Heartrate discussion

[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.

[VeloVT]

I also stopped using my HR monitor. 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)

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.

Running, I'll hit 180 within a mile or two and stay there for 75 minutes, which does seem high. I've never worn the thing on the bike though, my biking hr might be lower... resting hr is around 45 though.

[aicabsolut]

You are not hitting your max. Sure, you are up there and anaerobic and feeling crappy, but those exercises will not put you at your max. The formulas are a guide, but basically it boils down to genetics. You need to do a stress test (best if you get professionals to help you) where you are put to the max and your heart rate eventually peaks where you feel like you're going to die, but it won't climb any higher. You can guesstimate that your max HR is probably not too much higher than when you feel horrible during these workouts, but you are very likely not at your max under these conditions. Whether the number is relatively high or low compared to the formulas has no indication about how fit you are. Mine is pretty high. That just means that my comfortable working HR is also pretty high compared to others my age. That doesn't mean I'm fitter or they are. Resting HR and recovery time are better indications of cardiovascular fitness.

HR recovery time is another story altogether. When you get up to 80% or more, the time it takes your HR to get back to a moderate level indicates how fit you are. The more fit, the faster it will recover. So eventually you'll be riding your bike pretty hard at 185bpm, hit a red light, and in a minute of rest your HR will be down to, say 100bpm.

Interval training does the most to improve recovery time. You start out with long periods of recovery between short periods of hard work. Eventually, you shorten the recovery periods. Finally, you actually do recover in short periods of recovery. Just improving overall fitness will also help your recovery time, and it may also lower your HR for a certain perceived exertion rate.

[OakLeaf]

Just improving overall fitness... may also lower your HR for a certain perceived exertion rate.

Isn't it the opposite? that the more fit you are, the higher your HR at a given PER?

[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?