Heartrate discussion

[Tuckervill]

This is all very interesting.

*Polar off by 33%! (per the other thread quoted) Oy vay. It has worked for me to lower the calories I logged from Calorie King figures to the Polar figure. I've lost 2 pounds in two weeks, which is better than I've been doing. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that I'm burning 450-500 calories for an hour's work out. Since I have nothing else to base it on, and CK was clearly high, I'm going to stick with this. (Maybe Polar's HRM's got better, too.)

*I have hit my max heart rate according to the formula 220-age, at least twice during this class that I can remember. Once was this morning. The other was last week doing squat thrusts.

*The "boot camp" that I take is very laid back. Everyone goes at their own pace. I was pushing it hard during the sprints. (I haven't run fast in a long time and I was having fun.) If I wanted to stop the squat thrusts before I maxed out, I could.

*I can go a long time in the 60-80% range, and I'm happy with that. Climbing hills on the bike, though--that really cranks it up and it ticks me off. That's not even standing! I already climb slow, so slowing down more does not appeal to me!

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is how to manage that meteoric rise to max HR that occurs in those situations, without just refusing to do it. I'm concerned that it's not safe, either--after a minute of squat thrusts I'm at my max? A sprint of maybe a 10th of a mile? Can this be healthy?

Karen

[Tuckervill]

Grog, you're post gave me lots to think about. I'm going to digest it.

As for sports-specific HR...I can tell what things will spike my heart rate and what won't, before I do them. I do try to avoid doing those things. This gives me a mental block against hills. I haven't got to ride yet with my HRM, but I'm going go out and do some experimenting as soon as I can.

Sometimes we do circuits that include an arc-trainer with a HR monitor in the handles. For a while I would play heart rate games and see how high I could get it on the arc-trainer. About 160 was as high as I could go. Anyway.

Thanks, all very informative. You gals rock.

Karen

[Tuckervill]

I just want to clarify that it is squat-thrusts, not just squats, that I'm talking about. The thrusting and jumping back up is what drives the heart rate. (Lifting my fat a@@ in the air!) I can do sumo-type squats all day long.

http://www.expertvillage.com/video/6...uat-thrust.htm

Karen

[SadieKate]

Luckily, my crappy knees prevent me from doing those.

[maillotpois]

SK - that was exactly why I revised my post - I meant that the HR from squats (or weight lifting in general) doesn't translate to HR for cycling. Clearly squats, etc. are beneficial training for cycling.

[SadieKate]

SK - that was exactly why I revised my post - I meant that the HR from squats (or weight lifting in general) doesn't translate to HR for cycling. Clearly squats, etc. are beneficial training for cycling.

Ah, we were cross-posting. I really couldn't figure out why you were saying that. Maybe too much post-cursing rehydration.

[tulip]

To burn fat and lose weight, I understand that it's best to do sustained aerobic workouts in which your heartrate is between 60% and 80% of max. If your goal is losing weight, it might be something to keep in mind

[VeloVT]

It's really hard for me to feel like I"m exercising at less than 85% of max. That's a comfortable level for me to sustain over, say, an 8-12 mile run without feeling like my tongue is dragging the ground.

I don't use my HR monitor much because trying to stay UNDER a certain %HR (say, 80%) takes all of the fun out it for me .

I know I'll have to get over this eventually, but...

[Crankin]

I also stopped using my HR monitor. My resting HR in the morning before I get out of bed is anywhere between 55 and 62. It is very affected by lack of sleep, caffeine, stress, etc. But, once I start walking around, doing normal daily activities, it stays around 68 anywhere up to 75. Just getting up and walking can sometimes make it go to 80. I know from when I used my monitor, my HR would often go up to 130 right away! Then it settles in, stayed around 120-140 except during climbs (most of my riding is on rolling roads, with short steep climbs in between). As I got older, not much changed! It seems like my HR is always higher than everyone else's, yet I can climb tougher hills than a lot of the people I ride with. Now that I am 54, 80% of my max is around 133... I think if I wore my monitor I would find I am higher than that a lot of the time.

I don't worry about this anymore. I know I'm in pretty good shape and that my HR is usually higher than I think it should be.

[OakLeaf]

To burn fat and lose weight, I understand that it's best to do sustained aerobic workouts in which your heartrate is between 60% and 80% of max. If your goal is losing weight, it might be something to keep in mind

That's a misconception. At low intensity it's true that a greater percentage of the calories expended are coming from fat. But the total number of calories burned is so low, that you still burn more total fat at high intensity in a fixed amount of time, you're just burning more glycogen as well.

What low-intensity activity is good for, is allowing people to exercise who couldn't otherwise, and also allowing people to burn more total calories by light exertion over long periods of time. Simply put, most people aren't in shape to be able to maintain very high intensity for more than an hour or so. (In fact, most of the people that that "guideline" is usually aimed at, aren't even in shape to be able to maintain 85% of MHR for longer than 10 or 15 minutes.) Whereas almost anyone can walk or ride a bicycle at 60% of MHR for one, two or five hours a day and burn hundreds of calories worth of fat doing that.

[spindizzy]

I just want to clarify that it is squat-thrusts, not just squats, that I'm talking about. The thrusting and jumping back up is what drives the heart rate. (Lifting my fat a@@ in the air!) I can do sumo-type squats all day long.

That sounds like plyometrics to me. Usually for developing power. And it would also kill my knees!

I trained for 8 months with the formula of 220 - HR. Can't say my fitness improved, did not lose any weight. I was consuming about 1800cal/day.

Saw a guy (now my coach) who did metabolic testing. My very efficient body that likes to eat sadly only burns about 1200 cal/day (that was 2 years ago).

Apparently I'm a very efficient fat burner and have the metabolism to do middle to long distance stuff. Tell that to my brain that only likes to do short sprint duathlons!

Anyways, was tested again the other day to make sure I'm training where it is effective for me to improve. My anaerobic threshold for running is 181. Yesterday, I did a run for 45 minutes at 170 as my coaches aim is to "get me comfortable" running at that pace, which is still aerobic for me. I will do a long, slow distance on Sunday. My bike anaerobic threshold is 178, so they're pretty close.

I'm glad I have him to figure out these details as I probably would not have the patience to do this myself - I do find it a bit complicated, especially not going hard all of the time. I have someone to answer to, so I will behave myself.

I'm not sure if this is helpful, or just damn confusing?

[gnat23]

*I have hit my max heart rate according to the formula 220-age, at least twice during this class that I can remember. Once was this morning. The other was last week doing squat thrusts.

Remember that the 220-age thing is just a rough guideline! (and I vaguely seem to remember hearing that it's for people who don't exercise, but I can't point to the source of that).

You can also try 211-Age/2 (for fit women), or get as complex as:
* Use the Miller formula of MHR=217 - (0.85 × age) to calculate MHR
* Subtract 3 beats for elite athletes under 30
* Add 2 beats for 50 year old elite athletes
* Add 4 beats for 55+ year old elite athletes
* Use this MHR value for running training
* Subtract 3 beats for rowing training
* Subtract 5 beats for bicycle training

So, er, what? The third option, and the one I'm most fond of, is to just keep track of your workouts, and use your own max as your max. (I have seen 212 on mine, so according to the first equation, I should be 8 years old! But also, I hit 212 and I didn't die from it.)

To repeat what others have said: that 100% effort, or YOUR max (not necessarily the calculated one), shouldn't be where you hang out, but there's no real danger in hitting it, so long as it's brief. You can hit your real max on intervals, weight lifting sets (but not inbetween), probably your squat thrusts, sprints, maybe a sprint to the top of a hill when a squirrel runs right in front of your wheel... but after hitting that high spot, recover recover recover!

-- gnat! (Just took a VO2max test and has been reading all about this stuff)

[Grog]

... but there's no real danger in hitting it, so long as it's brief.

There's no chance I could hold it for more than a minute or two, I'd pass out if I kept going... or my muscles would not snap!!

[Grog]

I'm concerned that it's not safe, either--after a minute of squat thrusts I'm at my max? A sprint of maybe a 10th of a mile? Can this be healthy?

If you doctor has given you the green light, i.e. you don't have risk factors, your resting HR is under 100, you don't have a family history of heart condition or anything would be indicative of a heart condition, I don't think there would be a problem hitting your max quickly. Of course you would have previously warmed up.

I think a good fitness yardstick is not so much how fast your HR goes up but how fast it goes back down when you enter a recovery phase. As you train, your heart will become faster at adapting to what you're asking it to do: you need it to push a lot of blood and oxygen down to your muscles, it beats fast; you stop running and need less blood, it slows down.

Remember that fitness builds up during recovery...

This being said, I'm no physiologist or cardiologist so this is all based on my experience and readings...

[smilingcat]

There are several other calculations to approximate your maxHR. They all have one thing in common. It IS an approximation of your maxHR. Bigger the numbr or smaller the number does not makes you a better athlete or predispose you to become a great athlete. I think you are born to have your own particular maxHR. I'ver read that as you age, your maxHR do drop. If you are very active, the rate of fall in maxHR is slower than someone who is sedentary. so I wouldn't worry too much about how high/low your maxHR is. Just be mindful of what number you have for your maxHR. FYI, my max HR is still hanging in at 202-204 and has not changed in last 8 years. and I'm past being in the 40's

Your fitness level does not increase your maxHR and likewise, if you become sedentary, your maxHR will not decrease.

There are plenty of maxHR, lactatate threshold discussions and articles... so you might search using google or like.

The other thing that doesn't get mentioned and noticed much is your resting metabolic rate and heart rate. The resting HR I think is just as important as maxHR. If you are out of shape your resting HR is pretty high, whereas if you in good shape/conditioning your HR will be lower.

I suspect that most of us have similar metabolic rate at rest. When we exercise, our metabolic rate increase to meet the demands of the exercise. If your metabolic rate increases by X then you are doing Y amount of exercise. And if you are in good shape, you might be able to increase your metablic rate by 3X maybe 4X. But you can only reach 4X if the demand on your heart is less than the maxHR. And if you can put out 4 times of your resting rate against someone who can only put out 3 times their resting rate, you should outperform the other person. case in point is Miguel Induran (Induran the train 4x TOF champion), Alberto Salazar marthon runner. Both had their resting HR down in the 30's Their HR was much higher than 120s during competition.

FYI my resting HR used to be 52, but today, being out of hape, its up in high 60's. I was much fitter when my rsting rate was 52.

I just can't explain very well today so I give up. make any sense??
smilingcat