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

[Psamathe]

Just for interest/fun I've turned out an old heart rate monitor to see what sort of heart rates I have over my ride (it's a Suunto one with a watch that records average and time between a configured upper and lower limit - so cost is only two new batteries, though I might have to buy some gel for the sensor pads!).

Suunto's instruction book says max heart rate is 210-(0.65 x age). Elsewhere on the web I've seen reputable sites say it is 220-age.

What would people recommend.

Similarly I've seen the zones specified as

• 60%-75% max HR="fat burning zone"
• 75%-85% max HR="aerobic" or "cardio" zone

Are they sensible settings ?

Ian

[old_windbag]

When I started using a HRM I was presented with the standard 220-age formula in the manual. I found on the web a more accurate formula relevant to those who already are "athletic" rather than sedentary to start with. This was more applicable to myself and I found my max heart rate tied in with this much more than the simple calculation. "Athletic" here being physically active.

This link has more detail but you'll find it all over the web, it accounts for weight as a factor as well as age:-

http://www.nowlin.com/heartrate.htm

But everyone is different and you may not feel it matches your needs but worth a look.

In terms of zones the fat burning I found was always down at around 110-130 for my max HR, in other words quite low and they say that for fat burning it shouldn't feel like hard effort, in fact easy........ I think this may be where many dieters fall down. They may burn glycogen stores rather than fat and wonder why the weight isn't falling off. Now the latest fad is HIT training to maintain VO2 levels, its a nice quick way to keep fitness levels up. So good for a quick turbo session.

Edit: Just a note that the improved formula returns a higher HR for a particular age. Your max HR will reduce with age but those who stay active don't get the same amount of reduction due to their activity. It's trying to stay younger for longer a losing battle but worth putting up a fight I feel.

[Paulatic]

Just for interest/fun I've turned out an old heart rate monitor to see what sort of heart rates I have over my ride (it's a Suunto one with a watch that records average and time between a configured upper and lower limit - so cost is only two new batteries, though I might have to buy some gel for the sensor pads!).

Suunto's instruction book says max heart rate is 210-(0.65 x age). Elsewhere on the web I've seen reputable sites say it is 220-age.

What would people recommend.

Similarly I've seen the zones specified as

• 60%-75% max HR="fat burning zone"
• 75%-85% max HR="aerobic" or "cardio" zone

Are they sensible settings ?

Ian

It's all purely a guide and has always been way out for me. My max HR yesterday on a climb was 125. I only once reached 135 on a bike and 142 in the squash court. The formula would have my max at 155, a figure I see people my age regularly top.
My resting heart rate this morning was 43. I can live with that

[Audax67]

By a strange coindicence, 220-age in my case gives exactly that rate at which the ST section of my ECG begins to show depression, i.e. if I go over that figure the heart muscle doesn't get enough oxygen. So I tend to respect it.

[softlips]

By a strange coindicence, 220-age in my case gives exactly that rate at which the ST section of my ECG begins to show depression, i.e. if I go over that figure the heart muscle doesn't get enough oxygen. So I tend to respect it.

Is that following a Bruce protocol stress test? Only treated as positive if it occurs below 85% of your calculated mx HR (220-age).

[rfryer]

My understanding is that, as your intensity increases above"fat burning zone", your fat burning continues to increase, but not as fast as the rate at which you use other energy sources.

So if you've got all day to exercise, or you're not that fit, then exercising for longer in the fat burning zone will be the most effective way to lose fat. But if you've not got a lot of time, and are capable of exercising hard for that period, then exercising less hard (to stay in the fat burning zone) will result in burning less fat, not more.

[Gearoidmuar]

Best advice on training in zones is by Dr.Phil Maffetone. Can be found on-line. He introduced the pulse-monitor for training. His recommendation for training pulse for most training is pretty low. But it REALLY works if you do a lot of it and is way less tiring.

I'm 67 and my theoretical max pulse is 153 but it's actually 173 which is what I absolutely max at. He'd have me training at about 116 bpm. I do this when I'm on my own and you find yourself going a lot faster at this pulse, after a while.
I'm exerting myself at 135 bpm. Recently did Lejog for the fourth time with CTC and maxed on the whole trip at about 163. If you go at your actual max on such a trip, you'll get very very very very tired. So don't.

I had to go as high as this once or twice as I was riding a heavy (34lb) touring bike and carrying a few pounds of stuff on this supported tour.

[Psamathe]

Useful. I'm rather misunderstood what "max. HR" is. I had thought it was the max. limit you should exercise to and that going above it got dangerous for your heart/circulation (hence the alarm you can set when exceeding max. HR) - bit like a speed limit on a sharp bend, go faster and you risk an accident. But my impression is that it is more the max HR you achieve when exercising.

Or have I mis-interpreted?

Ian

[rfryer]

It's the max HR your body can achieve through that form of exercise.

I find the formulae for calculating HR to not be helpful. At 47, 220-age would give 173, whereas I've clocked 189 a couple of times in the last 6 months, and any reasonable effort sees me over 170.

[rfryer]

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.

[axel_knutt]

When I had my first Bruce test they took me up to 220-age, and at that I was tempted to ask them if we could keep going and see what my actual MHR was. Being as I developed AF a few weeks later I'm glad I didn't now.

[old_windbag]

I'm rather misunderstood what "max. HR" is.

The formulas give a guide to what your expected max HR will be. Cycling plus would often write up the ( Conconi IIRC ) ramp test to find what that HR value physically is, clearly quite a stressful test. But putting aside those with inherent heart issues most healthy regular cyclists would perform such a test without issue and find a max HR value. It may be several tests would give slightly different results as our bodies have good and bad days.

The formulas do give a good general value as a starting point without having to perform a test. Max HR is the value that your heart will not beat faster, our bodies have their own in built rev limiter. When I started I'd think I was entering dodgy territory if aiming for max HR but if healthy it's simply a natural limit..... it is your max.

If training in the aerobic zone, over time you should see your average speed versus heart rate increase. So getting aerobically fitter. I do feel that using an HRM is useful and beneficial with science proven over many years, but nowadays many are promoting power meters. For myself these are simply too expensive unless a peleton pro or one of the subsidised journo's getting them free. I think the HRM is a low cost way to some genuine science and a good way to get through winter with a goal.

[ianrobo]

Best advice on training in zones is by Dr.Phil Maffetone. Can be found on-line. He introduced the pulse-monitor for training. His recommendation for training pulse for most training is pretty low. But it REALLY works if you do a lot of it and is way less tiring..

I am glad you pulled up with Dr Phil M, I have followed his MAF method since April and my ability to ride longer and harder is there for all to see.

On the old method my max HR is 191 (so the 220-age figure is way out - would be 175). If therefore if i worked out my Zone 2 HR from that it would be high.

The MAF method is actually doing the vast majority of training at 180 - age, therefore 135 for me. The theory is if you are fat adapted especially but can be for carb burners that you increase your fitness at an aerobic level. So therefore at 135 I can go faster and harder and keep my HR down and burn all that lovely fat and not horrible glycogen which leaves you in deficit.

if you know about building a base then this is how to do it. For the winter now I will be doing 80% of my training at 135 or lower and come next string the base will be perfect to go harder at Z4 and higher.

[mercalia]

an interesting article from the Guardian with exercise being the cure all --

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/03/exercise-depression-disease-death-sit-less-move-more?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=246435&subid=23601318&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

"“The more exercise you do, the better it is – up to a certain level,” he says. “A marathon runner or a triathlete is not doing much better for their health than somebody who is reasonably active. Half an hour a day is what they say now – or two for the price of one if you do vigorous exercise. Every vigorous minute is the equivalent of two moderately active minutes.”"

so the cyclist who cycles all day and does 100 miles no better of than some one who cycles for just 30 minutes worth a day?

The article mentions some intersting requirements by age starting from age zero

eg for 65 plus it mentions activities to aid balance and flexability and weight bearing activites ( so you can get up out of your chair unaided!)


Unfortunately the article spoils things by then showing a young man in running gear out jogging ( in the woods )

ps for the petes of this world it is useful to collect urls of articles for future ref as they are always there in the Guardian ( and other places) just cant find them when they are old?

[busb]

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.