity state, the more muscle you will burn.

However, when you relax and eat something, preferably some protein and carbs, your body comes out of that stress state, because it knows this isn't an emergency anymore. Think of it like you were chasing a gazelle, and you just caught it, and are eating it.

The benefit of this state is that your metabolism has just been ramped up and will stay there for a while, even after your catabolism stops. This is why HIIT works -- the high intensity kicks your body into gear, and then proper recovery limits the side effects, and you burn more calories over the course of the day than you did just exercising. And thanks to calories in < calories out, your body makes the adjustments necessary, and you will lose fat (or "loose" as the kids say these days).

If you were to do high intensity work (really high - sprints, not just a hard run) in a fasted state for a long time, your body would freak out and do both, and the muscle loss would be much worse -- but really, with either of these, we're talking about slow muscle loss over months of doing this every day - you're not going to wake up one morning and find your biceps gone.

One of the most confusing misconceptions on the boards right now is that the main metabolic effect of cardio takes place when you are on the machine. It does not. It takes place after you've exercised. Yeah, you burn a certain number of calories while you're jogging or biking or whatever, but you burn again as many more over the course of the day once your body has been woken up and kicked into gear by the endurance training. This effect is greater the higher the intensity you reach, but also creates more of a risk of losing muscle (although, I repeat, not a big one for most people).

The metaphor was in another thread, but I'll repeat it here and alter it - if weight lifting is replacing a small engine with a big engine, cardio is replacing a regular engine with a diesel engine - - it burns more energy all the time, not just when it's revving up, because it operates at a higher pressure and burning real hot and you get more direct fuel injection.

Of course, the effect is opposite the difference between diesel and gas - you get more energy and expend more fuel - it doesn't have the same boost in efficiency - although in the long run it does, which is why people often need to switch up their cardio and up the intensity to get the same effect.

Eh, who am I kidding; I know next to nothing about engines, but I'm a big fan of cardio.

So, some people recommend low intensity cardio, because you don't go as deeply into muscle catabolism after you exercise. Some people recommend avoiding fasted cardio, so you don't go as deeply into muscle catabolism while you exercise. And some say avoid cardio altogether and just do short weight workouts, which minimizes catabolism, but foregoes some of the benefit of cardio.

And for each person, the way these different processes balance is a little different, especially when you factor in lifestyle and rest and diet.

You can see why people come up with totally different recommendations from the same knowlegde - really, it's about figuring out what works for you and feeding it and resting it properly. There's a way to do all of these things properly. More than one, even.

thanks pete for that elaborate explanation! much appreciated. im closer to clarification.

do you believe that fasted state 45 minute moderate cardio automatically goes to fat stores for energy right after its done with carb stores... say 30 min into it?

two 40 minute ones a day is not overtraining with the amount of cals he is getting a day?

really? i may just consider doing two 40 minute cardio sessions then... i love cardio. if this is the case that is.

It's going to depend on your particular metabolism and what sort of body fat content you have.

But if your liver is working, then you should be able to strap on another cardio session without any other adaptation than eating the calories you intend to burn, probably a little in advance unless you happen to steadily suck pure glucose down while you are exercising.

You can pretty easily figure out what is going on with a heart monitor that can calculate calories. If you wear it for days when you don't do the extra cardio, and days when you do, then soon you can tell of how many calories will keep your muscles safe if that is the concern.

It's going to depend on your particular metabolism and what sort of body fat content you have.

But if your liver is working, then you should be able to strap on another cardio session without any other adaptation than eating the calories you intend to burn, probably a little in advance unless you happen to steadily suck pure glucose down while you are exercising.

You can pretty easily figure out what is going on with a heart monitor that can calculate calories. If you wear it for days when you don't do the extra cardio, and days when you do, then soon you can tell of how many calories will keep your muscles safe if that is the concern.

ive got the hear monitor.
what else do i need? what math equation? whatever.

I don't know what is best physiologically, but I do cardio in the morning and I shoot hoops almost every day too. I'll let y'all know in a few months if it worked out for me...it sure is helping my game :)

[QUOTE=krosspyder]ive got the hear monitor.
what else do i need? what math equation? whatever.[/QUOTE

If your heart monitor only does heart rate, then you need an equation. I'm guessing that since you ask, then your heart monitor doesn't already have that equation in it.

Those equations are available on the net, but the trouble with using a monitor that doesn't have it in there already is that you need to "integrate" the heart rate over time. (It's sort of the same as just totalling up the heart beats.) You will be OK though if you look at the pulse every so often and keep track of the pulse as it changes in time, but this is a lot less convenient than having the monitor do it.

That being said, here is one way to convert your heart rate into Calories burned.

You need to know your:

W = weight (kg)
MHR = Max Heart Rate (beats per minute)
VO2max (ml/kg/min)

Then suppose you work out at EHR = Actual Exercise Heart Rate

Then you can put this all together to get the Calories per minute:

(1.56 x (EHR / MHR) - 0.58) x VO2max x W x 5 / 1000

This equation isn't much good until EHR is higher than 40% of MHR.

For me, MHR = 190, VO2max =52, W = 91.

Check this by plugging in ehr = 150, MHR = 190, VO2max = 52 and W = 91 to get

15.4 Calories per minute, about 923 Calories per hour.

It's not that far from what I get using the heart rate monitor.

To figure out your MHR:
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/maxhr.htm

To get an estimate of VO2max:
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/vo2mile.htm

To convert between %MHR and %VO2max I used a formula from here:
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/vo2max.htm


So the formula I gave is based on converting %MHR into %VO2max, and then using weight and time to convert that to milliliters of oxygen.

Carbohydrates burn at 5.05 Calories per liter of oxygen and fat burns at 4.73 Calories per liter of oxygen. But we'll just fudge that for the moment (to avoid going into how to split up the calories) and just assume that we get 5 Calories per liter of oxygen.

So that allows you to convert from heart rate into rate of calories burned.


Now if you track your heart rate with time, you will be able to convert that into Calories.

It's a lot easier to let the monitor do it for you, though.