What should my target heart rate be?

10BlueDoves
10BlueDoves Posts: 33 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I have gotten the hang of eating a deficit, now I am trying to add in daily exercise. Today was my third consecutive day on the elliptical. My question is what heart rate range should I be exercising in? According to the monitor on my machine, I am exercising just above the target zone at about 164 BPM. I know this means I should slow down or go down a level to get to my target range, but anything slower than I have been doing, I don't feel like I am actually exercising. At my current pace, I am pretty comfortable, not out of breath and can easily maintain the pace for the 25-30 minutes I have to exercise so I really want to keep it up.

Health wise, I have a LOT of weight to lose but am otherwise free of any health problems. My blood pressure is good, I don't take any medications. I was in great shape and an athlete when I was a teenager 15+ years ago, clearly it is not the case anymore, but I don't know if that factors in.

Replies

  • lucan07
    lucan07 Posts: 509
    depends on your age I believe max heart rate is roughly 220 - age
  • AllanMisner
    AllanMisner Posts: 4,140 Member
    Take 220 minus your age. That is your max heart rate.

    To burn fat, you should be in the 60% - 75% of that number.

    To build cardiovascular fitness, you should be in the 75 - 90% range.

    To maximize both, do interval training that takes your heart rate up to 95% for 10 - 30 seconds, and then brings it back down to 60% before going for another interval. Repeat until you see that your heart rate is not recovering timely. Over time, you'll build fitness and your recovery speed will improve.
  • 10BlueDoves
    10BlueDoves Posts: 33 Member
    OK, I am not actually getting close to my max heart rate then. I was going by the heart rate charts I see online.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    First, forget 220-your age, while it's used by may HRM manufacturers it's actually pretty meaningless - it was set arbitrarily as a guideline for sedentary heart attack survivors exercising as part of their recovery.

    To determine your real maxHR requires getting a stress test done or, even simpler, is basing your intensity on perceived effort.

    If you look at the various "zones" on most charts 1-3 are pretty easy - you should be able to carry on a conversation in zone 3, zone 4 you can speak in short sentences and zone 5 you'd rather not speak at all. Most training should be in zone 3 to build endurance

    Please, forget about the so-called fat burning zone too.....it's meaningless in the context of weight loss (you burn a higher proportion of calories from fat but a far lower number of calories overall). Fat burning training is really only of real interest to endurance athletes.
  • SarahBeth0625
    SarahBeth0625 Posts: 685 Member
    I'm 33 and I like to maintain 162-165 as an average while I exercise. Sometimes it might get up to 173 during a burst, but I feel good at 161 and above.
  • kinmad4it
    kinmad4it Posts: 185 Member
    I don't understand the perceived hate that the Fat Burning Zone seems to get on here.

    It's a fact that it does indeed burn a higher percentage of fat while exercising in that zone. Most people who want to exercise in that zone are doing so because they have a lot of fat to lose. So doesn't it stand to reason to train in that zone to burn off fat more than anything else? Which is what they want after all.

    I hear that HIIT is better because it burns more calories in the same amount of time, saving you time. What if time isn't an issue? I can happily spend three hours at the gym without worrying about having to hurry home or meet some deadline. If I have that much time to exercise wouldn't I be better suited working out in the fat burning zone? Taking less energy from things that could cause atrophy, if that makes sense.

    Plus, working out in the fat burning zone is a lot easier for people new to exercise or those who are very unhealthy. Telling them to push themselves too far, too early, just to burn a few extra calories sounds like extremely bad advice to me.
  • Cherimoose
    Cherimoose Posts: 5,208 Member
    What should my target heart rate be?

    Heart rate recommendations are based on averages of other people.. but not everyone is "average", as you have discovered. If you don't mind working at a higher exertion level, then go for it. You'll burn more overall calories, so your progress will be quicker. Just avoid working so hard that you burn out and dread exercising. Find a level that you can live with day after day..
  • phjorg1
    phjorg1 Posts: 642 Member
    jesus christ. I thought by now people know that 1) everyones hrmax is different and 2) the fat burning zone is bull****.

    if this is for weight loss, ignore target heart rate and instead look at improving on your exercise from last you did it. In other words, exercise based upon precieved intensity. Once you have a training base you can worry about target hr then.
  • phjorg1
    phjorg1 Posts: 642 Member
    I don't understand the perceived hate that the Fat Burning Zone seems to get on here.

    It's a fact that it does indeed burn a higher percentage of fat while exercising in that zone. Most people who want to exercise in that zone are doing so because they have a lot of fat to lose. So doesn't it stand to reason to train in that zone to burn off fat more than anything else? Which is what they want after all.

    I hear that HIIT is better because it burns more calories in the same amount of time, saving you time. What if time isn't an issue? I can happily spend three hours at the gym without worrying about having to hurry home or meet some deadline. If I have that much time to exercise wouldn't I be better suited working out in the fat burning zone? Taking less energy from things that could cause atrophy, if that makes sense.

    Plus, working out in the fat burning zone is a lot easier for people new to exercise or those who are very unhealthy. Telling them to push themselves too far, too early, just to burn a few extra calories sounds like extremely bad advice to me.
    the hate is because it's stupid, false, idiotic, illogical and wrong.... And you have to be all sorts of gullible to believe it.

    Here's a fact, when you sit on your *kitten* all day, you're burning 100% of your calories from fat. So it stands to reason that if your goal is to burn fat, then sitting on your *kitten* all day is the best fat burning activity you can do right? Lower intensity exercise works on EXACTLY this same principle. Because the less active you are, the more calories from fat you burn.

    So obviously people who sit on their *kitten* all day must have the lowest body fat % compared to people who exercise and thus are burning non fat sources for their time. right?
  • bridgie101
    bridgie101 Posts: 817 Member
    well apart from the squabble over fat burning and all that rot, I've got a lot out of this post.

    when I was growing up we were told not to let our heart rate go over 120. I always thought it would explode or something if I went too high.

    Now I find some chick ^^ who likes her heart to go at 165. She's not dead.

    This is great. This is good information. Now I don't have to worry about dying of a heart attack half way up a hill. This thread has helped me. :)
  • kinmad4it
    kinmad4it Posts: 185 Member
    I don't understand the perceived hate that the Fat Burning Zone seems to get on here.

    It's a fact that it does indeed burn a higher percentage of fat while exercising in that zone. Most people who want to exercise in that zone are doing so because they have a lot of fat to lose. So doesn't it stand to reason to train in that zone to burn off fat more than anything else? Which is what they want after all.

    I hear that HIIT is better because it burns more calories in the same amount of time, saving you time. What if time isn't an issue? I can happily spend three hours at the gym without worrying about having to hurry home or meet some deadline. If I have that much time to exercise wouldn't I be better suited working out in the fat burning zone? Taking less energy from things that could cause atrophy, if that makes sense.

    Plus, working out in the fat burning zone is a lot easier for people new to exercise or those who are very unhealthy. Telling them to push themselves too far, too early, just to burn a few extra calories sounds like extremely bad advice to me.
    the hate is because it's stupid, false, idiotic, illogical and wrong.... And you have to be all sorts of gullible to believe it.

    Here's a fact, when you sit on your *kitten* all day, you're burning 100% of your calories from fat. So it stands to reason that if your goal is to burn fat, then sitting on your *kitten* all day is the best fat burning activity you can do right? Lower intensity exercise works on EXACTLY this same principle. Because the less active you are, the more calories from fat you burn.

    So obviously people who sit on their *kitten* all day must have the lowest body fat % compared to people who exercise and thus are burning non fat sources for their time. right?


    My God!!!

    I ask what I thought was a reasonable question and am greeted with derision, ridicule and contempt. I'm sure there was a way to reply without sounding like a complete know it all douche bag. But hey, if that's what gets you your rocks off.
  • phjorg1
    phjorg1 Posts: 642 Member
    My God!!!

    I ask what I thought was a reasonable question and am greeted with derision, ridicule and contempt. I'm sure there was a way to reply without sounding like a complete know it all douche bag. But hey, if that's what gets you your rocks off.
    because people might actually listen to you by believing in the fat burning zone. So myths like that need to be destroyed.

Categories