Heart Rate Monitor...Now What?

sj1sunshine
sj1sunshine Posts: 11 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I found my heart rate monitor and have been wearing it when I run/walk/bike...but I am not sure I know what I should be looking for when I am using it. I want to lose weight...about 35 pounds...I am 39 years old. Do I take the 210-39 and get 171...and then find the 60-70% range for burning fat? And then I try to exercise and keep my heart rate at that intensity? If so, I don't know what I am going to do, because when I run, my HR is between 145-155...and that is too high for fat burning? Looking for some assistance so I can better understand this...or if I ma going about it all wrong...

Replies

  • sj1sunshine
    sj1sunshine Posts: 11 Member
    Oh, and if I do take 60-70% of that 171...it comes out to 103-120...
  • dewd2
    dewd2 Posts: 2,445 Member
    If all you want to do is lose weight, put the HRM away. It is pretty much useless for that. The whole fat burning zone is mostly a marketing term and has very little relevance to weight loss. Eat less than you burn and you will lose weight. Exercise for your health.
  • kendahlj
    kendahlj Posts: 243 Member
    It depends on who you listen to. There are a lot of discussions about the correlation between heart rate and fat burning. Covert Bailey preaches it in his books. I do agree that if you're starting out, just exercise and don't worry about trying to target a fat burning zone.
  • CincyNeid
    CincyNeid Posts: 1,249 Member
    sj1sunshine wrote: »
    I found my heart rate monitor and have been wearing it when I run/walk/bike...but I am not sure I know what I should be looking for when I am using it. I want to lose weight...about 35 pounds...I am 39 years old. Do I take the 210-39 and get 171...and then find the 60-70% range for burning fat? And then I try to exercise and keep my heart rate at that intensity? If so, I don't know what I am going to do, because when I run, my HR is between 145-155...and that is too high for fat burning? Looking for some assistance so I can better understand this...or if I ma going about it all wrong...

    If you're not training for anything specific just go out and exercise. Have fun. If you tie your HRM to Strava, Endomondo, Wahoo Fitness then by all means wear it. It will give you a better estimate for caloric burn. However don't stress over numbers. Sometimes I think we are so connected, that we forget to enjoy the exercise. And anytime you're Caloric Burn is more that your Caloric Intake you will lose weight.

    To answer your question.

    Your Fat burning zone is your Aerobic Zone. Typically that is 50-75% of your threshold.
    Your "Aerobic Endurance Zone" is roughly 75-85% of your threshold. This will help you improve performance and endurance. I wouldn't recommend going above 85% unless you're completely comfortable with it. hcsx00ris1d1.jpg
  • sj1sunshine
    sj1sunshine Posts: 11 Member
    Thank you, everyone. This is all helpful. I do love my exercise, and I love that I feel myself getting stronger and running longer and easier...or biking up hills with less energy expended. I just thought someone on a different post said I had to get my HR monitor...

    I will continue to focus on the caloric intake/burn!
  • niblue
    niblue Posts: 339 Member
    You might find that when starting it out can be quite tough to be able to keep your HR down into the "fat-burn" zone when exercising. I know I do.
  • sj1sunshine
    sj1sunshine Posts: 11 Member
    That is exactly what I am finding...I have been running daily for 8 weeks, but it still stays between 145-155 during my runs.
  • niblue
    niblue Posts: 339 Member
    sj1sunshine wrote: »
    That is exactly what I am finding...I have been running daily for 8 weeks, but it still stays between 145-155 during my runs.

    Don't worry about it. The main thing is that you're able to run at a pace you can sustain for the duration of the run. Once you've worked out what that is then the HR monitor should help with maintaining that. A lot of my runs are done using the HR to assist with pace management because without it I have a tendency to go too fast and tire myself out.

    I suspect as we get fitter we'll be able to maintain a pace in the fat-burn/conversational range - for me at the moment that'd actually be a fast walk rather than a run as I find I can't really sustain a run at anything lower than about 135bpm (and it's more like 150 if any hills are involved) and my max HR is only 180 or so.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    dewd2 wrote: »
    The whole fat burning zone is mostly a marketing term and has very little relevance to weight loss.

    I'd agree with this.

    An HRM has some value as a training tool when you're looking to improve performance, but if your priority is weight loss I wouldn't put much value to one.

    220-age is a very crude approximation of Max Heart rate and you've got no idea of whether it's realistic unless you go and get lab testing done. It's only worth doing that if you're consistently in the top three for your age group in competition.

  • CincyNeid
    CincyNeid Posts: 1,249 Member
    edited July 2016
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »

    220-age is a very crude approximation of Max Heart rate and you've got no idea of whether it's realistic unless you go and get lab testing done. It's only worth doing that if you're consistently in the top three for your age group in competition.

    Training Peaks has a couple different methods for finding out your Functional Heart Rate Threshold LINK. If [To whom it may concern] is not wanting to go and have lab work down..... I've also seen GMBN & GCN Give a couple ways, They basically recommend going up a good hill and increase your gearing every 20-25 seconds and when you give out that's your maxim HR threshold.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    sj1sunshine wrote: »
    Do I take the 210-39 and get 171

    No. That formula describes averages across whole populations, it doesn't pinpoint individuals. Heart rate is very individual. You can: use this or another formula and accept that it won't be right but will be in the ballpark, do a strenuous effort and attempt to find your maximum heart rate, or base your zones off your lactate threshold instead (as CincyNeid suggests).
    sj1sunshine wrote: »
    ...and then find the 60-70% range for burning fat? And then I try to exercise and keep my heart rate at that intensity?

    If you want to. If you're not in the fat burning zone you still burn calories, and if you are at a deficit your body will deal with it by using fat. Maybe that happens while you recover from the exercise instead of while you're out performing it, but, when it's all said and done, what matters for weight loss is the calories.

    If you were doing a 12 hour bike ride it would be more important to stay in the fat burning zone because glycogen is limited as a fuel source and fat basically isn't.

    You should probably do 80 % (or more) of your exercise as zone 2 workouts if you aren't training for a specific goal or event. You get the most "bang for your buck" with moderate cardio, it improves your CV fitness, it doesn't build a lot of hunger compared to really intense cardio, it doesn't require a lot of recovery time compared to HIIT, and it burns calories in a sustainable way that you can maintain over the long haul.
    sj1sunshine wrote: »
    If so, I don't know what I am going to do, because when I run, my HR is between 145-155.

    It's normal that your HR will be higher when you run than during other types of exercise. If I had to guess I'd say my average HR walking is around 100, cycling is around 140, and running is around 160 bpm.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    edited July 2016
    Really need to calibrate the HR. The zone thing does not really matter at all. The more you get into running, it may be important to get the bet use out of the HR to improve or to use it as a tool to gauge your improvement.

    Even if you have purchased a quality HRM, the readings will only be as good as your setup information. An accurate estimation of caloric expenditure requires the following input:

    Resting heart rate (HR rest)
    Maximum heart rate (HR max)
    VO2 max
    Weight
    Age
    Gender

    Not only must this data be accurate when you set up the HRM, it must be updated as well when your fitness level increases or if your weight decreases.

    Determining HR max and VO2 max are the most difficult tasks. You can use a prediction formula (e.g. 220-age) or the built-in "fitness test" of a HR (i.e. Polar), but these have a not insubstantial standard of error. For HR max, I would recommend a Google search for various predicted HR max formulae and determine a range of possibilities. Then compare your exercise heart rate to your feelings of perceived exertion. If your HRM shows your HR during exercise is 90+% of maximum, but you feel like you are cruising at an easy effort, your HR max is probably higher than the predicted number.

    VO2 max is even trickier. Keep in mind that as you continue to exercise, and you loose weight your cardiovascular fitness level will improve (that's the whole point, right?). When that happens, you need to adjust the VO2 number up and the weight number down in your setup.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    CincyNeid wrote: »
    Training Peaks has a couple different methods for finding out your Functional Heart Rate Threshold LINK. If [To whom it may concern] is not wanting to go and have lab work down..... I've also seen GMBN & GCN Give a couple ways, They basically recommend going up a good hill and increase your gearing every 20-25 seconds and when you give out that's your maxim HR threshold.

    Sufferfest also have the Rubber Glove test which gives a calibration opportunity. Not a pleasant experience tbh.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    I found my lactate threshold heart rate (LTHR) by running with my Fenix 3 and a chest strap. It detects the threshold based on HRV which is heavily affected by whether your sympathetic or parasympathetic nervous system is the dominant influence on your heart. Two different watches have detected several times for me and always at exactly the same value, except for when I'm heavily fatigued. It gets to the same value I had predicted for myself.

    The nice thing about knowing your LTHR is that you can do your HR zones without knowing your maxHR. Well, that, and it seems like the fastest way to run any distance beyond a sprint is to keep my HR a couple beats below my threshold. I'm burning a match when I go over and I'm recovering slightly when I go a bit under.
  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    It's normal that your HR will be higher when you run than during other types of exercise. If I had to guess I'd say my average HR walking is around 100, cycling is around 140, and running is around 160 bpm.

    LTHR too. My LTHR for cycling is 5-10 bpm less than for running.

    And to throw more on the 220-age=useless, my LTHR for running and biking are greater than 220-my age ;)
  • Annamarie3404
    Annamarie3404 Posts: 319 Member
    I usually exercise hard enough that I am taking huge breaths. I don't monitor my HR because I'm on so many blood pressure meds, that I cannot raise my heart rate the recommended level for fat burning. I go by how taxing my routine is.
  • sj1sunshine
    sj1sunshine Posts: 11 Member
    Thanks again to everyone. I read through them all, but will definitely need to spend more time thoroughly going through them all again and making sense out of them. Much appreciated!

Categories