Maximum Heart Rate

arewethereyet

I need some help from all you very smart MFP members.

I have been working out in the fat burning zone using the generic numbers.The formula is: 220-(your age) 47 = (100% max HR) 173 (172 come tomorrow:grumble: )

Fat burning zone should be 173 x 80% = 138 should be the fat burning mode, with spikes to 150 or so for cardio.

BUT I dont feel like I am working hard at 138, and I burn fewer calories as time goes on.

Today I went to the park. 1st let me say I walked at the same cadence as on the treadmill,because I use a pre set up Itunes routine. My HR was up 10-15 points walking the same speed, but using my body only-no little rubber thing helping me a long.

Also, for some reason I decided to see what I could do. I took off and ran flat out like I missed the bus, for about a 1/16 of a mile. My HR went to 190 and I did not explode!

I have been holding my HR by slowing down the machines thinking FAT BURN>>>>>>>>FAT BURN>>>>>>> But it appears I have not been int he FB zone for MY body.

Now I am wondering if this has been my plateau issue all along.

Anyone have any comments, concerns or advice regarding HR and working out?

"Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy."

arewethereyet

I need some help from all you very smart MFP members.

I have been working out in the fat burning zone using the generic numbers.The formula is: 220-(your age) 47 = (100% max HR) 173 (172 come tomorrow:grumble: )

Fat burning zone should be 173 x 80% = 138 should be the fat burning mode, with spikes to 150 or so for cardio.

BUT I dont feel like I am working hard at 138, and I burn fewer calories as time goes on.

Today I went to the park. 1st let me say I walked at the same cadence as on the treadmill,because I use a pre set up Itunes routine. My HR was up 10-15 points walking the same speed, but using my body only-no little rubber thing helping me a long.

Also, for some reason I decided to see what I could do. I took off and ran flat out like I missed the bus, for about a 1/16 of a mile. My HR went to 190 and I did not explode!

I have been holding my HR by slowing down the machines thinking FAT BURN>>>>>>>>FAT BURN>>>>>>> But it appears I have not been int he FB zone for MY body.

Now I am wondering if this has been my plateau issue all along.

Anyone have any comments, concerns or advice regarding HR and working out?

"Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy."

aprilvet

arewethereyet- I think this whole "fat-burning zone" thing is cr*p!!!! The harder you work yourself, the more calories you will burn!. Period. While the percentage of those calories taken from fat sources versus glycogen stores may be greater in the lower heart rate ranges, since you are burning more calories in a shorter time at the higher heart rates, you actually burn more fat over time!!! This was a huge discovery for me! And it has paid good dividends!:bigsmile: I have learned that I need to push myself and keep my heart rate in my cardiovascular zone for long periods to get real changes. AND I am more cardiovascularly fit now!!!!:drinker:

Hope this helps!!

hiddensecant

Exercising beyond your target zone is not a bad thing. If you're healthy, it wont give you a heart attack. And atheletes do it all the time to improve their performance.

While exercising in your target zone is for optimal fat-burning, exercising beyond your target zone will also burn fat. It's just not in the "optimal" range as you start to get into the anaerobic stage.

Look up HIIT and go for both (high intensity interval training).

msarro

arewethereyet- I think this whole "fat-burning zone" thing is cr*p!!!! The harder you work yourself, the more calories you will burn!. Period. While the percentage of those calories taken from fat sources versus glycogen stores may be greater in the lower heart rate ranges, since you are burning more calories in a shorter time at the higher heart rates, you actually burn more fat over time!!! This was a huge discovery for me! And it has paid good dividends!:bigsmile: I have learned that I need to push myself and keep my heart rate in my cardiovascular zone for long periods to get real changes. AND I am more cardiovascularly fit now!!!!:drinker:

Hope this helps!!

Actually, it really isn't cr*p. Your body burns different fuel sources depending on the intensity of the exercise. That's why long distance runners often can't sprint for crap - same muscles but of different compositions, burning different fuel sources.

Basically the closer you get to your max heart rate, the less calories come from fat and more come from glycogen. You are burning calories, but at the wrong place. Both will however increase your cardiovascular fitness though.

Here's a good break down:
http://www.thewalkingsite.com/thr.html

Mireille

I don't have an answer for you either but I work out at my maximum heart rate too. I don't feel like I'm working out unless I'm doing so.
:flowerforyou:

arewethereyet

I don't have an answer for you either but I work out at my maximum heart rate too. I don't feel like I'm working out unless I'm doing so.
:flowerforyou:

Thanks Mir. I am passing on the name of a good dentist for the littel dude below:laugh:

arewethereyet

arewethereyet- I think this whole "fat-burning zone" thing is cr*p!!!! The harder you work yourself, the more calories you will burn!. Period. While the percentage of those calories taken from fat sources versus glycogen stores may be greater in the lower heart rate ranges, since you are burning more calories in a shorter time at the higher heart rates, you actually burn more fat over time!!! This was a huge discovery for me! And it has paid good dividends!:bigsmile: I have learned that I need to push myself and keep my heart rate in my cardiovascular zone for long periods to get real changes. AND I am more cardiovascularly fit now!!!!:drinker:

Hope this helps!!

Actually, it really isn't cr*p. Your body burns different fuel sources depending on the intensity of the exercise. That's why long distance runners often can't sprint for crap - same muscles, different fuel source.

Basically the closer you get to your max heart rate, the less calories come from fat and more come from glycogen. You are burning calories, but at the wrong place. Both will however increase your cardiovascular fitness though.

Here's a good break down:
http://www.thewalkingsite.com/thr.html

Msarro........so what I want to know is this: Could my fat burn zone be more like 150's than 130's??? I want to burn fat, for sure.

I have been doing 3 minute intervals to shake up my system, but I am trying to figure out if I stay at 150 could this possibly be Fat Burn zone for me??

:flowerforyou:

GIBride01

[[/quote]

Actually, it really isn't cr*p. Your body burns different fuel sources depending on the intensity of the exercise. That's why long distance runners often can't sprint for crap - same muscles, different fuel source.

Basically the closer you get to your max heart rate, the less calories come from fat and more come from glycogen. You are burning calories, but at the wrong place. Both will however increase your cardiovascular fitness though.

Here's a good break down:
http://www.thewalkingsite.com/thr.html
[/quote]

Agreed, but I do think you need to do both low and high intensity workouts as part of a good routine, IMO. I know I managed to put on my extra weight doing nice, easy low intensity walks, yoga, pilates..good exercise but not burning enough to utilize all the calories I was taking in. I do a high intensity step cardio class weekly, where my heart rate frequently in the upper 190's ( my THR is 186)...even now after having done it for 4 months and 20 pounds lighter - good news is I have yet to explode. Burns a truckload of calories, help make me stronger and more fit, and the lower intensity pilates and dog walking help burn fat. Its all about balance...

hiddensecant

I have been doing 3 minute intervals to shake up my system, but I am trying to figure out if I stay at 150 could this possibly be Fat Burn zone for me??

:flowerforyou:

No, this is not the fat burning zone for you.

However, you should have a good mix between high and low intensity workouts. You can even mix it up wtih your running, going at max speed for a few minutes then backing down to target for a few minutes. If you look up High Intensity Interval Training, you'll find more specific recommendations on how many minutes you should spend at each zone.

jtintx

If you saw 190 on your HRM and there was nothing there causing electrical interference or any cross-talk with another HRM then your MaxHR is at least 190. You should use 190 in your calculations, not 173, or 172 now. BTW, Happy Birthday!

aprilvet

So, my comment on fat burning zone being cr*p got a lot of attention, but I think I was mis-understood. There is valid physiology behind it. However, if you just look at the numbers, the more calories you burn, the more weight you will lose because at the end of the day, if you are in a calorie deficit your body will draw on its fat to replenish its glycogen stores- those stores you burned through in your higher intensity workout. So for those of us that want the most bang for our buck, if I'm going to exercise for an hour, I want to burn 600 calories, not 250. Plus, with higher intensity, I am doing my heart good as well!

But as everyone has said, you need a combination of both types of training. I just don't like to hear people afraid of working out closer to their max hr because they think they won't burn fat!!!!

And 150 is definately in your cardio zone, which is about 80-85% of max.

:flowerforyou:

Azdak

arewethereyet- I think this whole "fat-burning zone" thing is cr*p!!!! The harder you work yourself, the more calories you will burn!. Period. While the percentage of those calories taken from fat sources versus glycogen stores may be greater in the lower heart rate ranges, since you are burning more calories in a shorter time at the higher heart rates, you actually burn more fat over time!!! This was a huge discovery for me! And it has paid good dividends!:bigsmile: I have learned that I need to push myself and keep my heart rate in my cardiovascular zone for long periods to get real changes. AND I am more cardiovascularly fit now!!!!:drinker:

Hope this helps!!

Actually, it really isn't cr*p. Your body burns different fuel sources depending on the intensity of the exercise. That's why long distance runners often can't sprint for crap - same muscles but of different compositions, burning different fuel sources.

Basically the closer you get to your max heart rate, the less calories come from fat and more come from glycogen. You are burning calories, but at the wrong place. Both will however increase your cardiovascular fitness though.

Here's a good break down:
http://www.thewalkingsite.com/thr.html

Yes, it IS cr*p. Fuel substrate utilized during exercise has NO effect on stored body fat. It's two completely different processes.

Iceprincessk25

I posted this already elsewhere but I'll put it here as well. It's what SONGBRYDSWEET has to say regarding HR ~ :bigsmile:

Well the 'cardio zone' vs. 'fat burning zone' is pretty dated, but every once in a while it pops back up like a cold sore.

People generally refer to the 'cardio zone' as the heart rate level during which you burn only 'sugar'. Some people think it's ineffective for fat loss, or dangerous because it puts too much strain on the heart (which is total bull). The 'fat burning zone' is generally thought to be a lower heart rate level that burns more fat and is the only thing necessary during weight loss and it spares all your glycogen for lifting, yadda yadda.

However, it's all crap, and here's what really happens:

At lower intensities, like while sitting, you're utilizing about 70% calories from oxidative systems that can use fatty acids, and 30% from non-oxidative systems that use glucose. However, you're burning almost nothing. Obviously, even though you're using more fatty acids, you're not burning calories and you're not improving your cardiovascular health. The same goes for low-intensity exercise (<65% MHR). You're still using glucose and fatty acids. At moderate levels, about 65-75% MHR, you're using glucose and fatty acids at about a 50/50 split and burning far more calories than you would at lower HR's. You can keep this up for a loooooooong time. And at higher HR, about 85%+, you're burning about 25% fatty acids and 75% glucose, but wasting a lot of calories. You can't sustain it as long though, because you teeter at the lactic acid threshold, and lactic acid causes pH changes that don't allow for proper energy production, so you reach fatigue. However, you're still going to use BOTH glucose and fatty acids, and the better trained you are, the better you can use fatty acids even at high intensities. It's important to incorporate all types of training to prevent overuse injuries and train your energy systems dynamically. But it's better to include moderate-high intensity work more often because it burns more calories and improves your cardiovascular health as well.

Hope that helps!

Azdak

This is a common problem. There is substantial variation in max heart rates. The HRmax calculations have a standard error of 10-12 bpm. That means your true HRmax could very well be 190 or higher.

If you are in good health and feel like you are "cruising" at the calculated rate, go harder if that feels OK. Use your HRM to learn about YOUR heart rate response to exercise--don't let it rule you.

And don't worry about staying in a "fat burning" zone. The entire concept is based on false science. The best cardio routines combine workouts with a mix of intensities and durations.

GIBride01

At moderate levels, about 65-75% MHR, you're using glucose and fatty acids at about a 50/50 split and burning far more calories than you would at lower HR's. You can keep this up for a loooooooong time. And at higher HR, about 85%+, you're burning about 25% fatty acids and 75% glucose, but wasting a lot of calories.

But it's better to include moderate-high intensity work more often because it burns more calories and improves your cardiovascular health as well.

Hope that helps!

First, sorry to hack the above quote to death, but I wanted to pull out the specific above chunk..If you read the posting saying why this theroy is crap, you see it really isint crap.:huh: Confusing, but...

I think the problem is the science nerds (myself included..) dont like hearing "cardio zone" and "fat burning zone", as it really oversimplifies. Moderate level intensity exercise uses stored energy ie. fat , more effectively than really high intensity exercise and you can work out longer at that moderate intensity, therefore burning more fat overall in your workout. So using the terms "cardio zone" and "fat burning zone" is scientifically incorrect, it might be an ok way for someone without the science degree to think about working out. Hope that makes sense, I just hate seeing someone told that what they think is crap.

arewethereyet

If you saw 190 on your HRM and there was nothing there causing electrical interference or any cross-talk with another HRM then your MaxHR is at least 190. You should use 190 in your calculations, not 173, or 172 now. BTW, Happy Birthday!

BINGO that is what I am looking for!!

Yes it was a true reading. I could tell my HR had not been this high in a long, long time.

:smooched:

arewethereyet

At moderate levels, about 65-75% MHR, you're using glucose and fatty acids at about a 50/50 split and burning far more calories than you would at lower HR's. You can keep this up for a loooooooong time. And at higher HR, about 85%+, you're burning about 25% fatty acids and 75% glucose, but wasting a lot of calories.

But it's better to include moderate-high intensity work more often because it burns more calories and improves your cardiovascular health as well.

Hope that helps!

First, sorry to hack the above quote to death, but I wanted to pull out the specific above chunk..If you read the posting saying why this theroy is crap, you see it really isint crap.:huh: Confusing, but...

I think the problem is the science nerds (myself included..) dont like hearing "cardio zone" and "fat burning zone", as it really oversimplifies. Moderate level intensity exercise uses stored energy ie. fat , more effectively than really high intensity exercise and you can work out longer at that moderate intensity, therefore burning more fat overall in your workout. So using the terms "cardio zone" and "fat burning zone" is scientifically incorrect, it might be an ok way for someone without the science degree to think about working out. Hope that makes sense, I just hate seeing someone told that what they think is crap.

I think the working out longer part has a lot to do with it. About 10 yrs ago I went to a small gym. They put me on a treadmill, set up the computer with Fat Burn zone and let me go. 1 hour and each time my HR would go above the FB zone, it would slow me down, or lower the incline.

I was there 3 months. My son lost 50 pounds kicking *kitten* on the ellip.........I lost 3 pounds.

I am now goingto kick it up a notch.

Thanks for ALL of your responses. I love your pearls of wisdom!

msarro

arewethereyet- I think this whole "fat-burning zone" thing is cr*p!!!! The harder you work yourself, the more calories you will burn!. Period. While the percentage of those calories taken from fat sources versus glycogen stores may be greater in the lower heart rate ranges, since you are burning more calories in a shorter time at the higher heart rates, you actually burn more fat over time!!! This was a huge discovery for me! And it has paid good dividends!:bigsmile: I have learned that I need to push myself and keep my heart rate in my cardiovascular zone for long periods to get real changes. AND I am more cardiovascularly fit now!!!!:drinker:

Hope this helps!!

Actually, it really isn't cr*p. Your body burns different fuel sources depending on the intensity of the exercise. That's why long distance runners often can't sprint for crap - same muscles but of different compositions, burning different fuel sources.

Basically the closer you get to your max heart rate, the less calories come from fat and more come from glycogen. You are burning calories, but at the wrong place. Both will however increase your cardiovascular fitness though.

Here's a good break down:
http://www.thewalkingsite.com/thr.html

Yes, it IS cr*p. Fuel substrate utilized during exercise has NO effect on stored body fat. It's two completely different processes.

Um, if that was the case, why is it the average swimmer of the English channel will burn 14lbs of pure fat during the trip? Fat is absolutely utilized during exercise, unless I'm missing what you're saying.

12by311

Tag to read later.

sarabear

I know Banks explained it to me once, and I don't remember how he put it................BANKS! HELP!!!:happy: