Cardio and Heartrate

habla25

Hi everyone,
I am wondering what range of heart rate is ideal for cardio? Like, I do not understand if I should shoot for a specific number when I do cardio or if it is just another variable that I could watch (such as pace, time, etc.). Right now, I usually do the arc trainer for 45 minutes and the built in wireless heart rate monitor displays 150-155. I'm 20, 160 lbs.
Also, is the built in HRM even accurate? I hold on to the railing sensors for the entire workout.
Thank you very much.

rileysowner

It doesn't really matter unless you are specifically training for some endurance event. In terms of burning off fat total calorie burn is what is important, not some certain workout "zone".

awinner_au

habla25 wrote: »

Also, is the built in HRM even accurate? I hold on to the railing sensors for the entire workout.
Thank you very much.

They can be, the LifeFitness machines at my gym track my HRM pretty closely.

sarabushby

The HR you want to achieve would depend on the intention of your workout, e.g a threshold run to improve your lactate threshold, a recovery run to recover or improve runnjng economy, or max intervals to increase your vo2 Max. You can work out your ideal zones with many tools online which work off a %of your max HR which you can measure yourself in a simple test, get tested in the lab, or use a relatively unscientific but well known equation of 220 less age.

As you become fitter you should be able to work harder at a lower HR than you were before.

MeanderingMammal

rileysowner wrote: »

It doesn't really matter unless you are specifically training for some endurance event. In terms of burning off fat total calorie burn is what is important, not some certain workout "zone".

This

rileysowner

sarabushby wrote: »

The HR you want to achieve would depend on the intention of your workout, e.g a threshold run to improve your lactate threshold, a recovery run to recover or improve runnjng economy, or max intervals to increase your vo2 Max. You can work out your ideal zones with many tools online which work off a %of your max HR which you can measure yourself in a simple test, get tested in the lab, or use a relatively unscientific but well known equation of 220 less age.

As you become fitter you should be able to work harder at a lower HR than you were before.

All that is really unimportant when it comes to weight loss. It is only of interest in one is training for specific endurance goals. For burning calories it is burning as many as one can in the time available.

sijomial

"should shoot for a specific number when I do cardio"
No - perceived exertion is fine.

"Also, is the built in HRM even accurate?"
No reason it wouldn't be accurate at tracking your pulse.

"I hold on to the railing sensors for the entire workout."
If you are holding on just to get your HR and it compromises your workout (stops you driving with your arms) then don't hold on to the railing.

Buff_Man

Yes you should aim for a high rate, roughly double your resting pulse for at least a portion of your workout. This variable approach is the crux of high intensity interval training. Even a 30 sec burst at your maximum effort X 6 times with rest intervals done twice a week can improve your heart health. Being young and fit you should definitely mix it up to gain the mist benefits both in terms of calorie burn and heart health

scorpio516

habla25 wrote: »

Hi everyone,
I am wondering what range of heart rate is ideal for cardio? Like, I do not understand if I should shoot for a specific number when I do cardio or if it is just another variable that I could watch (such as pace, time, etc.).

Relative perceived exertion. The standard is the Borg Scale: http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/exertion.htm

6 No exertion at all
7
Extremely light (7.5)
8
9 Very light
10
11 Light
12
13 Somewhat hard
14
15 Hard (heavy)
16
17 Very hard
18
19 Extremely hard
20 Maximal exertion

9 corresponds to "very light" exercise. For a healthy person, it is like walking slowly at his or her own pace for some minutes

13 on the scale is "somewhat hard" exercise, but it still feels OK to continue.

17 "very hard" is very strenuous. A healthy person can still go on, but he or she really has to push him- or herself. It feels very heavy, and the person is very tired.

19 on the scale is an extremely strenuous exercise level. For most people this is the most strenuous exercise they have ever experienced.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/borg-scale/
https://www.acsm.org/docs/current-comments/perceivedexertion.pdf

Some people say stay between 12 and 14 for steady state cardio.

habla25

Thank you all for your responses. Although weight loss is my goal right now, it is great to know that I could track and build endurance now by watching my HR.
I think it would be better for me right now to not hold on to the sensors for the entire workout (because I feel like I'm exerting more when I don't hold on), but I have this idea that if the machine knows my heart rate, it will give me a more accurate number of calories burned. Is this true?
I know the solution to this will be getting a personal HRM, and I'm saving up for one. So this is a temporary solution.
Again, thank you, I appreciate all of your responses!

sijomial

habla25 wrote: »

I have this idea that if the machine knows my heart rate, it will give me a more accurate number of calories burned. Is this true?
I know the solution to this will be getting a personal HRM, and I'm saving up for one. So this is a temporary solution.
Again, thank you, I appreciate all of your responses!

Heartrate is only an approximate indicator of calorie burn, especially using a basic HRM. Nowhere near as accurate as many people on here believe. Don't really think you need or will get much benefit from buying one.

As the ARC trainer produces a power output figure (watts) I believe it's using that not HR for its estimates but not 100% on that.
(EDIT - from the Cybex website.....
How are calories calculated on the Arc Trainer?
Since the ACSM does not have calorie tables for the Arc Trainer CYBEX developed its own Calorie tables using a statistically significant population with both males and females ranging from 18-64 years of age. Calories are calculated using the Incline, Strides per minute at the current resistance level and body weight. )

For me the calorie burns given equate pretty well with other power meter equipped cardio trainers. That's all the accuracy you really need.

habla25

sijomial wrote: »

habla25 wrote: »

I have this idea that if the machine knows my heart rate, it will give me a more accurate number of calories burned. Is this true?
I know the solution to this will be getting a personal HRM, and I'm saving up for one. So this is a temporary solution.
Again, thank you, I appreciate all of your responses!

Heartrate is only an approximate indicator of calorie burn, especially using a basic HRM. Nowhere near as accurate as many people on here believe. Don't really think you need or will get much benefit from buying one.

As the ARC trainer produces a power output figure (watts) I believe it's using that not HR for its estimates but not 100% on that.
(EDIT - from the Cybex website.....
How are calories calculated on the Arc Trainer?
Since the ACSM does not have calorie tables for the Arc Trainer CYBEX developed its own Calorie tables using a statistically significant population with both males and females ranging from 18-64 years of age. Calories are calculated using the Incline, Strides per minute at the current resistance level and body weight. )

For me the calorie burns given equate pretty well with other power meter equipped cardio trainers. That's all the accuracy you really need.

WOW Thank you so much for finding that! Interesting to know what it DOES use to determine calories burned, and that HR isn't as accurate as I believed. Great information!!