Max Heart Rate, "Fat Burning Zone", etc.

[ianrobo]

It's also worth pointing out that max HR isn't useful in itself, as you can only attain it through an extended maximal effort, not something you'd include in most training sessions. However, it is useful as an input to working out the HR zones you should expect to work in to achieve various fitness goals.

My MHR is calculated as being between 157 & 163 (the 2nd is 214 - 0.8x age). My iPhone Health app has reported 38 min to 215 max as recorded from my Apple watch. My Garmin Edge 25 & chest strap records show 144av & 161max as being typical so the age calculator method is pretty useless for active people. The Garmin is set to for 170 for it to beep. I suspect short bursts well above the age calculation is fine but I tend to feel when I overdo it for sustained periods so ease off. I obviously need to do a properly supervised test. Recovery HR is also important.

but as I said above IMHO using MHR is a waste of time and the MAF method is much easier on the body for longer term health benefits. Using the standard way of working out Zone 2 HR is simply too high for many people and many pro triathletes now follow this method and are gaining longer term ability to be at the top level.

[Psamathe]

.....My Garmin Edge 25 & chest strap records show 144av & 161max as being typical......

Is that across an entire ride ? and out of interest on what sort of terrain, speed, distance.

Ian

[busb]

.....My Garmin Edge 25 & chest strap records show 144av & 161max as being typical......

Is that across an entire ride ? and out of interest on what sort of terrain, speed, distance.

Ian

A short commuting ride:
Moving av. 15.7 mph
Moving time. 27:36
Elapsed time. 29:34
Av HR. 137
Max HR. 181
Av cadence. 73
Max cad. 105
Elevation gain. 233 ft
E loss. 177
Dist. 7.21 miles

[Psamathe]

.....My Garmin Edge 25 & chest strap records show 144av & 161max as being typical......

Is that across an entire ride ? and out of interest on what sort of terrain, speed, distance.

Ian

A short commuting ride:
Moving av. 15.7 mph
Moving time. 27:36
Elapsed time. 29:34
Av HR. 137
Max HR. 181
Av cadence. 73
Max cad. 105
Elevation gain. 233 ft
E loss. 177
Dist. 7.21 miles

Many thanks.

I'm only doing this out of interest (as I happen to have an old HR unit based on a watch - so I can play for the cost of a new set of batteries) and my ride yesterday for 2½ hrs and my average was above the "aerobic zone" (so way way above the "fat burning zone") - and I thought that you'd "run out of energy" at that level for that long. Yet got home feeling full of energy, not an exhausting ride so I'm assuming my max. HR and thus the "zones" are too low.

(I don't have high blood pressure - not actually checked it recently but for years it's been fine checked myself and on occasional medical check-ups).

Ian

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Tables are a bit hit and miss with the age thingummy.
If I get this correct fat zone you are burning fat but not much else.
The aero and anaerobic you still burn fat but build in strength and endurance.

Question is do you want to burn fat to lose weight or as an energy source?

I tend to train for up to 10 hrs a week at 80% on the road.
Sometimes I have seen 85% for 2.5 hrs.
It has to be remembered also that temperature will raise heart rate.
60 mins on the turbo at 90% would be normal for me.

12-24 hr endurance rides I can average about 70%.
It is thought that in the aero zone exercise can be maintained almost indefinitely.

60-90 mins at 90%, which is max aerobic means that energy from muscles is depleated...........try it.
http://www.mastersathlete.com.au/sideba ... ate-zones/

[ianrobo]

Attached a chart of my recent 160km ride/2000m of climbing. I am 45 MHR is 189, time taken just under 6 hours.

Now what you see is I did the majority of my ride in Zone 3, then next highest was Zone 4, now all this was on no food at all during the ride.

According to conventional wisdom this is not possible, so according to them either my HRM is wrong - it is not, is Ray Makers preferred one - Scooshe

or of course I am doing something different (I am) which means I fat burn at much higher levels than carb burners.

Interesting.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
You will have to explain your zones and what they represent?

Of course you would not be spending a continuous 150 minutes in what the middle zone represents, so your body would have time to recover at other lower zone times?
I might average 90+% on a turbo but that's not 90% from the start, I say start at 25-50% then get my HR up then I stop when its high (90 odd %)after 60 minutes.
80-90% (zone 4) is a mix of aerobic & anaerobic, your chart shows 5 minutes above 90%, which is pure anaerobic?

Of course your max could well be higher than you think?

I have done many training rides at above 85% for 150 minutes +, but that's average of max HR.

[ianrobo]

My Max is not higher, tested it recently on the Tumble my zones

Z1 0/117
Z2 118/143
Z3 144/162
Z4 163/181
Z5 181+

the point is I am fat adapted and the FASTER study showed when you are in this state you burn fat not carbs at higher levels, thats great because you never run out of fat energy, it is impossible.

My Fat burning zone goes into the middle of Z4 which is way above the usual Z2/3.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
I would also others I am sure, be interested how you came to these conclusions of your fat burning zone?

https://www.peakendurancesport.com/endu ... ates-fuel/

"Summary

Higher fat oxidation rates during exercise are generally reflective of good training status, whereas low fat oxidation rates might be related to obesity and insulin resistance. On average, fat oxidation peaks at moderate intensities of 50-65%VO2max, depending on the training status of the individuals(2,8), increases with increasing exercise duration, but is suppressed by carbohydrate intake. The vast majority of nutrition supplements do not have the desired effects. Currently, the only highly effective way to increase fat oxidation is through exercise training, although it is still unclear what the best training regimen is to get the largest improvements. Finally, it is important to note that there is a very large inter-individual variation in fat oxidation that is only partly explained by the factors mentioned above. This means that although the factors mentioned above can influence fat oxidation, they cannot predict fat oxidation rates in an individual."

[ianrobo]

Currently, the only highly effective way to increase fat oxidation is through exercise training

ties in fully with the FASTER study in that the more I am fat adapted and train in fasted mode the more efficient my fat oxidation will be and thats common sense.

I see no issue with this at all and common sense the fitter you are the more efficient all the systems are to deliver performance.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
This is a good read.
https://www.peakendurancesport.com/nutr ... rate-fuel/

Most of the stuff out there shows that fat is useful in low to moderate exercise because it makes up 50 % of energy burnt.
But you are not working at that intensity level in your 100 miler.

http://nigeepoo.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/ ... ed-in.html
At level 3 1/3rd is from fat and 2/3rds from carbs.
There is no doubt that fitness improves fat utilization.

http://nigeepoo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/ ... ed-in.html
"There are some interesting points about Steve's data:

1. Over a wide range of exercise intensities, the number of grams of fat Steve oxidised/min was fairly constant.

2. Up to 24% of maximum exercise intensity, Steve derived almost 100% of his energy from the oxidation of fat. Steve was on a LC diet, which shifts fuel usage away from carb and towards fat. This is known as "fat-adaptation".

3. Despite fat-adaptation, above about 45% of maximum exercise intensity, Steve derived more energy from the oxidation of carb than the oxidation of fat.

4. Despite fat-adaptation, above about 80% of maximum exercise intensity, Steve derived almost all of his energy from the oxidation of carb rather than the oxidation of fat."

[ianrobo]

4. Despite fat-adaptation, above about 80% of maximum exercise intensity, Steve derived almost all of his energy from the oxidation of carb rather than the oxidation of fat."[/i]

Thanks for all that and I point out this one. On my rides my IF is usually ay 0.8 mark or higher and I am sure my FTP is correct. Now I know that does not quite to match up with those stats I find nothing in what he says is wrong and not beyond much debate for the fit fat adapted athlete.

Surely for most of us the best and most efficient way to cycle is fat adapted as most f our rides will be done at lower levels of intensities ?