Heart Rate Question
lina1131
Posts: 2,246 Member
Today I worked out for a total of 52 minutes (45 cardio, the rest Abs)
My HRM says my heart rate zone is 124 to 162 - If i'm in between those numbers i'm in my zone. Today I was only in my zone for 11 minutes but ABOVE it the rest of the time. I was more at 170 for most of my workout.
Is it a bad thing to be above my zone? Should I try to stay in between the 124 to 162.
I had a REALLY good workout today, I mean I was sweating so much. I think it should be okay but want to confirm with you guys about being above my zone and what it means, do I burn more fat this way?
My HRM says my heart rate zone is 124 to 162 - If i'm in between those numbers i'm in my zone. Today I was only in my zone for 11 minutes but ABOVE it the rest of the time. I was more at 170 for most of my workout.
Is it a bad thing to be above my zone? Should I try to stay in between the 124 to 162.
I had a REALLY good workout today, I mean I was sweating so much. I think it should be okay but want to confirm with you guys about being above my zone and what it means, do I burn more fat this way?
0
Replies
-
I think it is good to occasionally work outside one's zone. How else will you raise the roof on your little house of fitness?0
-
I guess I want to make sure that i'm still burning fat if i'm above my zone.
Do I sound stupid?
0 -
no you don't sound stupid, that is a good question and hopefully someone knows. I would like to know this myself. have a great day0
-
You will burn a greater percentage of fat "in the zone", but since you are exercising above that, you are burning many more calories AND more total fat. Unless I am walking, my workouts are far above "the zone". I can lose a tremendous amount of fat in a relatively short time. I'm not saying that one method is better than another. It just works for me.0
-
Please don't lend any credence to the "Fat Burning Zone" with regard to Heart Rate. You're missing a HUGE part of the equation....weather you're a calorie deficit or not.
I would assume if you were "comfortable" (use the term loosley) in the 170's...you had a good work out like you said.0 -
Technically, you burn a higher percentage of fat for fuel at the lower end of your zone. But, you burn more calories at a higher heart rate, so it's a fine line as to which is better for fat burning. For example, you can burn 300 calories doing a lower intensity workout with 50% of those calories coming from fat (150 calories from fat) or you can burn 500 calories doing a higher intensity workout but only 30% of those calories will come from fat stores (again 150 calories from fat). Personally, I opt for a lower intensity workout because of other medical issues that prevent me from doing high impact / high intensity exercise and I can get just as much of a fat burn. Others chose higher intensity exercise because they don't have workout as long to burn as many calories. It just depends on which school of thought you believe in and have the capability of doing. Remember, though, that you have to make sure that while you might be over your zone that you aren't too close to your maximum heart rate. Being at or above MHR increases your risk of heart attack.0
-
If.. you exercise and stay above your zone, for most of the exercise, and you feel good after you're done, then I think that you need to re-adjust your zone. The zone is an indication of your heart's fitness. Just as the rest of your body gets fitter so does your heart. Being above your zone (when properly set) is a warning that you are exceeding your heart's fitness and taxing your heart more than you should for your fitness level. Exceeding your heart rate zone for a long time should cause you to physically crash, not a good thing. That is why it is set to warn you! Spend some time and re-figure your zone and get it where it needs to be. Be realistic and then workout at about 80% of the time within that zone. Remember, if you set it to high you won't (or shouldn't) be maintaining the physical growth you expect.
Get healthy and be STRONG!!!!
Steven0 -
I think my maximum heart rate is 179 and I was at 170 for most of my workout. I didn't feel like I was going to die or anything. I mean it was a hard workout, no doubt, but it was definitely doable.
Please do not shoot me, but I still don't understand. Apparently i'm a little slow today.
Is it a good or bad thing to be above the zone? :blushing:0 -
What singfree said.
The whole "fat burning zone" is a big misunderstanding that seems to get pushed by the fitness industry either people they don't understand how to read scientific study or they think encouraging people to workout at lower intensities will keep them coming back. Personally, I find it frustrating because I think people are spending time in the gym and they aren't getting the maximum benefit from it.
First of all, your body burns a combination of fat, glycogen (stored in your muscles) and calories from the food you eat when you exercise. So it's always burning fat. The question is how much. Yes, in the fat burning zone, you burn a greater percentage of calories, but there are two problems with that.
(1) Most people don't really know what their fat burning zone is. The formula 220-your age is accurate for a very small percentage of people. So you may think you are in the fat burning zone, but you probably aren't if that's how you determined your max heart rate.
(2) It's the absolute calories from fat that matter, not the percentage. For example, let's say you do an easy walk on the treadmill for 30 min. keeping to your supposed "fat burning" zone. Your HRM tells you that you've burned 100 calories over sitting still. Let's say 50% were from fat. That's 50 calories. But let's say instead you decided to run on the treadmill and you sweat buckets and your HR is above the zone for that 30 min. and you go 3 miles. You just burned 300 calories. If only 25% of them are from fat, that's still 150 calories from fat. So that's ONE HUNDRED MORE from fat even though you weren't in the so-called fat burning zone.0 -
If.. you exercise and stay above your zone, for most of the exercise, and you feel good after you're done, then I think that you need to re-adjust your zone. The zone is an indication of your heart's fitness. Just as the rest of your body gets fitter so does your heart. Being above your zone (when properly set) is a warning that you are exceeding your heart's fitness and taxing your heart more than you should for your fitness level. Exceeding your heart rate zone for a long time should cause you to physically crash, not a good thing. That is why it is set to warn you! Spend some time and re-figure your zone and get it where it needs to be. Be realistic and then workout at about 80% of the time within that zone. Remember, if you set it to high you won't (or shouldn't) be maintaining the physical growth you expect.
Get healthy and be STRONG!!!!
But how do I figure out what my zone should be? I'm just going by what the heart rate monitor says. Most of the time I'm not working out this hard. I have good workouts, but I don't maintain the 170 for most of the workout. I am usually around 160 to 165. I have no idea what my deal was today.
Steven0 -
What singfree said.
The whole "fat burning zone" is a big misunderstanding that seems to get pushed by the fitness industry either people they don't understand how to read scientific study or they think encouraging people to workout at lower intensities will keep them coming back. Personally, I find it frustrating because I think people are spending time in the gym and they aren't getting the maximum benefit from it.
First of all, your body burns a combination of fat, glycogen (stored in your muscles) and calories from the food you eat when you exercise. So it's always burning fat. The question is how much. Yes, in the fat burning zone, you burn a greater percentage of calories, but there are two problems with that.
(1) Most people don't really know what their fat burning zone is. The formula 220-your age is accurate for a very small percentage of people. So you may think you are in the fat burning zone, but you probably aren't if that's how you determined your max heart rate.
(2) It's the absolute calories from fat that matter, not the percentage. For example, let's say you do an easy walk on the treadmill for 30 min. keeping to your supposed "fat burning" zone. Your HRM tells you that you've burned 100 calories over sitting still. Let's say 50% were from fat. That's 50 calories. But let's say instead you decided to run on the treadmill and you sweat buckets and your HR is above the zone for that 30 min. and you go 3 miles. You just burned 300 calories. If only 25% of them are from fat, that's still 150 calories from fat. So that's ONE HUNDRED MORE from fat even though you weren't in the so-called fat burning zone.
Okay, this makes sense to me. I only have 45 minutes at the gym to workout because I do it on my lunch break. I want to be able to go, kick some *kitten*, burn as much as possible in that 45 minutes. I felt like I did that today. I do not feel dead. It was a VERY hard workout, but it was doable and I didn't want to pass out or anything.
So I should be okay doing this? Like I said, I usually keep my HR at 160 to 165 for most of my workout but today I felt good to push myself harder.0 -
Then it's very unlikely that 179 is your maximum heart rate. Like I said, the 220-your age formula is wrong for far more people than it's right for.I think my maximum heart rate is 179 and I was at 170 for most of my workout. I didn't feel like I was going to die or anything. I mean it was a hard workout, no doubt, but it was definitely doable.
As an example, supposedly my max heart rate from that formula is 168. I go over that *all the time* when I run and I'm not on the verge of death or anything. My actual max heart rate, based on a cardiac stress test I did two years ago is more like 186.
It's good if you aren't so high that you are about to have a heart attack and you have no underlying condition that would make intense exercise dangerous for you.Is it a good or bad thing to be above the zone? :blushing:
Burning more calories = good.0 -
Thank you all so much for your help.0
-
If.. you exercise and stay above your zone, for most of the exercise, and you feel good after you're done, then I think that you need to re-adjust your zone. The zone is an indication of your heart's fitness. Just as the rest of your body gets fitter so does your heart. Being above your zone (when properly set) is a warning that you are exceeding your heart's fitness and taxing your heart more than you should for your fitness level. Exceeding your heart rate zone for a long time should cause you to physically crash, not a good thing. That is why it is set to warn you! Spend some time and re-figure your zone and get it where it needs to be. Be realistic and then workout at about 80% of the time within that zone. Remember, if you set it to high you won't (or shouldn't) be maintaining the physical growth you expect.
Um, not really. Your max heart rate is the maximum number of beats your heart can go. It is set by genetics and age. It has nothing to do with fitness level. Your fitness level can keep you from getting to what your maximum is, but your max is your max. If someone stimulated your heart mechanically, it couldn't go above your max no matter what your fitness level.
As for what is the best way to work out, it depends on your goals. If your only goal is to lose weight, you want to always work out at as high an intensity as you realistically can -- as high as you can do without getting burned out and discouraged because it's too hard.
OTOH, if your goal is a certain kind of fitness, then you need to vary your workouts. Low intensity workouts going for a long period of time (aka Long Steady Distance) build endurance, for example. High intensity interval training helps with speed. Strength training makes you stronger and builds muscles that are more metabolically active than fat tissue.
And, for all people, variety can help you stick with a fitness program and cross-training can help you recover faster and get more work done in the same amount of time.0 -
Thanks for asking the question, this information was helpful to me as well.0
-
Run as hard as you can at a dead sprint until you slow down. Check your heart rate at that point. That is your max heart rate. To get your targetted heart rate use 70 to 80 percent of that number.
If you handle going above your target that is fine but generally you want to work at the 70 to 80 percent zone. It is different between each individual so this is the best method to calculate it because all other methods are recommendations based on age and sex.
So, get that good hard sprint in and let me know what your rate is.0 -
Will do that tomorrow, but I am a chicken shnit at sprinting. Going at 5.2 is like the death of me. :laugh: :laugh:0
-
That's okay because that's not your max heart rate, anyway. It's just the maximum you can do today.Will do that tomorrow, but I am a chicken shnit at sprinting. Going at 5.2 is like the death of me. :laugh: :laugh:
The thing is: it's dangerous to try to figure out your Max HR by yourself. Plus, it's completely unnecessary.You only need to train with heart rate if you are some dedicated athlete training for races/competitions and need to work a certain percentage of time in various zones in order to illicit different physiological responses. (And even then, not all programs use HR. Some use RPE instead.)
For the rest of us, using RPE is fine and probably better because it's not subject to the kind of misleading variations that HR is. (like, if you are excited, your HR goes up so most of us have an artificially high HR when we race. It's often 10 points higher than a typical workout just because it's a race)
Here's the RPE scale:
http://www.topendsports.com/testing/rpe.htm
OTOH, if you need a cardiac stress test for some other reason, that's the most accurate way to measure Max HR. I needed one before I had surgery so now I know. Well, except it will go down with age....0 -
Regarding "training zone" - my goal for my workouts is to stay within that zone for at least 10 minutes to get cardiac benefit (on average I get about 25+minutes) I use the equation 220 minus age X .65 to calculate low end of heart rate needed for adequate cardiac exercise and 220 minus age X .8 to calculate highest heart rate. So MacMadame, could I be wrong in how I set up my hrm? Should I be using the run fast method cparter mentions? Now I'm confused!!:huh:0
-
Regarding "training zone" - my goal for my workouts is to stay within that zone for at least 10 minutes to get cardiac benefit (on average I get about 25+minutes) I use the equation 220 minus age X .65 to calculate low end of heart rate needed for adequate cardiac exercise and 220 minus age X .8 to calculate highest heart rate. So MacMadame, could I be wrong in how I set up my hrm? Should I be using the run fast method cparter mentions? Now I'm confused!!:huh:
That is a perfectly good place to start. You should record your exercise, time, and average/max hear rate per work out and use the following guidelines to make adjustments.
1. Most people when starting an exercise program cannot reach their max heart rate or even 90% of it. Your max heart rate cannot be changed but as your fitness improves you can get closer and closer with less perceived effort. If you have reached your age calculated MaxHR or very close to it within a few weeks of starting exercising, it is probably set too low.
2. Unless you are in very good physical condition, you cannot sustain 80% MaxHR for an hour. Most person's sustainable heart rate is 70-80% MaxHR. As your fitness improves and your anabolic threshold tolerance goes up, it will be possible to sustain 80+% MaxHR for longer and longer time. So if your HRM says you just averaged 82% MaxHR for an hour, MaxHR is probably too low. On the other hand, if your are in decent shape and just had a good hour long workout but your HRM said you averaged only 65% MaxHR, your MaxHR is probably set too high and therefore underestimating calories burned.
These are just guidelines but should serve to enhance the very basic starting point of 220-age. My personal maxHR is lower than the age formula.0 -
Regarding "training zone" - my goal for my workouts is to stay within that zone for at least 10 minutes to get cardiac benefit (on average I get about 25+minutes) I use the equation 220 minus age X .65 to calculate low end of heart rate needed for adequate cardiac exercise and 220 minus age X .8 to calculate highest heart rate. So MacMadame, could I be wrong in how I set up my hrm? Should I be using the run fast method cparter mentions? Now I'm confused!!:huh:
That is a perfectly good place to start. You should record your exercise, time, and average/max hear rate per work out and use the following guidelines to make adjustments.
1. Most people when starting an exercise program cannot reach their max heart rate or even 90% of it. Your max heart rate cannot be changed but as your fitness improves you can get closer and closer with less perceived effort. If you have reached your age calculated MaxHR or very close to it within a few weeks of starting exercising, it is probably set too low.
2. Unless you are in very good physical condition, you cannot sustain 80% MaxHR for an hour. Most person's sustainable heart rate is 70-80% MaxHR. As your fitness improves and your anabolic threshold tolerance goes up, it will be possible to sustain 80+% MaxHR for longer and longer time. So if your HRM says you just averaged 82% MaxHR for an hour, MaxHR is probably too low. On the other hand, if your are in decent shape and just had a good hour long workout but your HRM said you averaged only 65% MaxHR, your MaxHR is probably set too high and therefore underestimating calories burned.
These are just guidelines but should serve to enhance the very basic starting point of 220-age. My personal maxHR is lower than the age formula.
Just got back from playing tennis for two hours, moderate effort but I'm no Serena Williams. My heart rate monitor range is set at 117 (low) to 144 (high). I am in good shape and have been working out almost everyday for a month cardio-wise. Here's the data from my hrm. Time in zone 33+ min; burned 431.85 calories; 60% fat (not sure what that actually means); max hr = 240 (doubt that!); average hr 112. Do you think the data are reliable?0 -
Just got back from playing tennis for two hours, moderate effort but I'm no Serena Williams. My heart rate monitor range is set at 117 (low) to 144 (high). I am in good shape and have been working out almost everyday for a month cardio-wise. Here's the data from my hrm. Time in zone 33+ min; burned 431.85 calories; 60% fat (not sure what that actually means); max hr = 240 (doubt that!); average hr 112. Do you think the data are reliable?
Tennis is too uneven and explosive action to judge heart rate. You would need to do something you can do continuously for 30-60 minutes like biking, running, jogging, Zumba, etc. It is easier if you are doing something that is a fixed amount of mechanical work like cycling 10 miles or jogging 3 miles. Then as your fitness improves you can see how your average heart rate changes as your fitness improves and how your times for the distance change. Zumba is harder to measure because it is totally up to how hard you work so it is difficult to compare how much you did when you started versus 8 weeks into it other than knowing you are moving harder/faster.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions