confused about proper heart rate

ukaryote

Should I be paying attention to heart rate or just the way I feel?

I'm 60 years old and just two months into exercise after a 3 year hiatus. The max heart rate is supposed to be 160 (220-age) but it is almost impossible to break 150 BPM - the legs get tired before I get winded. Supposedly I should be doing aerobic workouts at 80% of 160 BPM (128) but that feels way too easy, like nothing.

Using the stationary bike it is not too much effort to maintain 140 BPM for an hour. I'm sweating but it does not feel like alarm bells are going off. Using the elliptical trainer it is hard work to keep up a heart rate of 130-134.

Cherimoose

Funny username.

Unless a doctor recommended a target HR for medical reasons, it's usually better to go by the level of perceived exertion. The exact level you choose depends on your goals, and what you're willing to do.

Does the elliptical feel harder than the bike? Usually HR is proportional to perceived exertion.

heybales

Should I be paying attention to heart rate or just the way I feel?

I'm 60 years old and just two months into exercise after a 3 year hiatus. The max heart rate is supposed to be 160 (220-age) but it is almost impossible to break 150 BPM - the legs get tired before I get winded. Supposedly I should be doing aerobic workouts at 80% of 160 BPM (128) but that feels way too easy, like nothing.

Using the stationary bike it is not too much effort to maintain 140 BPM for an hour. I'm sweating but it does not feel like alarm bells are going off. Using the elliptical trainer it is hard work to keep up a heart rate of 130-134.

Also depends on your purpose. Right now I'm guessing getting healthy.

Higher is not better, actually no matter what. Higher can be a proper workout sometimes, but even then, not always.

And you don't try to get to HRmax anyway, that is what you might be able to hit near start of workout while muscle are fresh, but after hitting it you'd likely need to stop and puke.
Talk about short workout.

Here is much better range method that takes into account your fitness level, as represented by your resting HR first thing in the morning. Take for 60 sec after you've called down from any alarm clock rudeness. Also better method of doing HRmax. But at least this way the estimated HRmax is balanced by a measured resting HR.

www.calculatenow.biz/sport/heart.php?

Oh, the fad named Fat burning zone used there, was and is better called the Active Recovery zone. If you did a hard workout yesterday you are needing to repair from today, you do your cardio at top of that zone.
Or if doing intervals, the easy part would be back in this zone.

If that's not the case, no need to stay there, use mid-aerobic or upper aerobic.

If doing intervals you go into the anaerobic zone on hard part, recovery in fat-burning zone. Only need 1 of those a week here at first. It's as close to lifting as you'll get. In which case, just spend the time lifting and get the best benefits from the real thing.

Notice the steady-state zone has no description. Because best avoided. It's too intense to do it for very long, and is very hard on the body, requires a recovery the next day usually. But it's actually not intense enough to really cause positive changes like anaerobic zone can. It's where you would do a race at.

Right now, anywhere in aerobic zone until fitness improves.

You'll usually find that how you feel matches up with those. But it's nice to know if you have a plan, to stick to one or the other or interval back and forth for different focus and improvements.

And yeah, isn't biking great. Doesn't feel like much effort. Confirm your spin is around 90 rpm, and get that tension up then.

ukaryote

Thanks for the info, I'm trying to absorb it all. That calculator more closely matches the perceived effort and heart rate.

I try to set a bottom cadence of 80 rpm both on the stationary bike and real life, and 93 rpm feels like the sweet spot Whenever I gear down to hit 93 it feels like running on tip-toe and I'm not bouncing in the saddle. I happen to ride a recumbent trike, still, all the rules apply. On a bent it is better to spin than mash because you can put excessive force on the knees.

Yes, right now the target is to get into basic fitness which has three parts:
dropping weight through diet
getting the cardiovascular system ready for long rides (average effort days and HIIT days)
building strength for those long rides and to fend off sarcopenia. Lifting is part of it.

heybales

Thanks for the info, I'm trying to absorb it all. That calculator more closely matches the perceived effort and heart rate.

I try to set a bottom cadence of 80 rpm both on the stationary bike and real life, and 93 rpm feels like the sweet spot Whenever I gear down to hit 93 it feels like running on tip-toe and I'm not bouncing in the saddle. I happen to ride a recumbent trike, still, all the rules apply. On a bent it is better to spin than mash because you can put excessive force on the knees.

Yes, right now the target is to get into basic fitness which has three parts:
dropping weight through diet
getting the cardiovascular system ready for long rides (average effort days and HIIT days)
building strength for those long rides and to fend off sarcopenia. Lifting is part of it.

We have 2 recumbent riders on our Thu ride which is decently fast, and one really learned to keep the spin up and he loses very little going up hills with the extra weight. Too steep and his gearing runs out, but he always keeps the spin up in the might say aerobic range, rather than the anaerobic mashing side of the range.

So I'd suggest 1 60 min or long session a week in the lower aerobic range - just to train the fat burning system for the endurance you'll want from long ride.
Then an interval session short, perhaps with weights upper body, then a top of aerobic range just for calorie burn to be higher.
Because the more you burn in a day, while eating the same amount less, the more you get to eat, which will benefit the training too.