Heart Rate.. when do you go bang!
Discussion
Your max HR is calculated as 210 - your age so at 45 your HR is 165 although it can go above this and I don't know how set in stone that is.
Your level of fitness is usually determined by how quickly you return to your resting heartrate and a lower resting HR is also an indicator of fitness.
I don't know if that helps you or not tbh.
Your level of fitness is usually determined by how quickly you return to your resting heartrate and a lower resting HR is also an indicator of fitness.
I don't know if that helps you or not tbh.
Caesar9 said:
Your max HR is calculated as 210 - your age so at 45 your HR is 165 although it can go above this and I don't know how set in stone that is.
Your level of fitness is usually determined by how quickly you return to your resting heartrate and a lower resting HR is also an indicator of fitness.
I don't know if that helps you or not tbh.
That's a very loose way of determining your max HR. On that basis mine should be 180 when it's actually 195.Your level of fitness is usually determined by how quickly you return to your resting heartrate and a lower resting HR is also an indicator of fitness.
I don't know if that helps you or not tbh.
As you mention, how quickly you recover is a better indicator of fitness.
Teebs said:
I did a 2 hour/40 mile ride yesterday with an average heartrate of 174.
5''11"-76kg.
30 years old
Certainly didn't feel bad for it afterwards.
Your MHR is 220 - 30 = 190 (+/- 5 allowing for how long you have been training).An individual who has trained endurance for some time will have a slightly higher MHR.5''11"-76kg.
30 years old
Certainly didn't feel bad for it afterwards.
Teebs said:
Sounds about bang on. Been training for nearly 9 months now.
That often quoted equation isn't at all a fact, it's just a general indication of what your max heart rate might be. It doesn't even take your gender into account. The suggestion that all people the same age should have the same max heart rate isn't really going to be accurate.Some more info here.
http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/general/heart-rate-t...
For everyday usage it's absolutely fine and rarely gives a variance of more than +/- 7% over more advanced tests.
For the lab test a cycle ergometer can be used and for the Bruce test a treadmill.It's fun:you have to shave various parts of your body for the sticky pads to be
'glued' to receive electrical readings as normally several tests are conducted on the cardiac system at the same time.
A little OTP for posters on here however,unless they have access to a University lab or are a top level athlete with funding.
For the lab test a cycle ergometer can be used and for the Bruce test a treadmill.It's fun:you have to shave various parts of your body for the sticky pads to be
'glued' to receive electrical readings as normally several tests are conducted on the cardiac system at the same time.
A little OTP for posters on here however,unless they have access to a University lab or are a top level athlete with funding.
Tiggsy said:
220 - my age is 182 and I can go over that and feel fine. My resting is 39. A lot of the charts and formulas are rough ideas only...if you feel good, you're prob good!
Yes the problem is that there should really be two everyday formulae for calculating MHR:One for the sedentary and another for regular exercisers.And if you're really fit then your MHR can be quite a bit higher than the formula.But for an average person who doesn't do much exercise the basic 220 - isn't bad.interesting stuff..
as I posted my stats in the op.. I'm 45, 189cm and 102kg's. so in theory my max heart rate is 175, well that just cannot be the case.
well I went out yesterday with my 16 year old son.. on a sharp hill I hit 191bpm.. i was a bit giddy and out of breath momentarily but regained reasonably quickly.. so maybe its working
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/161237303#.T3BA...
I don't think I'm burning any fat running my heart at an average of 80%+ I think I need to slow down and stay at 55-60% to achieve that.. But I think I am getting fitter..
as I posted my stats in the op.. I'm 45, 189cm and 102kg's. so in theory my max heart rate is 175, well that just cannot be the case.
well I went out yesterday with my 16 year old son.. on a sharp hill I hit 191bpm.. i was a bit giddy and out of breath momentarily but regained reasonably quickly.. so maybe its working
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/161237303#.T3BA...
I don't think I'm burning any fat running my heart at an average of 80%+ I think I need to slow down and stay at 55-60% to achieve that.. But I think I am getting fitter..
bacchus180 said:
I don't think I'm burning any fat running my heart at an average of 80%+ I think I need to slow down and stay at 55-60% to achieve that.. But I think I am getting fitter..
I've heard this before, and I just don't understand it!I really struggled to get going on my commute this morning, and ended up recording an average heart rate of something like 120bpm (against 220-age of 179) to cover 15.2 miles in 80 minutes. I felt like I'd barely expended any effort at all, yet supposedly this is where I need to be to burn fat.
My normal commute is around 10 minutes faster (I'll always be somewhat limited by the 81 sets of traffic lights), but that sees me averaging around 150bpm. It also feels like hugely more effort. I just don't see how it can burn less fat.
Can anyone explain in simpleton words?
Kermit power said:
marcosgt said:
What about resting heart rates?
I checked mine on one of those phone app things and it's remarkably close at exercising rates to what the gym machines show, but are they all hopelessly inaccurate?
Perhaps I shouldn't be quite so pleased with the rate? Also, is there a rate that's TOO slow? (not that mine's THAT impressive
)
M.
Miguel Indurain managed to lead a fairly active life with a resting heart rate of 28 beats per minute, so I'm guessing yours probably isn't too critically low just yet! I checked mine on one of those phone app things and it's remarkably close at exercising rates to what the gym machines show, but are they all hopelessly inaccurate?
Perhaps I shouldn't be quite so pleased with the rate? Also, is there a rate that's TOO slow? (not that mine's THAT impressive
)M.
Going back to the OP's question - What's the issue if you do, say 10% MORE than your calculated Heart Rate?
M
Kermit power said:
ed by the 81 sets of traffic lights), but that sees me averaging around 150bpm. It also feels like hugely more effort. I just don't see how it can burn less fat.
Can anyone explain in simpleton words?
Yes - when you are fat and useless if you workout hard you die and make a mess on the gym floor - as such, gyms invented to "fat burn zone" to keep the chubsters ticking over nicely without throwing up their big mac and fries.Can anyone explain in simpleton words?
In reality, harder work = more fat loss over greater time (far beyond the period of the workout)
marcosgt said:
Going back to the OP's question - What's the issue if you do, say 10% MORE than your calculated Heart Rate?
Yes this was the question.. I think the answer is.. The broad calculations are so vague that they are inaccurate in most cases. Max HR are by nature a guide only, By exercising you will find your own Max HR, mine is around 191 ish, I know this because if I continued pushing at that level I would most likely faint.
With more exercise this may well increase, but the resting and actual HR that you can achieve will lower.
My concern was.. will I die trying to achieve this, I'm lead to believe this is unlikely and that I should keep trying to get fit. as my Son keeps reminding me..
Pain is just weakness leaving the body!
silverthorn2151 said:
My resting heart rate is 90.
How do you lot not think you are dead inbetween each pulse?
What is your blood pressure?How do you lot not think you are dead inbetween each pulse?
To the poster asking whether 120 bpm is in the 'fat burning zone'.Yes. In layman's terms energy systems work like this: CP - AL - KREBS - Oxidative.
The Krebs cycle,between alactic (anaerobic) and aerobic is where tubsters should reside.You will burn more total calories cycling/running fast and far,but you're probably not fit enough yet.So don't worry if you're not breathing hard.
goldblum said:
What is your blood pressure?
To the poster asking whether 120 bpm is in the 'fat burning zone'.Yes. In layman's terms energy systems work like this: CP - AL - KREBS - Oxidative.
The Krebs cycle,between alactic (anaerobic) and aerobic is where tubsters should reside.You will burn more total calories cycling/running fast and far,but you're probably not fit enough yet.So don't worry if you're not breathing hard.
I'm not sure if I'd call that "layman's terms", so just to check I've understood it...To the poster asking whether 120 bpm is in the 'fat burning zone'.Yes. In layman's terms energy systems work like this: CP - AL - KREBS - Oxidative.
The Krebs cycle,between alactic (anaerobic) and aerobic is where tubsters should reside.You will burn more total calories cycling/running fast and far,but you're probably not fit enough yet.So don't worry if you're not breathing hard.
If I'm capable of riding for 70-80 minutes (the duration each way of my commute) with an average heart rate of 140 or so (78% of my theoretical MHR of 179), then I can press on and do so in the happy knowledge that I'll get more out of it than I would throttling back to 120 or less, and I should've only considered throttling back if riding at 140 meant I was wimping out and jumping on the train after 20 minutes?
Kermit power said:
goldblum said:
What is your blood pressure?
To the poster asking whether 120 bpm is in the 'fat burning zone'.Yes. In layman's terms energy systems work like this: CP - AL - KREBS - Oxidative.
The Krebs cycle,between alactic (anaerobic) and aerobic is where tubsters should reside.You will burn more total calories cycling/running fast and far,but you're probably not fit enough yet.So don't worry if you're not breathing hard.
I'm not sure if I'd call that "layman's terms", so just to check I've understood it...To the poster asking whether 120 bpm is in the 'fat burning zone'.Yes. In layman's terms energy systems work like this: CP - AL - KREBS - Oxidative.
The Krebs cycle,between alactic (anaerobic) and aerobic is where tubsters should reside.You will burn more total calories cycling/running fast and far,but you're probably not fit enough yet.So don't worry if you're not breathing hard.
If I'm capable of riding for 70-80 minutes (the duration each way of my commute) with an average heart rate of 140 or so (78% of my theoretical MHR of 179), then I can press on and do so in the happy knowledge that I'll get more out of it than I would throttling back to 120 or less, and I should've only considered throttling back if riding at 140 meant I was wimping out and jumping on the train after 20 minutes?
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff