Hello @Gabe
Keep in mind that this is ultimately a simplified explanation for the sake of brevity on the internet.
Our muscle fibers can only contract maximally. This is like one person trying to push a car up a hill. They push as hard as they can and the car rolls backward. 2 people pushing as hard as they can and the car stays in place. 3 pushing as hard as they can and the car moves slowly. 10 people pushing as hard as they can and the car moves up the hill quickly.
As our body is looking to grade force, meaning moving from one workload to another, it does so by recruiting more or fewer muscle fibers. This is ultimately what drives the energy systems within our body.
The initial fibers that are recruited are Type I / Slow twitch fibers. These have many benefits, including their ability to oxidize fat and carbohydrate aerobically. However, they are relatively weak and as we ramp up the force we’re asking of our legs, our legs need to recruit more and more slow twitch fibers, and then more and more fast twitch fibers.
Because fast twitch fibers have fewer mitochondria, they are not able to oxidize fat and carbohydrate in the same manner. Therefore, as we recruit more of these fibers, our substrate utilization (ie Carbs vs. fat) changes as a result.
This process happens quickly. Accelerate from 100 watts to 400 watts, recruit more fast twitch fibers, utilize more carbohydrate. Granted there is a slight delay because we often use creatine phosphate immediately, but the delay is not as long as it would appear in our results. This is because we measure “Fats vs Carbs” based on the oxygen and carbon-dioxide in our breath. This change needs to occur in the muscle, diffuse into the blood, circulate the body, be exhaled in our breath, captured and then averaged by the machine. Therefore, we see a gradual shift over time in our graphs.
My advice to you is that weight loss is more about caloric deficit than training in a “fat-burning” zone. I assume that in Steve’s example above, the top of his zone 2 (in a 5 zone model), is ~200w. Despite this workload burning 273 fat/kcal/hr (which is honestly very good) compared to the 380 fat kcals at 138watts I would choose 200watts because both the stimulus to his aerobic system as well as the higher (832 vs 575) total caloric expenditure.
Regarding staying in zone I’d focus on putting as much time as reasonably possible into your training zone, taking reasonable measures to avoid going harder, but not losing sleep over it at the end of the day.