Efficient heart rate
walleyebob977
Posts: 201 Member
my resting heart rate avg 60 when I run it avg 120. That at 6mph 10 min mile. Is that high enough to burn calories for weight loss. I've read if your not above 130 your just wasting time. When I was 100lbs heavier my hr would be above 150 I think my body has become efficient. But I still want to lose 30 more lbs.
0
Replies
-
What's burning calories is moving your body mass through a distance. Your heart is moving oxygen around to allow the fuel to burn, so your HR would suggest a pretty good level of cardiovascular fitness.0
-
There is little direct relationship between heart rate and calorie burn. All your heart rate indicates is you are quite fit cardiovascularly, nothing more. That is at least part of the reason that HRM calorie estimations are not as accurate as most people here think they are. An unfit person of the same weight and sex as a fit person will burn pretty much the same number of calories doing the exact same activity even though their HR will be much higher. It is also why being able to input VO2 Max as one of the variables on your HRM is important as it is a rough measure of your cardiovascular fitness level and will help bring the calorie burned estimate for cardio activities more in line with reality preventing some of the skew from varying fitness levels.0
-
Thanks0
-
rileysowner wrote: »There is little direct relationship between heart rate and calorie burn. All your heart rate indicates is you are quite fit cardiovascularly, nothing more. That is at least part of the reason that HRM calorie estimations are not as accurate as most people here think they are. An unfit person of the same weight and sex as a fit person will burn pretty much the same number of calories doing the exact same activity even though their HR will be much higher. It is also why being able to input VO2 Max as one of the variables on your HRM is important as it is a rough measure of your cardiovascular fitness level and will help bring the calorie burned estimate for cardio activities more in line with reality preventing some of the skew from varying fitness levels.
^^ Nailed it.....0 -
walleyebob977 wrote: »when I run it avg 120. That at 6mph 10 min mile. Is that high enough to burn calories for weight loss.
All activities burn calories, which contributes to the calorie deficit that causes weight loss. Running faster does burn more calories per hour, so it's more efficient if you're short on time. But 100 calories of slow walking has the same fat loss effect as 100 calories of fast running.. which is also equal to eating 100 calories less.
0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »There is little direct relationship between heart rate and calorie burn. All your heart rate indicates is you are quite fit cardiovascularly, nothing more. That is at least part of the reason that HRM calorie estimations are not as accurate as most people here think they are. An unfit person of the same weight and sex as a fit person will burn pretty much the same number of calories doing the exact same activity even though their HR will be much higher. It is also why being able to input VO2 Max as one of the variables on your HRM is important as it is a rough measure of your cardiovascular fitness level and will help bring the calorie burned estimate for cardio activities more in line with reality preventing some of the skew from varying fitness levels.
I don't quite agree with this. There are 5 heart rate zones:
Zone 1: Active Recovery - gets you up and active
Zone 2: Endurance - teaches your body to resupply glycogen from fat
Zone 3: Tempo - builds your lactate and aerobic endurance
Zone 4: Race Pace - increase glycogen storage in muscles with mild aerobic benefits
Zone 5: High Intensity - increases your VO2 max, lactate tolerance and cardiac output
Where these zones change is different for everyone, based on your age, whether male or female and weight. Zone 2 is where you burn the most fat per workout. For me, that means keeping my heart rate between 100 and 116 bpm. I'm a 58 year old male, so yours could be very different. I get my cardio by cycling, so it is pretty easy to watch my cycling app and keep my rate within those parameters.
0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »There is little direct relationship between heart rate and calorie burn. All your heart rate indicates is you are quite fit cardiovascularly, nothing more. That is at least part of the reason that HRM calorie estimations are not as accurate as most people here think they are. An unfit person of the same weight and sex as a fit person will burn pretty much the same number of calories doing the exact same activity even though their HR will be much higher. It is also why being able to input VO2 Max as one of the variables on your HRM is important as it is a rough measure of your cardiovascular fitness level and will help bring the calorie burned estimate for cardio activities more in line with reality preventing some of the skew from varying fitness levels.
I don't quite agree with this. There are 5 heart rate zones:
Zone 1: Active Recovery - gets you up and active
Zone 2: Endurance - teaches your body to resupply glycogen from fat
Zone 3: Tempo - builds your lactate and aerobic endurance
Zone 4: Race Pace - increase glycogen storage in muscles with mild aerobic benefits
Zone 5: High Intensity - increases your VO2 max, lactate tolerance and cardiac output
Where these zones change is different for everyone, based on your age, whether male or female and weight. Zone 2 is where you burn the most fat per workout. For me, that means keeping my heart rate between 100 and 116 bpm. I'm a 58 year old male, so yours could be very different. I get my cardio by cycling, so it is pretty easy to watch my cycling app and keep my rate within those parameters.
I've never seen any actual science or studies that talked about these zones. I've only ever seen this info on apps, cardio machines, magazines, etc.
Do you have any sources for this? I'd love to see some if you do, it'd change the way I talked to cardio obsessed clients.0 -
Zone, schmone. If weight loss is your goal, then it's your calorie deficit you pay attention too. If you want a better "efficient" heart rate, that's more fitness related. Exercise just helps to increase calorie expenditure.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
-
If the bike isn't calibrated consistently (say at least once a week which I doubt), then the reading could vary from the same exact model bike.walleyebob977 wrote: »I've seen the heart rate zone ones here one I use when on my bike trainer.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
This from my Hrm I wear and use a app on my phone.0
-
Chest or wrist?walleyebob977 wrote: »This from my Hrm I wear and use a app on my phone.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Zone training can be useful if you are taking endurance cardio seriously but the fuel you use during your workout is pretty much irrelevant for weight loss.
Weight loss / fat loss is a result of your calorie balance over time rather than what zone you exercise in.
I used a six zone method for my winter cycling base endurance building several times and it's very effective but deadly dull.
bikeradar.com/fitness/article/heart-rate-monitor-training-for-cyclists-28838/0 -
Chest strap
I need to tighten down my calorie intake0 -
It's correct that at easier efforts you'll be using a slightly higher percentage of fat compared to carbs.BrianSharpe wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »There is little direct relationship between heart rate and calorie burn. All your heart rate indicates is you are quite fit cardiovascularly, nothing more. That is at least part of the reason that HRM calorie estimations are not as accurate as most people here think they are. An unfit person of the same weight and sex as a fit person will burn pretty much the same number of calories doing the exact same activity even though their HR will be much higher. It is also why being able to input VO2 Max as one of the variables on your HRM is important as it is a rough measure of your cardiovascular fitness level and will help bring the calorie burned estimate for cardio activities more in line with reality preventing some of the skew from varying fitness levels.
I don't quite agree with this. There are 5 heart rate zones:
Zone 1: Active Recovery - gets you up and active
Zone 2: Endurance - teaches your body to resupply glycogen from fat
Zone 3: Tempo - builds your lactate and aerobic endurance
Zone 4: Race Pace - increase glycogen storage in muscles with mild aerobic benefits
Zone 5: High Intensity - increases your VO2 max, lactate tolerance and cardiac output
Where these zones change is different for everyone, based on your age, whether male or female and weight. Zone 2 is where you burn the most fat per workout. For me, that means keeping my heart rate between 100 and 116 bpm. I'm a 58 year old male, so yours could be very different. I get my cardio by cycling, so it is pretty easy to watch my cycling app and keep my rate within those parameters.
But from a weight/fat loss perspective it really doesn't matter where the calories come from. Calories are calories whether they come from fat, glycogen, or lean muscle.rileysowner wrote: »There is little direct relationship between heart rate and calorie burn. All your heart rate indicates is you are quite fit cardiovascularly, nothing more. That is at least part of the reason that HRM calorie estimations are not as accurate as most people here think they are. An unfit person of the same weight and sex as a fit person will burn pretty much the same number of calories doing the exact same activity even though their HR will be much higher. It is also why being able to input VO2 Max as one of the variables on your HRM is important as it is a rough measure of your cardiovascular fitness level and will help bring the calorie burned estimate for cardio activities more in line with reality preventing some of the skew from varying fitness levels.
@rileysowner - Spot on. It's one of the things that would be nice if fitbit allowed for, as it makes it comically inaccurate for cycling calories. At a HR of 125 I'm usually somewhere around 230w, give or take 15w, which means that I'm burning 900-950 kcal/hr. A standard app like fitbit generally tries to give me about 650 calories for such an effort.
@walleyebob977 - Yea safe to say 130 is plenty high for HR. That's a solid aerobic zone for most anyone, depending on just how fit/tall you are you can probably burn between 600-1000 kcal/hr. More if you are a giant or elite level endurance athlete.
0 -
Zone training has validity for training, but there is also a LOT of woo associated with the whole concept. For most people, there are 3 practical "zones"--endurance (low), tempo (or threshold), and high. When this stuff originally came out in the 1990s, I actually saw a presentation where the guy described TEN HR "zones".
PS: I am referring to the average beginner who wants to put some improved focus in a program. I am NOT questioning or criticizing anyone who has been training awhile and has worked out a more detailed system of 5 or 6 zones.
One of the problems with a higher number of "zones" is cardiovascular drift. As a workout progresses, the heart's stroke volume starts to decrease a little, so heart rate will increase without any increase in workload. Oxygen uptake (and calorie burn) doesn't change either. If I was following a 6-zone plan, I could easily go through 2 or 3 zones in a 60 min endurance workout without ever changing workload.0 -
Thanks for all the great answers0
-
@AzdakZone training has validity for training, For most people, there are 3 practical "zones"--endurance (low), tempo (or threshold), and high. When this stuff originally came out in the 1990s, I actually saw a presentation where the guy described TEN HR "zones".
Absolutely. If you're a serious performance oriented endurance athlete 5 or 6 zones make sense depending on race demands. The guy/gal that wants to lose weight/be fitter/be healthier definitely doesn't need to make it overall technical. Easy/threshold/hard(VO2) works pretty good.
10 zones would be absurd haha!If I was following a 6-zone plan, I could easily go through 2 or 3 zones in a 60 min endurance workout without ever changing workload.
That would be some insane drift. Myself and most I know rarely drift more than 5-10 bpm over the course of a workout unless it's an incredibly hard and long (3+ hrs of intensity) type deal.
Changing 3 zones would involve like a 30+ bpm drift. Does that really happen to you? If so thats crazy!
0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »There is little direct relationship between heart rate and calorie burn. All your heart rate indicates is you are quite fit cardiovascularly, nothing more. That is at least part of the reason that HRM calorie estimations are not as accurate as most people here think they are. An unfit person of the same weight and sex as a fit person will burn pretty much the same number of calories doing the exact same activity even though their HR will be much higher. It is also why being able to input VO2 Max as one of the variables on your HRM is important as it is a rough measure of your cardiovascular fitness level and will help bring the calorie burned estimate for cardio activities more in line with reality preventing some of the skew from varying fitness levels.
I don't quite agree with this. There are 5 heart rate zones:
Zone 1: Active Recovery - gets you up and active
Zone 2: Endurance - teaches your body to resupply glycogen from fat
Zone 3: Tempo - builds your lactate and aerobic endurance
Zone 4: Race Pace - increase glycogen storage in muscles with mild aerobic benefits
Zone 5: High Intensity - increases your VO2 max, lactate tolerance and cardiac output
Where these zones change is different for everyone, based on your age, whether male or female and weight. Zone 2 is where you burn the most fat per workout. For me, that means keeping my heart rate between 100 and 116 bpm. I'm a 58 year old male, so yours could be very different. I get my cardio by cycling, so it is pretty easy to watch my cycling app and keep my rate within those parameters.
The fat burning zone is a pile of nonsense......yes, you may burn a higher proportion of calories from fat (important for endurance athletes but meaningless in the context of weight loss) but you burn far fewer calories overall.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions