Why worry about heart rate??
emdeesea
Posts: 1,823 Member
I need to understand something, maybe one of the trainers or physical therapists can help me out here.
Sorry, I know this might sound dumb but I really don't know the answer to this. I need to know why getting my heart rate up is important. I'm not saying it isn't - I just need to know why this will affect my weight loss.
If weight loss is calories in/calories out and abs are made in the kitchen, etc., and cardio is overall not really a great fat burn, then why should someone wear a heart rate monitor? Is it metabolism or is it something I'm not thinking of.
I get that cardiovascular fitness is important - I'm just not entirely understanding what my heart rate has to do with fat loss.
Sorry, I know this might sound dumb but I really don't know the answer to this. I need to know why getting my heart rate up is important. I'm not saying it isn't - I just need to know why this will affect my weight loss.
If weight loss is calories in/calories out and abs are made in the kitchen, etc., and cardio is overall not really a great fat burn, then why should someone wear a heart rate monitor? Is it metabolism or is it something I'm not thinking of.
I get that cardiovascular fitness is important - I'm just not entirely understanding what my heart rate has to do with fat loss.
0
Replies
-
Fat loss is created by a calorie deficit simply.
The higher the heart rate, the more calories you are using to create the energy to fuel the activity you are doing.
You can create a calorie deficit by exercising but it's not the only way.
People like to do it because it means they can eat more calories and still create a deficit, it's good for fitness, and it's something to do other than sit around thinking about food.
I do it for the natural highs, and to keep me busy, and be able to eat a few hundred calories more a day and perhaps a glass of wine or three at the weekends.
To add, when I'm training for triathlon, we work in 5 different zones to get different kinds of results. I use a heart rate monitor sometimes.0 -
It won't affect your weight loss unless you don't eat back the calories. You have to get the rate up to make your heart work to become healthier. If it helps you keep within your calories when eating for the day, it's a bonus. But that's all it is. A bonus.
People wear the monitors to see if their heart rate is improving overtime with exercise. It's also become a thing to try to get heart rate monitors to help you predict what your daily calorie expenditure is.
Nothing to do with metabolism.0 -
An HRM is mainly for training purposes. I cycle. I run. There are different zones for different types of runs/rides. If I'm shooting to ride 150 miles, it probably isn't a good idea to max my heart rate out 10 miles in. If I'm riding for speed and only going 20 miles or something, I can push it quicker.
For calorie burns, they are part of the calories out equation and somewhat accurate for some things. It gives a person a data point and some people just like data points.
Your HR during activity will also improve as you get fitter. Some might like to see the numbers.
That's all I got.0 -
The higher your heart rate, the more calories your body is burning, the more calories you burn compared to how many you eat equal weight loss0
-
Escloflowne wrote: »The higher your heart rate, the more calories your body is burning, the more calories you burn compared to how many you eat equal weight loss
Not necessarily though. I was tachycardic from anaemia and for a long time my rhr was 140 and would go very high if I got up, etc. If I was wearing a hrm it would say I was in the "fat burning zone" (which I know isn't a thing but anyways) and burning tons of calories but I wasn't. Higher heart rate during exercise which indicates higher intensity burns more calories than lower intensity but higher heart rate from non exercise related activities doesn't burn extra calories.0 -
People worry about it far more than is needed and a lot more ppl wear a HRM than is needed, in my opinion. The basis of tracking it is because there is supposedly a "fat burning" zone wherein your body burns the highest percent of calories needed from fat. So if you jog at the magic HR zone, 70% of your calories burned will be taken from your fat stores. (pardon if I don't have the numbers right, I'm just shooting from the hip)
The problem that I have with it is EXACTLY what you bring up. That fat loss is more about calories-in/calories-out and if you run faster, and get your HR up beyond the "magic" threshold, you'll still burn more fat even though it will be a smaller percentage of a bigger number. Here's a quick example:
walk below target HR zone for 60 min = 300 calories, 40% from fat so 120 fat calories
jog within target HR zone for 60 min = 600 calories, 70% from fat so 420 fat calories
run above target HR zone for 60 min = 900 calories, 60% from fat so 540 fat calories
Again, I'm making up the percentages, but you get the idea. What I still don't understand about it is the remaining calories burned are coming from your pre-fat stores of carbohydrates and glycerin, so if you burn those up, they don't have the opportunity to actually turn into fat.0 -
I was at the pub with all my mates today and playing with a heart rate watch. The difference pre wine, coffee and e cigarette was quite astonishing. The only thing that was moving was our mouths and that wasn't burning any calories......0
-
It won't affect your weight loss unless you don't eat back the calories. You have to get the rate up to make your heart work to become healthier. If it helps you keep within your calories when eating for the day, it's a bonus. But that's all it is. A bonus.
People wear the monitors to see if their heart rate is improving overtime with exercise. It's also become a thing to try to get heart rate monitors to help you predict what your daily calorie expenditure is.
Nothing to do with metabolism.
Want to bet? http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10355443/if-youre-out-of-shape-is-your-bmr-lower
Aside from that, cardiovascular fitness occurs when you push your body to consume oxygen and work more. When this occurs, your HR goes up (not all increases in HR are beneficial, as already noted by others).
Cardiovascular fitness improves many metabolic functions and helps not only by helping create a calorie deficit but by direct modifications to how cells burn calories and how metabolism functions. It isn't absolutely necessary to weight loss, but exercise that impacts cardiovascular fitness improves how the machine functions. (Resistance training is also very useful but that is another point.)
0 -
People worry about it far more than is needed and a lot more ppl wear a HRM than is needed, in my opinion. The basis of tracking it is because there is supposedly a "fat burning" zone wherein your body burns the highest percent of calories needed from fat. So if you jog at the magic HR zone, 70% of your calories burned will be taken from your fat stores. (pardon if I don't have the numbers right, I'm just shooting from the hip)
The problem that I have with it is EXACTLY what you bring up. That fat loss is more about calories-in/calories-out and if you run faster, and get your HR up beyond the "magic" threshold, you'll still burn more fat even though it will be a smaller percentage of a bigger number. Here's a quick example:
walk below target HR zone for 60 min = 300 calories, 40% from fat so 120 fat calories
jog within target HR zone for 60 min = 600 calories, 70% from fat so 420 fat calories
run above target HR zone for 60 min = 900 calories, 60% from fat so 540 fat calories
Again, I'm making up the percentages, but you get the idea. What I still don't understand about it is the remaining calories burned are coming from your pre-fat stores of carbohydrates and glycerin, so if you burn those up, they don't have the opportunity to actually turn into fat.
And this is exactly why I started thinking about this the other day. I get the cardiovascular endurance and fitness and all that - but the "fat zone" thing which my gym still sort of pushes I'm not so sure about.0 -
typically the harder you are working the higher your HR, the more cals you burn. that said, your body burns a lot doing nothing and cardio cals only make up a small portion of total cals burned, so you could do cardio, or just eat less to lose the same amount of weight.0
-
People worry about it far more than is needed and a lot more ppl wear a HRM than is needed, in my opinion. The basis of tracking it is because there is supposedly a "fat burning" zone wherein your body burns the highest percent of calories needed from fat. So if you jog at the magic HR zone, 70% of your calories burned will be taken from your fat stores. (pardon if I don't have the numbers right, I'm just shooting from the hip)
The problem that I have with it is EXACTLY what you bring up. That fat loss is more about calories-in/calories-out and if you run faster, and get your HR up beyond the "magic" threshold, you'll still burn more fat even though it will be a smaller percentage of a bigger number. Here's a quick example:
walk below target HR zone for 60 min = 300 calories, 40% from fat so 120 fat calories
jog within target HR zone for 60 min = 600 calories, 70% from fat so 420 fat calories
run above target HR zone for 60 min = 900 calories, 60% from fat so 540 fat calories
Again, I'm making up the percentages, but you get the idea. What I still don't understand about it is the remaining calories burned are coming from your pre-fat stores of carbohydrates and glycerin, so if you burn those up, they don't have the opportunity to actually turn into fat.
And this is exactly why I started thinking about this the other day. I get the cardiovascular endurance and fitness and all that - but the "fat zone" thing which my gym still sort of pushes I'm not so sure about.
forget the fat zone. The 80's want there fitness myth back.
someone covered the math well: http://www.builtlean.com/2013/04/01/fat-burning-zone-myth/0 -
People worry about it far more than is needed and a lot more ppl wear a HRM than is needed, in my opinion. The basis of tracking it is because there is supposedly a "fat burning" zone wherein your body burns the highest percent of calories needed from fat. So if you jog at the magic HR zone, 70% of your calories burned will be taken from your fat stores. (pardon if I don't have the numbers right, I'm just shooting from the hip)
The problem that I have with it is EXACTLY what you bring up. That fat loss is more about calories-in/calories-out and if you run faster, and get your HR up beyond the "magic" threshold, you'll still burn more fat even though it will be a smaller percentage of a bigger number. Here's a quick example:
walk below target HR zone for 60 min = 300 calories, 40% from fat so 120 fat calories
jog within target HR zone for 60 min = 600 calories, 70% from fat so 420 fat calories
run above target HR zone for 60 min = 900 calories, 60% from fat so 540 fat calories
Again, I'm making up the percentages, but you get the idea. What I still don't understand about it is the remaining calories burned are coming from your pre-fat stores of carbohydrates and glycerin, so if you burn those up, they don't have the opportunity to actually turn into fat.
But all that matters for weight loss is the actual defecit, so it doesn't matter where the calories are coming from.
People use HRM for other reasons than just finding this funny fat burning zone which doesn't tap into glycogen.
It's important to train in all zones to develop different types of fitness, ie, aerobic fitness which is under the threshold, and anaerobic power zones which burn high percentages of glycogen. This is where fuelling becomes important otherwise you won't reach these upper goals.
Triathletes tend to develop their aerobic fitness in the down months, then the nearer to the competitions, the more time they spend in higher zones. It's fascinating stuff. Look up periodization.
0 -
Springfield1970 wrote: »I was at the pub with all my mates today and playing with a heart rate watch. The difference pre wine, coffee and e cigarette was quite astonishing. The only thing that was moving was our mouths and that wasn't burning any calories......
Yes, it does.
Even small activities can affect metabolism.
Reading vs not doing anything will increase your RMR about 100 cals (and therefore HR):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24794837
0 -
People worry about it far more than is needed and a lot more ppl wear a HRM than is needed, in my opinion. The basis of tracking it is because there is supposedly a "fat burning" zone wherein your body burns the highest percent of calories needed from fat. So if you jog at the magic HR zone, 70% of your calories burned will be taken from your fat stores. (pardon if I don't have the numbers right, I'm just shooting from the hip)
The problem that I have with it is EXACTLY what you bring up. That fat loss is more about calories-in/calories-out and if you run faster, and get your HR up beyond the "magic" threshold, you'll still burn more fat even though it will be a smaller percentage of a bigger number. Here's a quick example:
walk below target HR zone for 60 min = 300 calories, 40% from fat so 120 fat calories
jog within target HR zone for 60 min = 600 calories, 70% from fat so 420 fat calories
run above target HR zone for 60 min = 900 calories, 60% from fat so 540 fat calories
Again, I'm making up the percentages, but you get the idea. What I still don't understand about it is the remaining calories burned are coming from your pre-fat stores of carbohydrates and glycerin, so if you burn those up, they don't have the opportunity to actually turn into fat.
And this is exactly why I started thinking about this the other day. I get the cardiovascular endurance and fitness and all that - but the "fat zone" thing which my gym still sort of pushes I'm not so sure about.
It's all very 1989.
What's your goal OP?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It won't affect your weight loss unless you don't eat back the calories. You have to get the rate up to make your heart work to become healthier. If it helps you keep within your calories when eating for the day, it's a bonus. But that's all it is. A bonus.
People wear the monitors to see if their heart rate is improving overtime with exercise. It's also become a thing to try to get heart rate monitors to help you predict what your daily calorie expenditure is.
Nothing to do with metabolism.
Want to bet? http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10355443/if-youre-out-of-shape-is-your-bmr-lower
Aside from that, cardiovascular fitness occurs when you push your body to consume oxygen and work more. When this occurs, your HR goes up (not all increases in HR are beneficial, as already noted by others).
Cardiovascular fitness improves many metabolic functions and helps not only by helping create a calorie deficit but by direct modifications to how cells burn calories and how metabolism functions. It isn't absolutely necessary to weight loss, but exercise that impacts cardiovascular fitness improves how the machine functions. (Resistance training is also very useful but that is another point.)
I should clarify I didn't mean nothing at all. Just that I meant it isn't really the point. At least in my mind haha. And I'm coming from the point of view of someone in a healthy BMI.0 -
HRMs are over-used and misused.
Great training aid for people serious about endurance cardio. The general population don't need to monitor their heart rate and the widespread belief they actually measure calories makes me SMH.
Getting your heart rate up is important for fitness but most people can just used perceived effort. It's free and automatically adjusts to improving fitness levels.
Cardio exercise can be a huge calorie burner (note the distinction between calorie burner and fat burner!) - come for a hundred mile cycle with me and you will find out.
But big burns need a significant amount of duration.
Exercise intensity (not specifically heartrate) has very little to do with fat loss - that will come from your calorie deficit over time.
0 -
People worry about it far more than is needed and a lot more ppl wear a HRM than is needed, in my opinion. The basis of tracking it is because there is supposedly a "fat burning" zone wherein your body burns the highest percent of calories needed from fat. So if you jog at the magic HR zone, 70% of your calories burned will be taken from your fat stores. (pardon if I don't have the numbers right, I'm just shooting from the hip)
[... snip ...]
Again, I'm making up the percentages, but you get the idea. What I still don't understand about it is the remaining calories burned are coming from your pre-fat stores of carbohydrates and glycerin, so if you burn those up, they don't have the opportunity to actually turn into fat.
There are a lot of reasons people wear HRMs besides staying in the "fat burning" zone. People use them to get a more accurate calories-burned estimate; to track progress over time; to monitor physiological stress so they'll know how long to rest after a workout; for pacing (you can perform longer at 140 bpm than you can at 180); even as training targets.
One thing I've learned over the years is that when I do high intensity exercise (you don't have to call them HIITs, either, just spend time above lactate threshold HR) and use up my muscle glycogen, it makes me ravenously hungry. I can go out and bike 3 to 4 hours at a moderate Z2 pace and not build up much hunger. I can go out and ride 30 minutes of hill repeats in Z4/Z5 and I'll eat everything in sight that evening and the next day.
Final note along those lines: I do hill repeats once a week because it's a high intensity workout, and demands recovery time afterward. I burn calories more quickly but the workout doesn't last as long. The Z2 rides burn calories at a slower rate but over the course of a week (or even at the end of a ride) they burn more calories. They're more enjoyable and do more for weight maintenance. The hill repeats are not for weight, they're for making me a strong cyclist.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Springfield1970 wrote: »I was at the pub with all my mates today and playing with a heart rate watch. The difference pre wine, coffee and e cigarette was quite astonishing. The only thing that was moving was our mouths and that wasn't burning any calories......
Yes, it does.
Even small activities can affect metabolism.
Reading vs not doing anything will increase your RMR about 100 cals (and therefore HR):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24794837
Ok I understand that talking and boozing is part of our TDEE. I meant that the stimulants that raised our heart rates didn't make that activity burn more calories. At least that is what I believe....please don't tell me that those naughty things make us lose weight faster, I'll never leave the pub!0 -
Springfield1970 wrote: »People worry about it far more than is needed and a lot more ppl wear a HRM than is needed, in my opinion. The basis of tracking it is because there is supposedly a "fat burning" zone wherein your body burns the highest percent of calories needed from fat. So if you jog at the magic HR zone, 70% of your calories burned will be taken from your fat stores. (pardon if I don't have the numbers right, I'm just shooting from the hip)
The problem that I have with it is EXACTLY what you bring up. That fat loss is more about calories-in/calories-out and if you run faster, and get your HR up beyond the "magic" threshold, you'll still burn more fat even though it will be a smaller percentage of a bigger number. Here's a quick example:
walk below target HR zone for 60 min = 300 calories, 40% from fat so 120 fat calories
jog within target HR zone for 60 min = 600 calories, 70% from fat so 420 fat calories
run above target HR zone for 60 min = 900 calories, 60% from fat so 540 fat calories
Again, I'm making up the percentages, but you get the idea. What I still don't understand about it is the remaining calories burned are coming from your pre-fat stores of carbohydrates and glycerin, so if you burn those up, they don't have the opportunity to actually turn into fat.
And this is exactly why I started thinking about this the other day. I get the cardiovascular endurance and fitness and all that - but the "fat zone" thing which my gym still sort of pushes I'm not so sure about.
It's all very 1989.
What's your goal OP?
Well, I'm ALMOST at my weight goal (about 10 pounds left), and I have done most of that with diet and weight lifting and I see a trainer who really kicks my butt. I do very little in the way of cardio when I'm at the gym but I hear "heart rate" and this sort of thing and I'm naturally very skeptical but willing to listen and learn from people who know more than me.0 -
Springfield1970 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Springfield1970 wrote: »I was at the pub with all my mates today and playing with a heart rate watch. The difference pre wine, coffee and e cigarette was quite astonishing. The only thing that was moving was our mouths and that wasn't burning any calories......
Yes, it does.
Even small activities can affect metabolism.
Reading vs not doing anything will increase your RMR about 100 cals (and therefore HR):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24794837
Ok I understand that talking and boozing is part of our TDEE. I meant that the stimulants that raised our heart rates didn't make that activity burn more calories. At least that is what I believe....please don't tell me that those naughty things make us lose weight faster, I'll never leave the pub!
Extended stays in the pub are proven to not be beneficial to weight loss, math, having lots of spending money and may induce years of child rearing, of the small kind or the adult kind.
And you're right - at least part of the change in HR as one "stimulates" is definitely not metabolic.
0 -
Springfield1970 wrote: »People worry about it far more than is needed and a lot more ppl wear a HRM than is needed, in my opinion. The basis of tracking it is because there is supposedly a "fat burning" zone wherein your body burns the highest percent of calories needed from fat. So if you jog at the magic HR zone, 70% of your calories burned will be taken from your fat stores. (pardon if I don't have the numbers right, I'm just shooting from the hip)
The problem that I have with it is EXACTLY what you bring up. That fat loss is more about calories-in/calories-out and if you run faster, and get your HR up beyond the "magic" threshold, you'll still burn more fat even though it will be a smaller percentage of a bigger number. Here's a quick example:
walk below target HR zone for 60 min = 300 calories, 40% from fat so 120 fat calories
jog within target HR zone for 60 min = 600 calories, 70% from fat so 420 fat calories
run above target HR zone for 60 min = 900 calories, 60% from fat so 540 fat calories
Again, I'm making up the percentages, but you get the idea. What I still don't understand about it is the remaining calories burned are coming from your pre-fat stores of carbohydrates and glycerin, so if you burn those up, they don't have the opportunity to actually turn into fat.
And this is exactly why I started thinking about this the other day. I get the cardiovascular endurance and fitness and all that - but the "fat zone" thing which my gym still sort of pushes I'm not so sure about.
It's all very 1989.
What's your goal OP?
Well, I'm ALMOST at my weight goal (about 10 pounds left), and I have done most of that with diet and weight lifting and I see a trainer who really kicks my butt. I do very little in the way of cardio when I'm at the gym but I hear "heart rate" and this sort of thing and I'm naturally very skeptical but willing to listen and learn from people who know more than me.
I think you've gotten what you need. An HRM is primarily a training tool, and as such can be utilized a number of different ways.
Using an HRM to gauge "fat burning" is pointless because fuel used during exercise has no effect on weight loss, and HRMs can't measure fat oxidation anyway.
Using an HRM to estimate workout calories burned can provide some vague insight, but has some accuracy issues.
Me, I'm a data-driven person, so I like them. I went without an HRM for a couple of yrs when the battery died. I did OK without it, but getting a new one two months ago really kicked my workouts to a new level.
0 -
Springfield1970 wrote: »People worry about it far more than is needed and a lot more ppl wear a HRM than is needed, in my opinion. The basis of tracking it is because there is supposedly a "fat burning" zone wherein your body burns the highest percent of calories needed from fat. So if you jog at the magic HR zone, 70% of your calories burned will be taken from your fat stores. (pardon if I don't have the numbers right, I'm just shooting from the hip)
The problem that I have with it is EXACTLY what you bring up. That fat loss is more about calories-in/calories-out and if you run faster, and get your HR up beyond the "magic" threshold, you'll still burn more fat even though it will be a smaller percentage of a bigger number. Here's a quick example:
walk below target HR zone for 60 min = 300 calories, 40% from fat so 120 fat calories
jog within target HR zone for 60 min = 600 calories, 70% from fat so 420 fat calories
run above target HR zone for 60 min = 900 calories, 60% from fat so 540 fat calories
Again, I'm making up the percentages, but you get the idea. What I still don't understand about it is the remaining calories burned are coming from your pre-fat stores of carbohydrates and glycerin, so if you burn those up, they don't have the opportunity to actually turn into fat.
And this is exactly why I started thinking about this the other day. I get the cardiovascular endurance and fitness and all that - but the "fat zone" thing which my gym still sort of pushes I'm not so sure about.
It's all very 1989.
What's your goal OP?
Well, I'm ALMOST at my weight goal (about 10 pounds left), and I have done most of that with diet and weight lifting and I see a trainer who really kicks my butt. I do very little in the way of cardio when I'm at the gym but I hear "heart rate" and this sort of thing and I'm naturally very skeptical but willing to listen and learn from people who know more than me.
I think you've gotten what you need. An HRM is primarily a training tool, and as such can be utilized a number of different ways.
Using an HRM to gauge "fat burning" is pointless because fuel used during exercise has no effect on weight loss, and HRMs can't measure fat oxidation anyway.
Using an HRM to estimate workout calories burned can provide some vague insight, but has some accuracy issues.
Me, I'm a data-driven person, so I like them. I went without an HRM for a couple of yrs when the battery died. I did OK without it, but getting a new one two months ago really kicked my workouts to a new level.
Yes it was exactly what I was looking for, thank you all!0 -
I need to understand something, maybe one of the trainers or physical therapists can help me out here.
Sorry, I know this might sound dumb but I really don't know the answer to this. I need to know why getting my heart rate up is important. I'm not saying it isn't - I just need to know why this will affect my weight loss.
If weight loss is calories in/calories out and abs are made in the kitchen, etc., and cardio is overall not really a great fat burn, then why should someone wear a heart rate monitor? Is it metabolism or is it something I'm not thinking of.
I get that cardiovascular fitness is important - I'm just not entirely understanding what my heart rate has to do with fat loss.
You've got two different questions here, really.
1 - Why is raising your HR worth it?
2 - Why buy a HRM?
Raising your HR is what needs to happen for cardiovascular health. The American Heart Association says 150 minutes of exercise where you raise your HR is the minimum needed for heart health. i.e. lower risk of stroke and heart attack. Without diet, it does nothing for your mass.
Why a HRM? For 90% of people, because it's a shiny toy. unless you are specifically exercising based on heart rate zones, it's just cool to look at. If your just trying for heart health and overall health, it's a waste.0 -
Anecdote regarding HRM.
I was on a cut a couple of years ago and ran a parkrun race every Saturday. As my weight dropped and my times got faster, my heart rate actually dropped lower. I saw I was getting fitter. Some weeks my times would be the same and I would have lost weight, and my heart rate was lower which proved my weight theory about it being better for me to be sub 20 BMI to be a good efficient runner.
As I gained weight and my fitness still improved, my heart rate went higher again. I put this down to heart rate being affected by body fat percentages, and weight. As my strength to weight ratio got better my heart rate went down.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions