Heart Rate %?
- 11-29-2005, 02:58 PM
Heart Rate %?
Hi, I've seen a bunch of different things for cardio, different recommendations on intensity, on feel, and on % of max heart rate. Well I'm wondering how important it is to focus on a particular % when doing cardio. I can understand for older folks out there, but for a young healthy person, or just plain healthy, shouldn't it be more important on how you feel while doing the cardio?
For me I tend to do about twenty five minutes of cardio, averaging out, I shoot for hitting the point where cals at my current weight get to five hundred. I've found this a very good measure to get a consistent workout at different weights, because the lighter you are the fewer calories it counts as being burned.
Currently, I am 20 years old, 5 foot 10, and 177 lbs. When doing cardio my heart rate sticks around the 170's, but I can push myself harder and do the full time in the 180's as well, I just have to put my book down, It's an eliptical machine I use, and at this rate it feels like a good workout, but for someone who is trying to lose fat (the eternal quest, lol) would it be better to take it down a notch?
I was just hoping to get a few opinions from people who pay attention to heart rate and how much it helps or hinders their weight control. So, thanks.
- 12-01-2005, 10:40 AM
Thinking about the question that I ask above, something important has come to me. When I first started cardio sessions like this, my heart rate qould get in the 190's sometimes on occassion over 200. Then after some time it got down to the 180's, then 170's and is now approaching 160's for more of the time. This is over many months/years, but is consistently going down over time.
Even with that in mind though, 65% (the supposed fat loss zone) is only in the 130's for me, and definitely lower for older folks. So whats the deal, do some people really get much out of such a slow pace? It would seem to me that I would barely break a sweat before I finished.
I've also heard that the higher the intensity the greater number of calories you burn, but the lower the intensity the higher percent of calories is from fat. The way I've viewed it, and all the HIT people probably, is that more calories at a lower percent still sums up more calories from fat, than the slower higher percents.
I guess I know what I'm going to stick with, but I'd still be interested in hearing what other people do, and how it works for you. thanks for putting up with my ramblings.
- 12-01-2005, 12:02 PM
i always keep my HR between 125-135 .. you won't lose muscle this way and you WILL burn fat .. provided you glycogen levels are low (i.e. upon waking or right after a workout)
you can do a search for tons of great info .. but trust me on this one
when you go to the 170's fat is not an effecient enough energy source and you will quickly burn off glycogen then move on to muscle while not really burning much fat
12-05-2005, 08:09 AM
It's completely dependent on each person however. Glenihan stated HIS areas for target HR, but yours could be completely different. For instance, when my HR is in the 120/130s, that's doing nothing. It's less than walking.... if I do an hour of cardio, at the end of that session, I *might* hit 180, and that's at a good pace.
Best to work with a trainer or someone who help you measure your maximum HR or anaerobic threshhold and get some percentages as to where you should be for optimal fat loss, etc.
12-05-2005, 08:23 AM
Why must one be depleted of glycogen? Doesn't the body use stored fat as it's primary source of energy for low intensity cardio?
Also, if one were on a cycle, could they then up the intensity without worrying about losing muscle?
12-05-2005, 08:26 AM
First glycogen is used for fuel, then when it's depleted it will use fat. That's why the best theoretical time to do cardio is immediately following a strength training workout. It's also the best time to burn muscle too
12-05-2005, 11:54 AM
your target HR depends on your age rough formula for max heartrate is 220 minus your age
take 60-65% of that and aim for that .. its not just for me its for everyone .. that's the most efficient HR for fat burning
12-05-2005, 02:59 PM
That's not always the case though, that's my point. I'm 28 and my target heartrate is significantly higher. Doing the math, mine is actually 260-28 x .65.
Originally Posted by glenihan
12-05-2005, 04:44 PM
i think we are talking over each other heads lol
my point is 65% of one's max HR is ideal for fat burning
and your target HR would actually be
(220-28) x .65 = 124.8
i'm not sure where 260 came from in your equation
12-05-2005, 05:59 PM
- 6'1" 221 lbs.
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Southwest Florida
- Rep Power
Its doens't work like that. The body utlizes all nutrients at all times. The ratios just change depending on the type of activity. Fat (as in FFA's) is used at all times and low intensity cardio will oxidize FFA's moreso than higher intensity cardio. High intensity cardio does a better job at increasing the breakdown of stored triglycerides but also is much more glycogen dependent as well. In other words, HI mimics weight training without the tissue trauma. So the best one two punch IMO and has worked for 99% of competitors is weight training (increases release of triglycerides into FFA's) coupled with low intensity cardio (which oxidizes those FFA's).Originally Posted by not_big_enuf
For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
12-06-2005, 07:03 AM
Couldn't of said it better myselfOriginally Posted by Bobo
12-06-2005, 10:42 AM
How long would you say to do cardio after a workout before taking in your PWO meal/shake?Originally Posted by Bobo
12-06-2005, 09:12 PM
Did you guys read the "fasted cardio roundtable" on t-nation?
I found it a fascinating read. Any comments?
(p.s., my elliptical just got delivered this morning - I am still trying to figure out what my program is going to look like. Probably 30 mins pre-breakfast (but after some coffee) on days where I don't go to the gym.)
12-18-2005, 07:04 PM
i think it depends on fitness level as well.
as with me my heart rate of 150 is prob. your heart rate at 190ish.
12-19-2005, 10:30 AM
EXACTLY! I've had my heartrate into the 230s.... my max heartrate is just higher than most. why? i don't know... it varies. you can use whatever formula you want, but it comes down to people being different.
Originally Posted by 400runner
12-19-2005, 10:53 AM
230? Are you seriousOriginally Posted by not_big_enuf
12-19-2005, 10:57 AM
i am... and i do actually have a heartbeat monitor too, not going by some damn machine.
who knows if that's healthy or not, but my resting HR is about 65 or so, so i figure it's all good. i'm in good shape too and run 30-40 miles a week. perhaps i'm a heart attack waiting to happen.
12-19-2005, 08:22 PM
Wow 230 is insane. I've never heard of it being that high. As far as low vs. high, I 've never found low to work for me. I've tried the empty stomach thing with low intensity and I've tried high intensity post strength training and I just seem to lose more fat when my heart rate is around 80%. I do think it's different for each person. What works for some, won't work for others..
12-19-2005, 09:15 PM
It doesn't hit that high often... like almost never. It's not uncommon for me to be in the 215-220 range. I'm just an alien.
I'm the same way as I seem to lose the most fat in the 80% range as well.
Similar Forum Threads
- By OCCFan023 in forum General ChatReplies: 6Last Post: 06-18-2006, 12:31 PM
- By yeahright in forum Weight LossReplies: 0Last Post: 06-04-2006, 09:46 PM
- By endless in forum AnabolicsReplies: 6Last Post: 10-18-2005, 10:07 PM
- By ItriedtoripoffBobosonowIamgonehaveaniceday in forum Exercise ScienceReplies: 13Last Post: 03-09-2005, 09:30 PM
- By Poetik Proze in forum Exercise ScienceReplies: 2Last Post: 04-28-2003, 09:34 PM