I'm late with an answer, but just want to add that I've seen 202 quite a few times, and even 204 a few times on my HRM when I've been going all out - Spinervals, a few of Cathes Step workouts, heavyhands, etc. If I was 16, I'd think I was hitting the calculated max for my age. I'm 46 1/2 though, so according to those formulas, I should probably be dead
I can hang in the 180's and feel good during an intense cardio workout.
A few of the books I've read say that some people are just "high responders" and none of the calculations are going to apply. Almost everything I've read says the formulas are just what the "average" age adjusted HR is, so there'd be a lot of people below it, and a lot of people above it.
I know the "fat burning zone" is controversial, too. Yes, you'll burn more total calories going above it, and so more fat calories, too. Lately I've been trying to stick with aerobic base building, which is staying in that lower, fat burning zone. It's supposed to train your body to use more fat for fuel all the time, as well as let you recover from overtraining - not that you have been. Since I've been doing it, I have lost a tiny bit of weight, and I'm sleeping better, have none of my ususal monthly perimenopause/PMS mood problems, am not craving sweets like normal... I think I was overtraining to some extent, so I'm trying hard to stick with it -- hard, because I love the high intensity workouts...and seeing lots of calories burned on the HRM
To lose some weight quickly, I'd stick with what you've been doing, if it's working, and not worry abut the zone you're in. Good luck!