Cardio and Max Heart Rate

omnpotnt
omnpotnt Posts: 20 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I know this topic has been covered...but have a few questions with regards to my own personal numbers. I am a 47 year old Male....I oringally started at 335 lbs and am down to roughly 215-217. I spend at least 5 days a week doing cardio, usually using the eliptical at the gym, or doing a 2 1/2 -3 mile run/walk around the neighborhood. I wear a HRM when doing either...at the gym on the elpitical my HR usually hovers around 165 or so after the first 10 or so minutes on a incline of 13 and intensity of 7. I can keep my heart rate there and go higher ( which as i understand it burns more calories, but fewer from fat). In order to burn more fat I've read that I need to keep my h eart rate at roughly 70-80% of my Max heart rate. Using the simple calculation of 220-47 x's .8 comes to 138 bpm. If I was to keep my heart rate at 138-145...it would feel as though I wasn't working almost at all. I'm not even sure i'd work up much of a sweat at that level . ( currently my shirt will be completely soaked when finished). Can someone tell me that even though I can barely work up a sweat that I will indeed be burning more fat this way? It just sounds to convoluted for my simple mind I guess. Any help would be greatly appreciated as I'd like to polish off the last 30-35 lbs a bit faster as things have slowed recently. Thanks in advance!!!

Replies

  • layne_mat
    layne_mat Posts: 9 Member
    I find 165 - 180 to be the sweet spot for me. I wear a monitor when I run, and this allows me to work up a sweat, but not burn out after a short amount of time. A lower heart rate I find will allow you to work out for longer, but 140 does seem low. If you have a set distance/time for your workouts, I would say keep that heartrate on the higher side.

    To me, it feels like if you want to keep that heart rate at 140, you would have to go a little longer to get the same benefit.
  • omnpotnt
    omnpotnt Posts: 20 Member
    I did it tonight....burned a little fewer calories, but less of a difference than I expected....kept it right around 140 plus or minus 2 or 3 beats.....kept a constant pace but altered the resistance and incline on the elliptical to change the heart rate around as I went. I guess I'll try it for a few weeks to see how it goes.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Here's a description and a table you may find useful...

    http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/running/pace-zone-index-details.aspx

    http://www.fascatcoaching.com/site_images/pageimage_1060_34129_4_1.jpg

    pageimage_1060_34129_4_1.jpg
  • NicolesMinion
    NicolesMinion Posts: 11
    You still burn fat regardless of your heart rate. I read an article that basically said go ahead and and stay at the higher hr and burn the calories because even though you burn MORE fat at the lower heart rate you end up burning MORE Calories at the higher heart rate and the amount of fat burned is almost the same at the end. So stay at your 165 hr and know you are burning almost the same amount of fat as at the lower hr. Hope that makes sense to you.
  • RunBrew
    RunBrew Posts: 220 Member
    That 220-age formula is garbage. It's decades old, and was derived from a small group of fit males in their teens to 30's. It has poor (at best) correlation to the general population.
    Clearly you're no stranger to cardio, and you have a HRM... why not just crank the elliptical up and see where you peak out. It'd take you about 10 minutes to reach max once youre warmed up.

    use that number x 0.8 to find your aerobic threshold.

Categories