Heart rate and weight loss.

Options
_whatsherface
_whatsherface Posts: 1,238 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Does anyone know what the ideal heart rate is for weight loss or is it basically just any activity that gets your heart rate up is good for weight loss.
I ask because often my heart rate on a cardio machine can vary from 130 to 165. I'm just not sure what my target should be to continue to lose weight (Unless like I stated before, any activity is good activity)
Currently, I do the treadmill on hill intervals for 30-60 mins and then some light weight lifting. I'm 5'7 293 pounds if this matters.
Thanks! :bigsmile:

Replies

  • BombshellPhoenix
    BombshellPhoenix Posts: 1,693 Member
    Options
    I never honestly figured it out and it's trivial at best what "maximum" is. You're doing exercise, your building your fitness level. That should be the main focus.

    For weight loss, I'd focus on calorie deficit. That is the main factor to weight loss. Don't get me wrong, exercise is great for overall health but priority 1 to lose weight will be calories in vs out.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    Options
    Best heart rate for fat loss?

    I dunno, what's your heart rate when you eat?

    Fat is lost via diet. Your body is built with activity.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    The concept of a 'fat loss zone' is really a misleading one. There is a theoretical HR range whereby you lose more fat at - however, it does not take into account 1) the HR monitors on the machines are usually very inaccurate 2) the impact on duration. Any theoretical difference is not worth worrying about.

    Just do your exercise at a pace that is sustainable and control your deficit through your diet.
  • alijoanxo
    alijoanxo Posts: 480 Member
    Options
    It depends on your age and other things. Your maximum heart rate can be calculated by using the formula (220 - your age). This link breaks down target HR by age groups.

    http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/PhysicalActivity/FitnessBasics/Target-Heart-Rates_UCM_434341_Article.jsp
  • parrillr
    parrillr Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    Do you belong to a gym that offers metabolic tests? I was tested with my HRM and discovered the best training zones that way. It's much more reliable than going off the machines.
  • _whatsherface
    _whatsherface Posts: 1,238 Member
    Options
    Okay cool. Thanks guys!
  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    Options
    That old "220 - age" formula is thoroughly discredited. Tanaka et al. came up with a better formula, but there's still a lot of variance in the population (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153730). The only way to accurately figure out your maximum heart rate is through a stress test.

    However, that's not really necessary. Ideally, most of your exercise should be moderate in intensity. If you can talk in complete sentences, but with difficulty, that's pretty good. Some of your exercise should be more intense, hard enough that you can say a few words but not complete sentences.

    Edited to add: if you can easily talk in complete sentences, you're not getting much aerobic benefit. But light exercise (such as walking) has many other benefits, and does burn calories. It's just that if you want to improve cardiovascular fitness and endurance, you need to push hard enough to make speaking complete sentences difficult or impossible.
  • rightaboutmeow
    rightaboutmeow Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    Hmmm...while working out (running) I've had my HR go up to the 180's and even 190 once (according to my Polar FT7) but that scared me so I scaled it back a bit.

    Now I'm wondering if that's normal..

    D:
  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,575 Member
    Options
    Hmmm...while working out (running) I've had my HR go up to the 180's and even 190 once (according to my Polar FT7) but that scared me so I scaled it back a bit.

    Now I'm wondering if that's normal..

    D:

    I think that's fine. That's about the goal my trainer has for me now. I hate cardio and was hanging out in the 160's for way too long.
  • rightaboutmeow
    rightaboutmeow Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    Hmmm...while working out (running) I've had my HR go up to the 180's and even 190 once (according to my Polar FT7) but that scared me so I scaled it back a bit.

    Now I'm wondering if that's normal..

    D:

    I think that's fine. That's about the goal my trainer has for me now. I hate cardio and was hanging out in the 160's for way too long.




    Oh my goodness, that's good to hear. Haha. I try not to worry myself about it too much but that seemed really high, but if a trainer is telling you to push yourself to that then I feel a bit better about it. :drinker:

    I usually only hit that when I start to get about halfway through my second mile or so. I used to think the 160's were where it was at too, lol. But I love to have that "running-down-my-face, sweat-dripping-in-my-eyes" kind of sweat and the 160's just don't get me there.
    :ohwell:

    I just don't want to keel over in the gym, basically,

    :embarassed:
  • RUNNING_AMOK_1958
    RUNNING_AMOK_1958 Posts: 268 Member
    Options
    http://www.livestrong.com/tools/target-heart-rate/
  • Solar_Cat
    Solar_Cat Posts: 188 Member
    Options
    http://www.livestrong.com/tools/target-heart-rate/
    No. This calculator is based on the discredited assumptions mentioned above by bwogilvie.

    There's wide variation among individuals. If you see your heart rate reach 190, then you know for sure that your HRmax is at least 190, regardless of what the formula says.

    As an example, when I was in my mid-50s and training for a 5K, I clocked my actual HRmax at 194. The old formula says it should have been 165 and even the revised formula that helps with the age bias (see link in bwogilvie's post) says 170. Quite a discrepancy! If I had used the formula results as a basis for training, I would never have been pushing myself enough.
  • rightaboutmeow
    rightaboutmeow Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    http://www.livestrong.com/tools/target-heart-rate/
    No. This calculator is based on the discredited assumptions mentioned above by bwogilvie.

    There's wide variation among individuals. If you see your heart rate reach 190, then you know for sure that your HRmax is at least 190, regardless of what the formula says.

    As an example, when I was in my mid-50s and training for a 5K, I clocked my actual HRmax at 194. The old formula says it should have been 165 and even the revised formula that helps with the age bias (see link in bwogilvie's post) says 170. Quite a discrepancy! If I had used the formula results as a basis for training, I would never have been pushing myself enough.



    Oh, wow. That's a huge difference!
    Good point.
    I guess I should just listen to my body and worry less about what my watch says, haha. I really use it moreso to track my calorie burn.
  • SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish
    SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish Posts: 831 Member
    Options
    Does anyone know what the ideal heart rate is for weight loss or is it basically just any activity that gets your heart rate up is good for weight loss.
    I ask because often my heart rate on a cardio machine can vary from 130 to 165. I'm just not sure what my target should be to continue to lose weight (Unless like I stated before, any activity is good activity)
    Currently, I do the treadmill on hill intervals for 30-60 mins and then some light weight lifting. I'm 5'7 293 pounds if this matters.
    Thanks! :bigsmile:

    There are large variations between people, and depends on your fitness level, any medical conditions and resting heart rate. But since your primary goal is to lose weight, I'd worry more about how your legs, respiration rate and lungs feel to determine a rate you can sustain for a reasonably long workout. Exact HR isn't going to matter too much, as long as you aren't at your max HR. Whether you use the old (220-age) or one of the newer (208 - .7xage) formulas, it isn't going to matter so much either since you shouldn't be at that top rate anyways starting out, and you want a workout level you can sustain for a reasonable time. If you can go for 60 mins at a 130 HR, but you get exhausted at 20 mins at your 160 HR...obviously keeping it low for losing weight is going to be better for you. You will keep it up longer each day you do it to burn more calories, and you will be more likely to keep doing it, even though the per minute rate of the 160 HR burn will be higher.

    And yes, any activity getting your HR up significantly is going to be good for weight loss, just do something that makes it get into the ranges above at least for 150 mins/week!
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    The concept of a 'fat loss zone' is really a misleading one. There is a theoretical HR range whereby you lose more fat at - however, it does not take into account 1) the HR monitors on the machines are usually very inaccurate 2) the impact on duration. Any theoretical difference is not worth worrying about.

    Just do your exercise at a pace that is sustainable and control your deficit through your diet.

    Just for clarity: a variety of conditions can affect the quality of contact between the skin and and the HR sensors; however, if contact is established, then the HR counts are very accurate. The same issues exist with HRM chest straps.

Categories