What should my target heart range be?

Options
megedoug
megedoug Posts: 31 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I just got a HRM (the Polar ft4) and I'm super excited to see what I'm actually burning. I did a relatively normal run today, it was a little hotter than usual so maybe I worked out a bit harder and it said I was only in range for 2 out of the 25 minutes. I checked the range and it is listed as 120-156. I ran pretty much at 160 the whole time...which is why the damn thing was constantly beeping at me! My question is, what should my range be while working out?

TIA!

Replies

  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    Options
    I depends on your max heartrate and your goals?

    What is your max heartrate?
    Are you running to burn calories/lose weight or are you training to race?
  • phjorg1
    phjorg1 Posts: 642 Member
    Options
    focus on your workout, not your hrm. try and do a harder workout every time.
  • kfuog
    kfuog Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    When I got a health assessment at my gym, they explained target heart rate to me this way. Subtract your age from 220. That number is your maximum heart rate, which means not that you can't exceed it (you probably can if you try hard enough) but rather that you don't ever want to be exceeding that heart rate. If you want to do cardio exercises and make sure your heart is getting a good workout, you should be around 80% of your maximum rate.

    For example, I'm 48. So my maximum heart rate is 172. To ensure I am doing cardio exercises that strengthen my heart, I need a heart rate of around 138. I was told that to burn fat you need to be doing about 60% of your maximum heart rate. In my case, that's 103.

    BTW, I consistently work out well above 138 bpm. When I'm pushing it, my heart rate is about 155 bpm. On the other hand, my resting heart rate has improved a lot and last time I gave blood the nurse said it was 52 bpm. (I *love* that little statistic!)

    Be careful about trusting some of the gym machines that claim to measure heart rate: some of them are way off. Take your pulse for 30 seconds yourself instead, and then multiply by two. You'll get a sense of what exercises push your heart and how hard you are working.

    Good luck on your fitness journey!
  • CoachDreesTraining
    CoachDreesTraining Posts: 223 Member
    Options
    No such thing as a target HR. It's a ploy to sell more HR monitors, and to give people excuses not to work hard in the gym.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    focus on your workout, not your hrm. try and do a harder workout every time.

    :huh: :huh: :huh: Conceivably the worst running advice ever.

    Most of the HRMs are using max HR calculations based on the old 220- your age which has been pretty much repudiated.

    Without being tested it's impossible to say what your MaxHR really should be.

    In general terms, it's probably more useful to try and run based on perceived effort. Most of your runs should be at a pace at which you can carry on a conversation, but not so slow you could sing. One of your weekly runs, assuming you goal is to build endurance, should be longer and slower than most of the others, and, if you're training to race, you should be including some speed work once you've built a suitable aerobic base.

    Also, if anyone mentions the "fat burning zone" run away!
  • faceoff4
    faceoff4 Posts: 1,599 Member
    Options
    focus on your workout, not your hrm. try and do a harder workout every time.

    :huh: :huh: :huh: Conceivably the worst running advice ever.

    Most of the HRMs are using max HR calculations based on the old 220- your age which has been pretty much repudiated.

    Without being tested it's impossible to say what your MaxHR really should be.

    In general terms, it's probably more useful to try and run based on perceived effort. Most of your runs should be at a pace at which you can carry on a conversation, but not so slow you could sing. One of your weekly runs, assuming you goal is to build endurance, should be longer and slower than most of the others, and, if you're training to race, you should be including some speed work once you've built a suitable aerobic base.

    Also, if anyone mentions the "fat burning zone" run away!

    This is good advise! Also, you can turn the beeper off in the settings as it does get annoying for sure.
  • kfuog
    kfuog Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    Most of the HRMs are using max HR calculations based on the old 220- your age which has been pretty much repudiated.

    ----

    Also, if anyone mentions the "fat burning zone" run away!




    Trying to quote the above (how does one do that?).

    @BrianSharpe: Really interested in what you said about the target heart rate. Can you point me to some data, studies, etc. so I can take a look at the research regarding repudiation of the HR calculations based on 220? My gym is still using this, and if it's not true, I would like to know--and tell them.

    Thanks!
  • phjorg1
    phjorg1 Posts: 642 Member
    Options
    @briansharpe

    worst advice ever, then you go and support it?

    question, how does someone get better at running without getting better at running by trying harder.. i mean, isnt running longer to build endurance the very definition of trying harder?
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    Most of the HRMs are using max HR calculations based on the old 220- your age which has been pretty much repudiated.

    ----

    Also, if anyone mentions the "fat burning zone" run away!




    Trying to quote the above (how does one do that?).

    @BrianSharpe: Really interested in what you said about the target heart rate. Can you point me to some data, studies, etc. so I can take a look at the research regarding repudiation of the HR calculations based on 220? My gym is still using this, and if it's not true, I would like to know--and tell them.

    Thanks!

    Here are a couple of sources.....

    http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf
    Surprisingly, there is no published record of research for this equation. As will be explained, the origin of the formula is a superficial estimate, based on observation, of a linear best fit to a series of raw and mean data compiled in 1971

    http://dougkelsey.com/right_heart_rate/
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    @briansharpe

    worst advice ever, then you go and support it?

    question, how does someone get better at running without getting better at running by trying harder.. i mean, isnt running longer to build endurance the very definition of trying harder?

    I guess you missed the longer and slower, perhaps it was the way the advice was worded? (The intent was good, the message wasn't clear - your words were a "harder workout" which implies intensity)
  • kfuog
    kfuog Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    Most of the HRMs are using max HR calculations based on the old 220- your age which has been pretty much repudiated.

    ----

    Also, if anyone mentions the "fat burning zone" run away!




    Trying to quote the above (how does one do that?).

    @BrianSharpe: Really interested in what you said about the target heart rate. Can you point me to some data, studies, etc. so I can take a look at the research regarding repudiation of the HR calculations based on 220? My gym is still using this, and if it's not true, I would like to know--and tell them.

    Thanks!

    Here are a couple of sources.....

    http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf
    Surprisingly, there is no published record of research for this equation. As will be explained, the origin of the formula is a superficial estimate, based on observation, of a linear best fit to a series of raw and mean data compiled in 1971

    http://dougkelsey.com/right_heart_rate/

    @briansharpe: Thanks for the sources! Will share with my gym rats and trainer friend. The Doug Kelsey article, while not as formal and scientific, is more accessible and people are more likely to read it.

Categories