Heart rate bands

Author
Discussion

Four Cofffee

Original Poster:

11,827 posts

242 months

Tuesday 3rd August 2010
quotequote all
I have one of those lovely age related charts showing the heart rates at which one is Fat Burning, Fitness Training or Performance Training take place.

At my age it suggests my fat burning Zone is 90bpm to 125bpm, my Fitness zone then extends up to 140 BPM and my performance Zone is 140-170 (220 minus my age).

Frankly, I am not at all fit, (which is why I have bought a treadmill and a rower) and without too much effort my BPM is over 125bpm.

I am doing 30 minutes a day, and after 10 minutes I am up at about 130 BPM which suggests that I am leaving the desired Fat Burning zone. I certainly don't feel sweaty or puffed at 130 BPM.

Should it be that easy to get in (and through) the zone to burn fat and just how reliable are those charts??




h0b0

8,147 posts

203 months

Tuesday 3rd August 2010
quotequote all
I'm having the same issue. my resting rate seems low at around 55bpm but if I stand up and walk to the fridge I get to nearly 90bpm. Going for a run causes my heart to go to 160bpm in 0.5 miles of just passed jogging pace. The rest of my 6 miles I allow it to go to 160bpm then walk until it is less than 130bpm. This leaves me out of zone for most of my run.

If I ride, my heart remains stable at around 130bpm for the 20 miles I do. This means that you may want to choose your exercise according to wht you want to achieve.


I should also say I am far from fit but have manage to drop 2.5 stone in 4 months so now I'm "only" 16 stone. 2.5 stone to go.

UncleRic

937 posts

175 months

Wednesday 4th August 2010
quotequote all
Guys, I wouldn't get too hung on heart rates and ideal fat burning zones. Everyone is different and unless you are training for an event or as some form of competition / professional athlete it's largely irrelevant. Sure, it's nice to know your heart but not really necessary.

Find a pace that gets your breath rate up, gets you warm and perspiring and go at it for as long as possible then slow down, catch your breath and go again. Any exercise is better than none, any jogging speed is better than walking. You'll burn calories and fat what ever heart rate / speed / reps' you are doing. The more you do it, the better your body will cope and speeds / times / distances will increase.

Edited to add..
h0b0 said:
I should also say I am far from fit but have manage to drop 2.5 stone in 4 months so now I'm "only" 16 stone. 2.5 stone to go.
thumbup

Edited by UncleRic on Wednesday 4th August 08:30

Ken Sington

3,961 posts

245 months

Wednesday 4th August 2010
quotequote all
Also bear in mind that such monitors may not be 100% accurate. I had a full on fitness assessment last year with a sports scientist and my maximum heart rate was a full 20 bpm higher than my monitor had ever showed me.

Four Cofffee

Original Poster:

11,827 posts

242 months

Wednesday 4th August 2010
quotequote all
Ken Sington said:
Also bear in mind that such monitors may not be 100% accurate. I had a full on fitness assessment last year with a sports scientist and my maximum heart rate was a full 20 bpm higher than my monitor had ever showed me.
I am real;iseing that static affects the heart monitor, it 'freezes' it!

5unny

4,395 posts

189 months

Wednesday 4th August 2010
quotequote all
As mentioned above, don't get too hung up on the so called fat burning zone when it comes to your heart rate.

If we accept this theory to be true then exercising moderately burns X number of calories and a large proportion of these calories come from fat.

However, if you work at a much higher intensity then sure as a proportion less of your calories burnt will come from fat BUT you will burn far more calories in total so things even out.

For example, walking for 45 minutes (and getting your heart rate to 110-130) may burn 300 kcals of which 200ish may come from fat.

Jogging or running however will burn 500+ and even if it's only half of those calories coming from fat then it's still higher than the lower intensity workout.


h0b0

8,147 posts

203 months

Thursday 5th August 2010
quotequote all
Four Cofffee said:
Ken Sington said:
Also bear in mind that such monitors may not be 100% accurate. I had a full on fitness assessment last year with a sports scientist and my maximum heart rate was a full 20 bpm higher than my monitor had ever showed me.
I am real;iseing that static affects the heart monitor, it 'freezes' it!
Mine doesn't work in cars. I wanted to find our how the stress of driving on a 12 lane road helped with my weight loss.

broadhat

718 posts

220 months

Sunday 5th September 2010
quotequote all
Four Cofffee said:
At my age it suggests my fat burning Zone is 90bpm to 125bpm, my Fitness zone then extends up to 140 BPM and my performance Zone is 140-170 (220 minus my age).
Taking your max heart rate as 220 minus age doesn't always work. That would make mine 184bpm however a lactate threshold test gives it to be 205bpm. The test isn't 100% accurate either but is much better than the generic age one. I'm pretty fit, do 3 sessions of high intensity interval training plus cycling and runs each week.


Ordinary_Chap

7,520 posts

250 months

Sunday 5th September 2010
quotequote all
UncleRic said:
Guys, I wouldn't get too hung on heart rates and ideal fat burning zones. Everyone is different and unless you are training for an event or as some form of competition / professional athlete it's largely irrelevant. Sure, it's nice to know your heart but not really necessary.

Find a pace that gets your breath rate up, gets you warm and perspiring and go at it for as long as possible then slow down, catch your breath and go again. Any exercise is better than none, any jogging speed is better than walking. You'll burn calories and fat what ever heart rate / speed / reps' you are doing. The more you do it, the better your body will cope and speeds / times / distances will increase.

Edited to add..
h0b0 said:
I should also say I am far from fit but have manage to drop 2.5 stone in 4 months so now I'm "only" 16 stone. 2.5 stone to go.
thumbup

Edited by UncleRic on Wednesday 4th August 08:30
+1!

I often wondered about the fat burning zone but find I am often outside of it. I have however been on a weight loss plan for 60 days (well I did 45) and my heart rate is often 160-175bpm even without too much effort. I was pondering if I should drop the intensity but then decided well 1, I didn't have time to lenghten sessions greatly to achieve the same calorie loss and 2, I don't really believe I'd achieve anything more.

Here's my weight loss plan;
http://pistonheads.co.uk/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&amp...

So now I don't bother with them at all, I just make sure I don't outrun myself with any exercise so I can't complete whatever I'm doing.

Parsnip

3,135 posts

195 months

Monday 6th September 2010
quotequote all
The charts mean naff all. As does 220-age, as does any formula that calculates your max HR - my max HR is 191, I'm 23 - go figure.

The way to do it is to work out your own zones with a decent HRM (Garmin, Polar etc.)- they are fairly accurate, at my last medical, my resting HR was the same measured with my garmin as it was on the snazzy ECG affair in the doctors - plenty of guides how to do it on the net.