What has been your experience with near top target heart rate zone cardio

Options
Brocksterdanza
Brocksterdanza Posts: 208 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I have my polar ft7 heart rate monitor that i wear during my workouts. I have done this for years. As i get a little older, my max heart rate obviously drops.... During the time i did insanity, my heart rate stayed well above the target heart rate zone which is generally 60-80% of your max..... my question is this... is there a major issue with training at a higher heart rate? For example, while on the eliptical yesterday, my heart rate stayed around 145-150 bpm while i did my 4 mile trek.... This is at the high end of my target heart rate.... it is actually 110-149bpm. I do not feel super taxed during this as i run quite often. However, i was wondering if i was doing more harm than good as far as the process goes, IE weight loss. I know the principal... burn more than you take in.... however, im sure these numbers exist for a good reason... Thanks for advice

Replies

  • sk1982
    sk1982 Posts: 45 Member
    Options
    Dont forget your max HR per the Polar monitor is based on a mathematical calculation using age and statistics. If you are fit your actual max HR is likely to be much higher. A good way to find out is to undertake a Vo2 Max test.

    Statistics show that you shouldnt be able to maintain a HR of 85%+ for very long so if you can then that isnt really 85% of your HR.

    Also - ignore the so called "fat burning" zones. Yes in the far burning zone you do burn a greater % of fat calories but the higher your HR the higher your calorie burn...period!
  • beemerphile1
    beemerphile1 Posts: 1,710 Member
    Options
    Have you ever been tested to determine your max HR? If you are using a calculator be aware that there are around a dozen different formulas and they all give different estimated results.

    Everyone's max is different. If you haven't dropped dead - you are doing fine.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Options
    Yes, what they said.

    My working HR for moderate exertion is above what the 220-age formula says should be my max HR. I question how useful that formula is.
  • McCloud33
    McCloud33 Posts: 959 Member
    Options
    You always burn more calories going at more intensity during the same amount of time. So if you can run 4 miles in 40 minutes, you'll burn more calories than if you only ran 3 miles in 40 minutes. The target heart rate comes into play when "theoretically" a higher percentage of your calories burnt are coming from fat alone as opposed to carbohydrates. But this is where I think people get confused, you're still burning more fat calories in total even if the percentage drops.

    If you don't feel super taxed, then you're not doing ANY harm to your weight loss. On the contrary, I think you should at least have a run here or there where you do feel taxed. That will help to increase your hearts capacity to run, further, faster, and more efficiently.

    And like other's have said above, all of the zones are based on a general calculation that isn't based specifically on YOU. I think you're better off going by the good old, conversational/can't really talk/gasping for breath delineation to determine just how hard you're actually pushing your heart.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,868 Member
    Options
    Brocksterdanza wrote: »
    I have my polar ft7 heart rate monitor that i wear during my workouts. I have done this for years. As i get a little older, my max heart rate obviously drops.... During the time i did insanity, my heart rate stayed well above the target heart rate zone which is generally 60-80% of your max..... my question is this... is there a major issue with training at a higher heart rate? For example, while on the eliptical yesterday, my heart rate stayed around 145-150 bpm while i did my 4 mile trek.... This is at the high end of my target heart rate.... it is actually 110-149bpm. I do not feel super taxed during this as i run quite often. However, i was wondering if i was doing more harm than good as far as the process goes, IE weight loss. I know the principal... burn more than you take in.... however, im sure these numbers exist for a good reason... Thanks for advice

    those number exist because they are applicable to fitness and training...yes, you burn more calories at higher intensity...but that's not why those numbers exist.
  • Brocksterdanza
    Brocksterdanza Posts: 208 Member
    Options
    Thanks everyone!
  • McCloud33
    McCloud33 Posts: 959 Member
    Options
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Brocksterdanza wrote: »
    I have my polar ft7 heart rate monitor that i wear during my workouts. I have done this for years. As i get a little older, my max heart rate obviously drops.... During the time i did insanity, my heart rate stayed well above the target heart rate zone which is generally 60-80% of your max..... my question is this... is there a major issue with training at a higher heart rate? For example, while on the eliptical yesterday, my heart rate stayed around 145-150 bpm while i did my 4 mile trek.... This is at the high end of my target heart rate.... it is actually 110-149bpm. I do not feel super taxed during this as i run quite often. However, i was wondering if i was doing more harm than good as far as the process goes, IE weight loss. I know the principal... burn more than you take in.... however, im sure these numbers exist for a good reason... Thanks for advice

    those number exist because they are applicable to fitness and training...yes, you burn more calories at higher intensity...but that's not why those numbers exist.

    Right @cwolfman13 there is a specific training reason to shoot for those numbers, but the OP said that his main goal was weightloss and he was worried that not training at a certain % would somehow harm that goal...that was what I was addressing.
  • Brocksterdanza
    Brocksterdanza Posts: 208 Member
    Options
    exactly... mcCloud.... I didnt want to be burning away the muscle that I am trying to preserve while losing fat.... I know some is inevitable, but did not want to be training so high that i am burning predominately lean tissue...
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,868 Member
    Options
    McCloud33 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Brocksterdanza wrote: »
    I have my polar ft7 heart rate monitor that i wear during my workouts. I have done this for years. As i get a little older, my max heart rate obviously drops.... During the time i did insanity, my heart rate stayed well above the target heart rate zone which is generally 60-80% of your max..... my question is this... is there a major issue with training at a higher heart rate? For example, while on the eliptical yesterday, my heart rate stayed around 145-150 bpm while i did my 4 mile trek.... This is at the high end of my target heart rate.... it is actually 110-149bpm. I do not feel super taxed during this as i run quite often. However, i was wondering if i was doing more harm than good as far as the process goes, IE weight loss. I know the principal... burn more than you take in.... however, im sure these numbers exist for a good reason... Thanks for advice

    those number exist because they are applicable to fitness and training...yes, you burn more calories at higher intensity...but that's not why those numbers exist.

    Right @cwolfman13 there is a specific training reason to shoot for those numbers, but the OP said that his main goal was weightloss and he was worried that not training at a certain % would somehow harm that goal...that was what I was addressing.

    oh yeah, i realize that...i just like to get noobs pointed in the right direction in terms of looking at fitness for the sake of fitness and to realize that training and fitness go well beyond weight management objectives. i find it very beneficial to develop that mindset and it takes time...so i like to point it out early.
  • Brocksterdanza
    Brocksterdanza Posts: 208 Member
    Options
    not necessarily a noob wolf.... just something that has been intriguing me.. haha
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Brocksterdanza wrote: »
    exactly... mcCloud.... I didnt want to be burning away the muscle that I am trying to preserve while losing fat.... I know some is inevitable, but did not want to be training so high that i am burning predominately lean tissue...

    You don't burn muscle for fuel so get that thought out of your mind!
  • autumnblade75
    autumnblade75 Posts: 1,660 Member
    edited November 2015
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    Brocksterdanza wrote: »
    exactly... mcCloud.... I didnt want to be burning away the muscle that I am trying to preserve while losing fat.... I know some is inevitable, but did not want to be training so high that i am burning predominately lean tissue...

    You don't burn muscle for fuel so get that thought out of your mind!

    Don't you? If you don't eat enough to support your activity you do. Especially if you're not doing anything to strengthen those muscles, while you eat less than you should. That's the danger of eating too few calories.


    Edited to add: As far as my Fitbit is concerned, I go straight from "too low to register" to "peak" and stay there for an hour at a stretch when I run. I guess I just don't fit into the standard mold. I, like you, don't feel like I'm working at peak intensity - but it never worried me. It makes me giggle. But not while I'm running, because that's a good way to lose my balance and fall off the treadmill. As much as I'm not going-all-out, I'm not standing still, either.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,390 Member
    Options
    Brocksterdanza wrote: »
    I have my polar ft7 heart rate monitor that i wear during my workouts. I have done this for years. As i get a little older, my max heart rate obviously drops.... During the time i did insanity, my heart rate stayed well above the target heart rate zone which is generally 60-80% of your max..... my question is this... is there a major issue with training at a higher heart rate? For example, while on the eliptical yesterday, my heart rate stayed around 145-150 bpm while i did my 4 mile trek.... This is at the high end of my target heart rate.... it is actually 110-149bpm. I do not feel super taxed during this as i run quite often. However, i was wondering if i was doing more harm than good as far as the process goes, IE weight loss. I know the principal... burn more than you take in.... however, im sure these numbers exist for a good reason... Thanks for advice

    I don't pay a lot of attention to the standardized formulas for max HR myself, but I do have a stress test done for my heart a couple years back. I'm older than you, and told the doctor that I frequently exercised at ranges at or above my recommended max, and he had no problem with it. But then again, I maxed out the treadmill getting the test done and they had to hit me with some IV stuff to get my heart rate up enough to do the test.

    Brocksterdanza wrote: »
    exactly... mcCloud.... I didnt want to be burning away the muscle that I am trying to preserve while losing fat.... I know some is inevitable, but did not want to be training so high that i am burning predominately lean tissue...

    From my understandings there is a slim to done chance that you are going to do this. To reach a point of burning muscle for fuel would require a longer term deficit on top of all the more intense exercise. You would essentially have to at a minimum deplete all your glycogen stores as well as keep exercising long and hard enough to use more calories then your fat will oxidize even after depleting glycogen stores. We're talking Ironman type workouts here, not a hard hour on the elliptical.

    The bigger risk of losing muscle mass IMO comes from doing no strength training to retain existing muscle or build it while eating in a deficit long term for weight loss. Though it's a tricky question to figure out just how much you have to do to retain muscle, I personally disagree with the often used ideal spit out here on the forums that you have to "lift heavy". I'd suggest people that state that never do high level cardio much. I know we have a good elliptical at home and if you do a steady state workout burning 14-15 calories per minutes you're using a decent bit of muscle. The same applies to moderate to quick biking... you don't build those quads by not working them.
  • McCloud33
    McCloud33 Posts: 959 Member
    Options
    Brocksterdanza wrote: »
    exactly... mcCloud.... I didnt want to be burning away the muscle that I am trying to preserve while losing fat.... I know some is inevitable, but did not want to be training so high that i am burning predominately lean tissue...

    Like several others have said now, you don't go straight to burning muscle. Muscle/protein is in fact the hardest thing for the body to transfer into energy and so it's usually the last used in that way. Most people lose muscle from breaking down the muscle tissue during weightlift/activity and not getting enough protein to help rebuild it. This is why most people on here will tell you that if you are in a deficit and trying to lose weight, you should shoot for you protein goals first and then fill in the rest of your calories with either fat or carbs.

    Get on a decent running program. It will tell you which days to go for those easy runs and which days to push yourself a little harder. You really do want both.

Categories