Video Fitness Forum  

Go Back   Video Fitness Forum > Video Fitness Reader Forum > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-20-10, 10:21 PM  
Janine
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Target Heart Rate question

I recently started using a HRM and you put in your age and it automatically figures out your target heart rate range.
I'm 54 and it says my range is 108-141. Thats what it works out to be also if I use the 220- 54 and multiply it by 60% - 85%
Anyways when I'm working out I find I'm over 141 for a lot of the workout.
I don't understand. It doesn't seem like I'm working overly hard but if I go by this it means I've been working out for years past my target heart rate.
I'm also trying to lose weight so do I need to tone things down and make sure I keep my HR down?
Janine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-10, 08:00 AM  
Cher
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Michigan
I'm curious to hear what others tell you about this too. My HR is always over what my HRM calculates that it should be; and it's over by alot. I feel fine when I'm exercising and don't feel like I'm working to hard either. Shoot, my HR gets over the 147 that the HRM says as a high just doing a warm-up.

I've sort of gotten to know what range I feel comfortable working at and try to stay in that range.
Cher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-10, 08:07 AM  
KarenP
VF Supporter
 
KarenP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine View Post
I recently started using a HRM and you put in your age and it automatically figures out your target heart rate range.
I'm 54 and it says my range is 108-141. Thats what it works out to be also if I use the 220- 54 and multiply it by 60% - 85%
Anyways when I'm working out I find I'm over 141 for a lot of the workout.
I don't understand. It doesn't seem like I'm working overly hard but if I go by this it means I've been working out for years past my target heart rate.
Those age based formulas are very crude and only give rough estimates. It's very possible that your actual max HR is much higher than the one predicted by that formula. I would go by perceived exertion coupled with your experience over time when using your HRM. You may also, in the future, wish to do some kind performance test which will help you more accurately predict your HR zones.

Quote:
I'm also trying to lose weight so do I need to tone things down and make sure I keep my HR down?
The harder you work, the more calories you'll burn. So I don't see why you want to keep your HR down, unless it's a recovery day, moderate training day, or whatever.
__________________
Cheers,

Karen

QUIT SLOUCHING!!!
KarenP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-10, 10:00 AM  
Sancho
VF Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: My body is in Louisville but my heart is in Atlanta
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarenP View Post
Those age based formulas are very crude and only give rough estimates. It's very possible that your actual max HR is much higher than the one predicted by that formula. .
Here is a link I quickly found about determining your own personal HR range. http://www.howtobefit.com/determine-...heart-rate.htm. It's the first one I went to after a google search, I'm not endorsing the website but I have read a Sally Edwards' book and it had a lot of great information. The article says it was written by her. Once you have your max HR, you can calculate your different zones. If you do a search on Sally Edwards you may come up with better articles. When I calculated my Max HR, I used a method she suggested where you take your resting HR for a week. I don't see that method discussed here. It was years ago, so maybe it's been found to not be the best way.
Sancho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-10, 10:25 AM  
ddj
VF Supporter
 
ddj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarenP View Post



The harder you work, the more calories you'll burn. So I don't see why you want to keep your HR down, unless it's a recovery day, moderate training day, or whatever.
Really. I have the exact opposite problem. I have a hard time getting my hr into range. I always seem to be working at the bottom or even lower. I'm working as hard as I can , but my lungs and legs give out long before my heart. So when I exercise, I seem to be burning no calories.
__________________
Jumping for joy is good exercise.
ddj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-10, 12:14 PM  
Sophie
 
Sophie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alberta
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarenP View Post
Those age based formulas are very crude and only give rough estimates. It's very possible that your actual max HR is much higher than the one predicted by that formula. I would go by perceived exertion coupled with your experience over time when using your HRM. You may also, in the future, wish to do some kind performance test which will help you more accurately predict your HR zones.

The harder you work, the more calories you'll burn. So I don't see why you want to keep your HR down, unless it's a recovery day, moderate training day, or whatever.
Karen P says it all. There's plenty of variability in individual max HR, regardless of formula used since they're almost always based on age. That's why those targets need to be further adjusted by rate of perceived suggestion, as she says.

Also don't worry about that so-called fat burning zone, which is basically a crock; following that logic, the ultimate fat burning zone is reached by lying on the couch. So use other criteria to decide on the intensity in which you want to work.
__________________
Sophie

be as relaxed as you can be, as you do what you gotta do.

~erich schiffman
Sophie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-10, 01:22 PM  
msladybug
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Also keep in mind that the advice to keep the heart rate lower if you want to lose weight is based on older science, but the idea still persists. I think that idea took root in the days when Covert Bailey started his "Fit or Fat" book series. It's not that his premiss was wrong, he was a pioneer, its just that we know more about fitness and weight control that we did then. It used to be, long time ago, that 40 min lower intensity steady state workouts predominated, along with this fear that if you didn't do the whole 40min in one session you would not get the fat burning benefits- we know more now.

I still do steady state lower intensity cardio...but it's not all I do, it's better to mix it up with different training styles. You might one day workout out at a lower intensity but make it a long workout.. an hour, maybe longer....I love hiking. But other days, you workout at higher intensities, but because it is hard to sustain higher intensity, it will be a shorter workout. You can even vary the intensity withint the workout with intervals.
msladybug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-10, 01:43 PM  
lreidgreen
VF Supporter
 
lreidgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Jersey
Quote:
Originally Posted by msladybug View Post
Also keep in mind that the advice to keep the heart rate lower if you want to lose weight is based on older science, but the idea still persists. I think that idea took root in the days when Covert Bailey started his "Fit or Fat" book series. It's not that his premiss was wrong, he was a pioneer, its just that we know more about fitness and weight control that we did then.
I agree. I could be off base here but also think that the idea was to convince people that they didn't have to kill themselves to improve their fitness and lose weight. Working out at lower intensities was encouraged to get sedentary people to exercise.
I used to love Covert Bailey's books.

Leslie
lreidgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-10, 01:53 PM  
Sophie
 
Sophie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alberta
Quote:
Originally Posted by lreidgreen View Post
Working out at lower intensities was encouraged to get sedentary people to exercise.
That is probably the best argument for staying at lower intensities; it helps people adhere to an exercise program for longer (or at all). At some point intensity will have to increase to provide continued cardiovascular improvements, but it doesn't have to happen all at once, or all the time, and for some people, just getting off the couch is already an increase in intensity. It's all good.

So long as we're clear that there's other reasons for working out at lower intensities and not thinking that it's necessary for fat or weight loss.
__________________
Sophie

be as relaxed as you can be, as you do what you gotta do.

~erich schiffman
Sophie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-10, 02:49 PM  
msladybug
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Ireidgreen and Sophie

I agree with all your points.

Before the first "Fit or Fat" many people did think that getting fit involved beating yourself up with intensity, and then getting sore, or worse injured....ie the weekend warriors. And then giving up.

I loved Fit or Fat too. He motivated people to make exercise a lifestyle rather than a flash in the pan short term weekend failed experiment.
msladybug is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
sally edwards

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2009 Video Fitness