Question about target heart rate

lgfrie

Generally speaking, is it better to do light cardio for an hour at 60 % of maximum heart rate, or 30-40 minutes at 70 %?

I use an exercise bike for an hour each day at a comfortable, relaxed pace that puts my heart rate at 60 % of MHR, which for me, at 56, is 98-100 bpm. I've tried upping the resistance to get to more like 70-72 % (heart rate of 115), but it's more onerous and less enjoyable and after 30-40 minutes I've had enough.

Would it be better to just maintain the status quo and continue with the one hour workouts, or do shorter duration workouts at a higher intensity?

My goal is primarily weight loss, although I also want to achieve better overall condition and better cardiovascular health.

sijomial

Generally speaking it's best to do a variety of intensities as you get different training responses from different stimulus.

If you are boosting your calorie deficit with exercise (not how this site is designed or what I would recommend) then the total number of calories burned with the totallity of your exercise is what matters.
By totality I mean all your exercise sessions not just focussing on one session.

Max HR by formula is often a waste of time - its intended use is as a vague guideline for medics and not for exercise use. If you really want to use MHR then test it as you may well be very different from the very basic (and often inaccurate) 220-age formula.

lgfrie

sijomial wrote: »

Generally speaking it's best to do a variety of intensities as you get different training responses from different stimulus.

If you are boosting your calorie deficit with exercise (not how this site is designed or what I would recommend) then the total number of calories burned with the totallity of your exercise is what matters.
By totality I mean all your exercise sessions not just focussing on one session.

Max HR by formula is often a waste of time - its intended use is as a vague guideline for medics and not for exercise use. If you really want to use MHR then test it as you may well be very different from the very basic (and often inaccurate) 220-age formula.

I do eat back around half of my exercise calories, generally 225-250 of the 500 my machine reports out for an hour of biking. So I didn't mean to say my goal with exercise is weight loss in a direct sense, but rather that my fitness goal in general is primarily weight loss, and secondarily, cardiovascular health. I know that if my main goal was cardiovascular fitness, a higher BPM would be required to really get the benefits, as a BPM of 100 is not very high at all. My question is that if the overall goal of a diet-n-exercise program is (primarily, though not exclusively) weight loss, would an hr of exercise at 100 bpm get the job done or would shorter workouts at higher intensity be preferable. I don't feel like I'm working as hard as I could on the machine, barely sweating to be honest and able to chit chat on the phone while doing so, but at the same time, I've done it almost every day for 9 months and am in a comfortable zone where I'm happy to do it and don't feel like I'm running myself ragged or getting demotivated, so it's been good for sustainability. Yet I know I am not pushing myself, just staying well within my comfort zone.

heybales

For calorie burn then as goal, which will have other cardio benefits of course.

As high an intensity that you can, which still allows recovery and the ability to do it again tomorrow.

Just increase the intensity for a week on each workout and see how each day goes.
If no problem, slight increase again for another week.
Likely make some improvements anyway.
At least you'll know the direction to go.

When you hit that week where the next day isn't so good - too much, back off.
Except maybe the last session prior to rest day - that is how improvements are really made after all - pushing beyond normal.

Now, if happy at intensity level you are at - you are burning the same calories fit or not if the weight stays the same.
If you weigh less now than 9 months ago - you aren't burning as much.
So you'd need to increase intensity to compensate.

sijomial

lgfrie wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

Generally speaking it's best to do a variety of intensities as you get different training responses from different stimulus.

If you are boosting your calorie deficit with exercise (not how this site is designed or what I would recommend) then the total number of calories burned with the totallity of your exercise is what matters.
By totality I mean all your exercise sessions not just focussing on one session.

Max HR by formula is often a waste of time - its intended use is as a vague guideline for medics and not for exercise use. If you really want to use MHR then test it as you may well be very different from the very basic (and often inaccurate) 220-age formula.

I do eat back around half of my exercise calories, generally 225-250 of the 500 my machine reports out for an hour of biking. So I didn't mean to say my goal with exercise is weight loss in a direct sense, but rather that my fitness goal in general is primarily weight loss, and secondarily, cardiovascular health. I know that if my main goal was cardiovascular fitness, a higher BPM would be required to really get the benefits, as a BPM of 100 is not very high at all. My question is that if the overall goal of a diet-n-exercise program is (primarily, though not exclusively) weight loss, would an hr of exercise at 100 bpm get the job done or would shorter workouts at higher intensity be preferable. I don't feel like I'm working as hard as I could on the machine, barely sweating to be honest and able to chit chat on the phone while doing so, but at the same time, I've done it almost every day for 9 months and am in a comfortable zone where I'm happy to do it and don't feel like I'm running myself ragged or getting demotivated, so it's been good for sustainability. Yet I know I am not pushing myself, just staying well within my comfort zone.

Sounds terribly inefficient to be working consistently at such a low intensity - beyond building a basic aerobic base that's now not going to be doing much for actually improving your fitness which to me seems an opportunity not being seized. But I'm not you, I train rather than just exercise.

But if it is your happy place then on that level it works for you.

IMHO well worth pushing yourself a lot harder in at least some of your sessions or even part of your sessions meaning the whole of each session doesn't need to be the same steady state intensity.
e.g. warm up for 10 mins, intervals of higher intensity and recovery for 40 mins, gentle warm down for 10 mins.