Heart rate

kvossandrews

I have been exercising for a good 6 weeks. I do at least 40mins 5 days a week. I have not seen the scales move. Yes I eat right and yes I know that mussel weighs more than fat.
I was reading that heart rate should be a lot lower than what mine is when I exercise. When I do my jog it can get up to 185 and no lower than 169.
My question is do I slow down and keep my heart rate at 140 to see better results on the scales?

stines72

i, too, have a very high heart rate when doing intense cardio. it's never below 180-190 and during my cooldown it's always 160's... but my resting heart rate is pretty darn healthy.

but higher heart rate = more calories burned you know, and ive read that you burn just as much if not more fat when your heart rate is higher for a sustained period of time vs. lower for the same amount of time

jsickman12

Your target heart rate for fat burning is approximately 55 percent to 70 percent of your maximum heart rate. Multiply your MHR(maximum heart rate) by 0.55 to get your lower level threshold, and multiply your MHR by 0.70 to get your upper level threshold. So, if you are 40 years old, your lower level threshold would be 180 x 0.55 = 99 beats per minute, and your upper level threshold would be 180 x 0.70 = 126 beats per minute. This would make your fat burning zone 99 to 126 beats per minute.

to calculate MHR:
Your maximum heart rate, is an estimation of the heart rate you could achieve during extremely intense exercise. As you get older, your MHR typically decreases. The most accurate way of determining your MHR is a stress test. Since this method is not practical for many, the simplest way to estimate your MHR is to subtract your age in years from 220. So, if you are 40 years old, your estimated maximum heart rate is 180.

Hope that helps

mlb929

The book Racing Weight is an excellent resource. The answer basically is do both intense high hr workouts, and others lower and slower but longer in duration. So some in a fasting state, having not ate first or only eating a little bit to not crash and burn. It's all about mixing it up.

mdtuba5

Where are you getting your readings? If you are using a treadmill., or any exercise machine for that matter, and use their "grip" HR readers, what is shown can be WAY different from what your actual rate is. Something to think about...

If you want to be precise, get a polar HR monitor strap or something like it.

Tw1zzler

there are lot's of methods of calculating your maximum heart rate and a study shows that it should be different for women.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100628170928.htm

I try not to overthink it and look for improvement of my resting heart rate over time. I think perceived rate of exertion is a better scale to use.

You might try doing jog/run/walk intervals.

kvossandrews

Your target heart rate for fat burning is approximately 55 percent to 70 percent of your maximum heart rate. Multiply your MHR(maximum heart rate) by 0.55 to get your lower level threshold, and multiply your MHR by 0.70 to get your upper level threshold. So, if you are 40 years old, your lower level threshold would be 180 x 0.55 = 99 beats per minute, and your upper level threshold would be 180 x 0.70 = 126 beats per minute. This would make your fat burning zone 99 to 126 beats per minute.

to calculate MHR:
Your maximum heart rate, is an estimation of the heart rate you could achieve during extremely intense exercise. As you get older, your MHR typically decreases. The most accurate way of determining your MHR is a stress test. Since this method is not practical for many, the simplest way to estimate your MHR is to subtract your age in years from 220. So, if you are 40 years old, your estimated maximum heart rate is 180.

Hope that helps

thank you.

kvossandrews

Where are you getting your readings? If you are using a treadmill., or any exercise machine for that matter, and use their "grip" HR readers, what is shown can be WAY different from what your actual rate is. Something to think about...

If you want to be precise, get a polar HR monitor strap or something like it.

Yes I have the strap and I get the readings off that. I can burn over 1000 caliores.

vrhoey

Thank you so much for the maximum heart rate information. Being 58, I shouldn't go above 160, but that usually takes me about 10 minutes on the elliptical. So when I reach that level, what do I do? Do I just slow down, do I stop? And will I improve in my ability to exercise longer as I continue to work out?

Thanks again!

DavPul

Neither your heart rate nor your exercise has anything to do with your weight loss. If scale isn't moving check your diet first, second and last. Everyone suggesting running slower will help you lose more weight than running faster is incredibly misinformed.

You can lose weight when jogging. You can lose weight while sprinting. You can lose weight while lifting heavy. You can lose weight while not exercising at all. You can also gain weight while doing all of these activities. The only variable is your diet.

DavPul

Where are you getting your readings? If you are using a treadmill., or any exercise machine for that matter, and use their "grip" HR readers, what is shown can be WAY different from what your actual rate is. Something to think about...

If you want to be precise, get a polar HR monitor strap or something like it.

Yes I have the strap and I get the readings off that. I can burn over 1000 caliores.

1000 cals burned in 40 mins? Seems unlikely. I'm thinking I weigh substantially more than you and that would be 90 mins of running for me. If you're adjusting your eating for this burn rate.....like I posted above, the culprit is your diet.

gxm17

Thank you so much for the maximum heart rate information. Being 58, I shouldn't go above 160, but that usually takes me about 10 minutes on the elliptical. So when I reach that level, what do I do? Do I just slow down, do I stop? And will I improve in my ability to exercise longer as I continue to work out?

Thanks again!

I am not a doctor but I have a normally high heart rate that can soar to 170+ during intense workouts. (FWIW, my cardiologist told me not to worry about it.) I'll be 54 in December. IMO, you should listen to your body. If you feel good and strong, then just keep doing what you're doing.

Sarauk2sf

Worrying about heart rate is micromanaging the process. Basically the logic is, at a lower heart rate you burn a larger percentage of fat per calorie that at a higher heart rate. This logic however misses the point that you will be burning more calories at a higher intensity - so a slightly smaller number multiplied by a much larger number still ends up to be a higher 'fat burn' than a slightly higher percentage multiplied by a much lower number. These are all estimates and trying to mess around with this misses the bigger picture.

MoreBean13

I wouldn't give much credence to the 220-age max HR formula. It doesn't work for as many people as it does work for. Basically, its just a first guess method of how to approximate max HR for the general population- its almost meaningless to use it on an individual level. There are empirical methods to test your max HR, but it's kind of dangerous for unfit people to push themselves hard enough to test it, which is why the 220-age formula exists.

I would suggest monitoring your HR and how you feel during your workouts, and doing some research on zone training and lactic acid threshold. Don't modify your workouts to train in any zones predetermined by the 220-age formula. The point of zone training is to improve your fitness and vo2max, and that won't happen if you aren't using zones customized to your own body.

And please, ignore the 'fat burning zone' stuff. Its a marketing gimmick, contrived to sell cardio machines with built in heart rate sensors. You burn more fat at a higher hr. The 'fat burning zone' burns a higher % of fat, but less fat overall because of the total calorie usage difference. Its disingenuous marketing.