Question about target heart rate

[Titania]

Up until this week, when I'm doing cardio at the gym I've basically just tried to work as hard as I can but not so hard that I don't feel like I'll get through my time goal...that is, I'll be sweating and breathing a little heavy and feeling my muscles work, but I'll pace myself so that I can keep it up for 30-35 minutes.

This week I played around with the set programs on the elliptical machines. If I do the "weight loss" or "fat burning" one, I notice that it tries to get me to keep my heart rate in a certain zone that's lower than the "Cardio/aerobic training zone." It will tell me to slow down so that my heart rate drops, etc.

But, if I'm working to keep my HR in that level, I don't feel like I'm working hard enough. It's TOO easy.

So, the questions:

Why is the lower rate better for burning fat?

What does "cardio training" mean as a goal versus burning calories/fat?

Since I can apparently work at the cardio training level comfortably, should I just not worry about the fat burning level?

Or, should I just work at a level that feels right and not trust the readings on these machines?

Regardles of whether or not I'm trying to stay in the fat burning range, I do try to do some interval stuff (that is, work harder for 2 minutes then easier for 2 minutes.)

[Maine-iac]

Hmmm. Interesting. Apparently, at the lower intensity, the percentage of calories burned coming from fat is higher than at the higher intensity. But the higher intensity burns more total calories.

http://sparkpeople.com/resource/reference_intensity.asp


Fat Burning Zone vs. Cardio Zone
Many gyms have charts listing a “fat burning zone” and a “cardio zone” on their cardiovascular machines. These ranges are confusing because they lead you to believe that you are burning more fat, or only fat, when exercising at certain intensities.

The most important thing to remember is that exercising at a higher intensity is better than exercising at a lower intensity when it comes to burning calories. There is a lower-intensity “fat burning zone” in which you utilize a greater percentage of calories from fat than at higher intensities. However, the total number of calories burned at that rate is less. For example, let’s say you bike at a low intensity and burn 100 calories. Seventy-five of those calories burned might come from fat. At first glance, that looks good. But if you bike at a higher intensity for the same period of time, you might burn 200 total calories, with 125 of those coming from fat. Your percentage of fat calories burned drops, but you burn more total calories and more total fat calories at the higher intensity.

The bottom line: for sustained weight loss, you have to burn more calories than you take in. Trying to focus on burning fat calories won’t help. Calories are calories –the goal is to burn as many as possible.

[Titania]

Cool. I just googled and found something similar to that.

It's good news...I actually like working harder. It's difficult for me to keep my HR in the lower zone. It requires more concentration and I can't listen to my music or audiobook or read. And, sometimes I have to go so slow that the program thinks I quit and resets!

I also just learned that I should have a couple low intensities workouts a week. I would say I've only been doing moderate to high. One site recommended 2 days of walking for an hour and 4 days of 30 - 40 minutes at moderate to high.

interesting!

Thanks, Maine-iac!

[Guerilla poster]

Cool. I just googled and found something similar to that.

It's good news...I actually like working harder. It's difficult for me to keep my HR in the lower zone. It requires more concentration and I can't listen to my music or audiobook or read. And, sometimes I have to go so slow that the program thinks I quit and resets!

I also just learned that I should have a couple low intensities workouts a week. I would say I've only been doing moderate to high. One site recommended 2 days of walking for an hour and 4 days of 30 - 40 minutes at moderate to high.

interesting!

Thanks, Maine-iac!

The fat burning only works for longer workouts, I would say 45 minutes or more. You should get Polar Heart Rate monitor, I find it very helpful

[tommie frazier]

I would think the fat burning zone is only for when you are planning on a v long session.

[Titania]

Well, I thought that too, but I got confused...


The elliptical machine automatically sets the time for the "Fat burning" workout at 30 minutes. That doesn't seem like a long time to me.

[Titania]

The fat burning only works for longer workouts, I would say 45 minutes or more. You should get Polar Heart Rate monitor, I find it very helpful
Thanks, I'll check it out!

[Maxprime]

The fat burning only works for longer workouts, I would say 45 minutes or more. You should get Polar Heart Rate monitor, I find it very helpful
Most modern cardio machines will pick up the frequency from a Polar heart rate band too - it's very convenient.

[ACCtuary]

Put on a heart rate monitor. Have really great sex for about an hour. The maximum heart rate you experience is a good approximation to your true MHR. Use this # for subsequent calculations.

Alternatively, run a 5K or a 4 or 5 mile race at near maximum intensity for some part of the route. The MHR you observe is a good approximation to your MHR.

I can help with either option.

[Maxprime]

Put on a heart rate monitor. Have really great sex for about an hour. The maximum heart rate you experience is a good approximation to your true MHR. Use this # for subsequent calculations.

Alternatively, run a 5K or a 4 or 5 mile race at near maximum intensity for some part of the route. The MHR you observe is a good approximation to your MHR.

I can help with either option.
:lol:

Actually, Polar has a pretty good method of estimating MHR on a bicycle. Just out of curiousity - how close is yours to the 220-age formula?

I am 22 and have never gotten above 202 or 203. I can work my way up to the 190's with some work - but getting above 200 requires me to almost die.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

:lol:

Actually, Polar has a pretty good method of estimating MHR on a bicycle. Just out of curiousity - how close is yours to the 220-age formula?

I am 22 and have never gotten above 202 or 203. I can work my way up to the 190's with some work - but getting above 200 requires me to almost die.
I guess there's a good reason for its being called a "maximum heart rate."

[tommie frazier]

the 220-age is about right but not perfect.

i've had mine over the threshold before. was working out really really hard.

it can happen, so don't think your dying if it happens.