FORUMS > Cardio Training Forum Rules

I am wondering if my target heart rate should not be higher than it is. Here are the facts:

My resting pulse is 68.
My walking pulse is 100.
It is very easy for me to get my heart rate to 130-140 range and keep it there on the elliptical. Do I still burn fat just by keeping it in the fat-burning zone?

It seems that my heart rate is easily spiked. I also have a high metabolism.

My roomate tried on my monitor and it stayed at 60 resting. My roomate also cannot get above 120 on an elliptical without some exertion. I don't get it...

I am also experiencing erratic numbers on the monitor from sitting to sitting up, for instance I noticed it went from 70-80 to 105, but my roomate is consistent and steady at 60.

Is my heart rate more "elastic" than most?

What I do notice is that once I get going on the elliptical, it seems to stabilize. My thought was that perhaps my heart rate seems higher, maybe my target is higher as well?

the best aerobic formula is 180-your age.

check out www.markallenonline.com/heartrate.asp

when training with HR, A LOT of variables come into play.

enough sleep
hydration
stress-mental and physical
previous workout
diet

you can also get your anaerobic threshold test done on the new leaf system and it will break down exactly when and what you are burning for fuel, CHO or fat.

formulas are genaric, they are good to use as s guide line and see how you feel and good from there.

Having trained for 18 years. i use my HR monitor when i start back training after a 2 month break. just to let me know i need to go slow and build my base again. once my timed miles test times drop, i stop the using it and go by Preceived Effort(PE).

when taking your resting heart rate in the morning.
make sure you are well hydrated before bedtime. hydrating makes a big difference. even weight yourself before bedtime and then again in the morning, after the morning duties.

good luck!

UStriathlete, I've never seen 180 - your age as a maximum heart rate calculation. The standard that I know is 220 - age. I notice the website your reference is geared toward triathalon training so, maybe that's the difference.

Xuaerb, don't rely on store bought heart rate monitors and the equipment at the gym for your heart rate. They are machines and need maintenance to work correctly. You never know when gym equipment has been serviced or if a store bought monitor is working correctly or not. Always check their accuracy by manually checking your heart rate too. It can take some practice but it is easy to do and generally very close.

Find your pulse on either the radial artery of the wrist or the artery just to the left of your adams apple. Apply just enough pressure to detect the heartbeat. Find a clock or watch with a second hand and once you find the pulse count the beats you feel in a ten second period (you need the watch or clock with second hand or digital seconds so you can concentrate on counting the beats and visually see when ten seconds are up). Once you have the number, multiply it by 6 (six ten second periods in one minute) and you will have a good estimate of your heart rate.

To get a resting heart rate, make sure you've been sitting still for some time and are nice and relaxed. While doing cardio, pause your activity briefly enough to check your heart rate. Do this every 5-8 minutes (then you can also check it with the machine and see how close they are).

There are several schools of thought on what is actually best for fat burning; steady state cardio, interval training and even no cardio at all (for fat burning not cardiovascular conditioning).

I'm have an interesting situation that I think is the result of quitting smoking. On the 180-your age, my target rate should be 134. I guess I could actually have eased up a bit from the 145 I was trying to hit. This was while I was smoking. I didn't know about the forumla until I just read this and I never really paid attention the heart rate info on the machines other than to match my exhaustion level up with the number I was reading and I could push myself no further than 145.

I quit smoking, now 7 weeks ago and am having a very difficult time getting my heart rate up even to 110 and I'm pushing way harder than before. I've set the resistance up as high as I can go without losing the ability to actually push the elipticaly pedal down. I the last 3 weeks, I don't think I got over and getting to 125 took about an hour as compared to the half hour I was doing while smoking.

Should I go back to smoking?

Or should I go back to typing school? Geez.

Smoking does accelerate metabolic rate, so it may help, but it's also terribly, terribly bad for you.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact10.html

Tabasco sauce also elevates metabolic rate. Try smoking tabasco sauce, perhaps?

Shortnsexystud -

" UStriathlete, I've never seen 180 - your age as a maximum heart rate calculation. The standard that I know is 220 - age. I notice the website your reference is geared toward triathalon training so, maybe that's the difference."

I'm a little suspicious about any simple, universal, maximum heart rate caculation.

I'm 69,and my resting heart rate is 49-50. That's measured on two independent medical (pre-surgery) heart rate monitors, so I assume that's a valid number for my resting rate.

When I run at a constant speed (just a little below my race pace) on a treadmill, my heart rate is typically in the range of 163-167. That's the range measured on several (~ 4-5) integral treadmill monitors on different treadmills on different days. I haven't done calibration of these monitors, but at least they seem to be consistent among each other.

I also suspect that measuring my pulse rate immediately following a run would yield a lower (and biased) number since the treadmill monitor rate appears to fall rather rapidly as soon as I slow down. I've also learned the hard--and embarassing--way that it's important to pay attention when running on a treadmill ('at speed'), so I'm a bit reluctant to try to find my artery and make 6 measurements of 10 sec duration each (or a count over a 60 sec period) when I'm running at near max speed.

Anyhow, assuming an average of 164 is a reasonable a lower bound for my maximum heart rate, the equation that would seem to match my observations would be:

Max rate > 233 - age

(or about 6 percent higher than the equation:

Max rate = 220 - age)

PDSurfer, these formulas are only estimates of your heart rate and should be used as tools to help monitor your HR and make sure you are getting close to an actual target.

Also consider the type of exercise you are doing. There are generally three HR's we are concerned with when it comes to regular exercise:

Maximal HR, Cardiovascular Target HR and Fat Burning Target HR. They are as follows:

220 - age = Estimated Maximum Heart Rate
(220 - age) * 85 - 90% = Cardiovascular Target Heart Rate (128-135)
(220 - age) * 65 - 75% = Fat Burning Target Heart Rate (98 - 113)

So for you, your ESTIMATED MHR would be 220 - 69 or 151. Now since you are obviously a well trained runner and in good shape and probably have been stamina and conditioning than most 69 year old men, you're attainable maximal heart rate is probably higher and 164 doesn't sound outside the realm of possibility. Remember, these formulas are for the average exerciser to use as a guide, not set in stone and they are no substitute for a monitored measure of these figures in a doctors office. But, who has an EKG machine and a treadmill at home to accurately measure these things.....hence, the formulas used for guidelines.

Your resting HR is phenomenally low, which for you probably just indicates what great shape you're in. The average for men is actually quite a wide range, 60 to 100 beats per minute is acceptable for men. The more conditioned you are, the closer to the lower end of the scale you'll be.

So, PD depending on what your goal is for your aerobic training, your target heart rate will depend on that. Oh, and yes, don't try to take your heart rate WHILE you are running on the tread mill....you'll have to step off the belt momentarily (straddle the belt) and hop back on. Yes the rate will drop a little once you stop but once you get down finding your heartbeat quickly, it shouldn't be statistically significant for what your are measuring.

Geesh. I run my heart rate up to 170 to 180 on occassion. I HOLD it at 160. At 130, it's like a walk in the park.

ALL formulas are a genaric, period. Like I said, unless you do a anareobic thereshold test will you know "your" numbers. The New Leaf System is the best I have found, to break down exactly at what heart rate you start buring more CHO to fats.

the 180-Age is to build your aerobic internal engine to burn more fat than carbs. and it's a Max Target...so staying under is just as good, just don't go over it.

People don't realize to go fast you need to go slow first. It's a cycle. If you read the whole article on www.markallenonline.com you will plato in each phase and that tells you it's time to switch it up.

Polar (the upper end units) and Suunto make really good heart monitors.

shortnsexy...cardio is cardio, whether you swim, bike, run, walk, epliptical, spin class. what does matter is weight bearing or not.

PD...i can guararntee you are buring more carbs than fat at that HR. you should try the aerobic miles test...for curiosity. go to a track, warm up
10mins to reach Target aerobic HR, i calculated 121 for you. now run 3 miles, take spilts at each mile, then 10 mins warm down. if you burn more fat and aerobiclly fit your mile times will stay consistent within seconds of each other. if they ascend, your aerobic system needs work. ex. 7:00, 7: 50, 8:08.

let your Ego go ;-)

when i'm fit my resting HR is 35-37. with proper rest, training, hydration, and diet.

have fun!!! :-)

Thanks everyone for your input.

I was convinced that the harder I worked that the more fat would come off of my midsection. I read the article USTriathele, it makes tremendous sense.

What I was doing before was running on a treadmill and staying in the 150-170 range.
Although, I was cardiovascularly breaking ground, (meaning I was able to run longer at increased heart rate and able to handle it more and more at faster speed over time- but I was not really losing fat, which was my goal. After reading the article, it now makes sense.

What I have noticed since doing elliptical in a controlled 130-140 range is that in the last week I am burning more calories because I can stand to do it for longer and can then burn about more calories, and I have lost a few pounds and am sweating a whole lot more. I am seeing/feeling results in the midsection.

thanks!

Yep...GOOD JOB!

you need air to burn fat, so you have to go kind of slow at first, until your body acclumates.

there's a time and place to good slow and fast. just not in the same phase/segment of training.

Yep...GOOD JOB!

you need air to burn fat, so you have to go kind of slow at first, until your body acclumates.

there's a time and place to good slow and fast. just not in the same phase/segment of training.

I totally agree with you UST, cardio is cardio is cardio. Do what you enjoy and you're more likely to stick to it. The intensity level is what makes the difference.

So in essence I think we are saying the same thing. But I don't get your comment, "what does matter is weight bearing or not." Either something is missing or I don't get how cardio can be weight bearing.

Ah...running is weight bearing, swimming and cycling are non weight bearing.... one needs to minus about 10-15 beeps from their target HR for non weight bearing sports. when doing an anerobic threshold test, do it the specific sport you doing. obviously i do both, one running and one cycling.

Thanks to everyone who posted to this thread and especially to:

xuaerb - for initiating the thread

Shortnsexystud - for your comments, equations, and examples.

UStriathlete - for your comments, alternative equations, and the link to the Mark Allen web site.

To UStriathlete:

The next time (or next few times) I run on a treadmill I will test your warm-up/3-mile-run/cool-down time/heart-rate test. Historically, I have used treadmill workouts to "train" myself to run at a fixed pace (since I have the impression that my fastest runs occur when I can accomplish that--for example, that was the case when I set my PR).

As a consequence, my 1 mile splits (in a 5K without hills) are usually within a few seconds of each other. So I know that I can run essentially constant speed miles at a heart rate above your suggested number. But...what I don't know is whether my heart rate is constant or not during those runs (I'm guessing that it must be increasing). So next time I'll try running at your suggested constant heart rate and see what happens time-wise, and also run at various constant speeds and see what happens with my heart rate. Then with a little bit of experimentation, I should be able to determine what pace/heart rate satisfies both a constant pace and a constant heart rate constraints.

Hmmm all very interesting viewpoints. UST I get what your saying in terms of supporting body weight (running) vs. not supporting body weight (swimming and cycling due to boyancy and being seated on a machine) so thanks for the clarification.

Then of course there is Psych's take on it as well. All very good to know when working with clients in different ways. Learn something new everyday!

PDS...your right. your HR is increasing to sustain that effort/pace. however if you are aerobicly fit, it shouldn't increase all that much. if you read the whole mark allen article, it takes a long time to build aerobic base and it goes in cycles, you platue in each cycle and each cycle builds off each other. when u do the test, just keep the HR consistent, you'll have to slow the treadmill down and it's a good idea to get the incline at 1 degree to simulate a track. it's easier to do the test on a track.
good luck, post your results
i'll post mine in a few weeks. i'm training for Ironman Florida nov 3.

I use Incline Stepper for 45 mins and do the "interval" training. If I am to follow the "220 - my Age" formula so my max. heart rate should be 196.

My very maximum performance by breathing fast and hard, which I can sustain for only a minute before slowing down, is 172. Then, I will lower the intensity, my heart rate would also go down to 140. Then after a minute, go up again to 170+. Then repeat the cycle.

Am I on the right track? Or am I overdoing it?

Your inputs will help. =)

WAY over doing it!!! those formulas don't fit everyone, and it's not fitting you from your information.

cardio training is very simple and can be boring...that's just the truth.

i would try the 180 forumla and see how you go for 6 weeks.

PsychExerSci:

I actually ahve a question for you since this is your field of specialty...

I assume the clincal max HR is determined by a cardiac stress test?

In the realm of personal training, there is a general guide of max HR as the number 220-your age..

How close does this correlates with clinical findings of true max HR? How consistant and reliable is this proposed max HR formula used by personal trainers? Are there any comparative studies out there?

So, just how important are the warmup and cooldown periods? 20 minutes (total) seems like an awful lot of treadmill time to not even be burning fat. Plus, a lot of gyms limit you to 30 total minutes anyway. Is there really any downside to going straight to your target aerobic or anaerobic heart rate and doing a brief (2- to 3-minute) cooldown?

PsychExerSci -

Is there any approximate relationship between maximum heart rate and the heart rate at which VO2max occurs?

Thanks, I'm actually referring only to a purely aerobic workout. I warm up for my weightlifting workouts by doing light stretches... I only do the treadmill (aerobic) either immediately after weightlifting, or in the morning on a day when I'm not doing weights.

The 'warmup and cooldown' I referred to is just the common recommendation (such as in the exchange of posts above) that each treadmill session should begin with 10-minutes of gradually increasing pace, and end with 10 minutes of gradually decreasing pace. That just seems to me like an awful lot more time than is really necessary. What I've been doing, on mornings when I am not lifting weights, is starting the treadmill at or near my usual speed (to get the target heart rate). Assuming there's a 30-minute limit on the equipment, with that abbreviated warmup and a cooldown of 2 or 3 minutes, I'll usually spend 25-28 minutes at my target rate. Is there any disadvantage to doing this?

Yes PsychExerSci!

Thanks! You broght back some memories... One of my clincal rotation was in cardia/pulmonary rehab.. Now I do remember using that formula...

I am not sure why this is not really mentioned in most personal training manuals... They really need to constatnly update this kind of information...

Thanks for giving us the objective and detailed answers we neded on this site... Too much false information out there!

I do not think you are boring anyone here, please do go ahead and give us more details on calculating individual target HR for people on beta blockers..

Similary, someone with partial spinal cord injuries, since the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system balance is all off, and laready have an abnormal resting HR and abnormal response to exercise, what are the guidelines concerning target HR for them?

I also have another comment to make here:

"A warmup (~5-10 minutes) doesn't need to be particularly intense at all. It just serves to "rev-up" your metabolism prior to a workout, and allows your bloodflow to be redistributed throughout your entire body. At rest, a large part of our blood is concentrated in the splanchnic (stomach) region, and doing a warmup forces more blood to the extremities. It also allows your core temperature to begin rising, and will also subsequently allow your muscles to be more flexible once you get to the weightlifting part of your workout."

I dont think one needs to warm up necessaily on a treadmill for doing weights... Now I am talking high intensity, heavy weigth training, especially the one body part per work out type of training.

I do know that you cannot warm up a specific joint and its associated musculature to prevent injury by just doing treadmills... Treadmill will increase your core body temperature and allocate some incrased blood flow to the extremities, but any particular joint will not be adequately warmed up if you are going to be doing HEAVY RESISTANCE work outs... The only way to prevent injury while doing high intensity resistive exercises is to do that particular movement starting with lighter resistance...

As far as allocating blood flow to the extremeities and rasing body temperature, I think you can achieve the same result if you are doing a particular exercise as a warm up for that joint, instead of using all muscles of the body on a treadmill... As you have mentioned, even just doing arms ergometers wioll increase your HR...

I am proposing this because of the need to preserve as much glycogen supply as you can so you can direct this portion to working the fast twitch fibers as creatine phosphate and glycogen are the main source of energy when working these fibers...

I also think it is more efficient to let your fast twitch fibers to deplete your glycogen reserve, so when you perform cardio vascular exercises at the end of the heavy weight training, your HR is already up and ready to tap into fat and protien as sources of energy...

Am I correct in this...?

Understood..

But I have a question on this:

"External (skin) temperature is dependent on ambient conditions, but internal temperature depends solely on the degree to which one's metabolism has been increased. So, to maximize the body's ability to withstand HEAVY, high-intensity weight lifting at a particular joint, it is recommended that one perform a short warmup using some mode of cardiovascular activity, and THEN begin with lighter weights and slowly progress to the heavy volumes you spoke of in your post."

Why is it important to raise your core temperature and body metabolism when performing heavy resistive training....?

To warm up a specific joint and its musculature, you would want to have as much blood flow/demand for energy in that particular area. I do not see the logic of raising your metabolic function as one who is training heavy resistive exercises are NOT trying to make this an aerobic activities, especially in a bulking phases of training...

What I meant to say is this, the desired effect of many bodybuilding training is to ONLY work on the specific and isolated body parts AND NOT work on any other parts at the same work out as much as possible, AND only perform cardio according to the regiment one is on at the time, such as a lot less cardio when during a builking phase, AND to prevent injury to this specific body part... So why is rasing metabolic function or increasing body core temperature important and how does this SPECFICALLY aid the SPCIFIC joint youare working on...?

Re-phrase my question:

So why is raising metabolic function or increasing body core temperature BEFORE heavy resistive training on only ONE body part important, and how do these 2 factors in a physiolocal sesne SPECFICALLY aid the SPECIFIC joint/musculature you are working on...?

For example, I only want to work on my arms, and NOTHING else, and this day I amnot doing any cardio and I do not want any part of my work out to become aerobic. And I do not want any of my energy reserve to go anywhere else EXCPET my arms during this particular work out as much as possible... I want to burn as little calories possible while stressing my arms to perform the heaviest resistance it can... Why raise my body core temperature or increase my metabolic function before training onlymy arms for an hour...?

Thanks! That was my point...

I understand in a very general sense about any physical activity in the first phase as anaerobic. I assume this to the glycogen and glycolysis effect (correct me if I am wrong).

But why warm up for 3 min on a treadmill while you can start warming up your target joint/muscle groups with lighter and progressively exercises taht is muscle/joint specific, for 3 min if you wish...? Since a general increased blood flow to the extremities will NOT prevent you from specific joint injuries while you train, you will HAVE to warm up for that joint after you get off the treadmill for 3 min anyway... So, why waste 3 min on the treadmill before lifting, while you can warm up for 3 min with the exact same exercises...? Especially if there is no specific benefit by rasing general metabolic function and core body temperatue when it comes to the target joint/muscle groups being worked on...?

I am sorry , for the first sentence...

I meant to say immediate glucogen and the induced aneorbic respiration of glycolysis...

Yikes my spelling!

Glucagon!!! Not glycogen or glugogen!

So, if its indeed the sympathetic nervous system induced glucagon reaction that leads to the first 3 min of ANY exercise to be anaerobic, why not do this as a joint exercise..? Why bother doing it on the tredmill for an overall body core temperature raise and increased metabolic function....?

Hate to break up your flow, but I have to say your dialogue is superinformative. Great detailed background on a topic that is confused with way too many myths and "rules of thumb". Thanks PsychExerSci and NYCMusc4Musc!

But how about imaxim's last question. Is a 10 minute warmup and a 10 minute cooldown really necessary, or is 2-3 minutes on either end just fine?

Thaks for the explaination. I get the glycagon resonse. However, I am still not understanding why doing a 3 min cardio is better than doing a resistive training as warm up... I am not sure if I see an aswer in your explaination...

"Well, I WOULD say a 3-minute warmup on a treadmill or bike is better than a 3-minute warmup lifting light weights, IF the low-intensity weight lifting is to be used in place of the treadmill or bike. Both are fine, but the "cardio" done at the beginning will increase, to some degree, the metabolism (anaerobic), but the joint-specific weight lifting activity will not. The physiological responses following the initial anticipatory phase (prior to an aerobic activity) are not exactly the same as they are prior to weight lifting. But, I think we're splitting hairs at this point. ;)"

I still do not see how specifically WHY it is important to increase anaerobic metabolism before performing heavy weight training for size and strength of only one specfic joint/musculature...?

Let us use the example of some bodybuilder doing their chest day (I used to treat Heather Foster Ms Olympia, who is a PTA at NYU)... The upper extremities are not weight bearing in nature, and it is dangerous to immediately perform many open chained/non-weight bearing exercises to isolate the chest, SO there are MANY WARM UP sets of closed chaiend/weight bearing chest presses before one starts performing the "real" weights... This is MORE than 3 min between sets... If one does the 3 min low intensity on a treadmill, one STILL has to go through MANY WARM up sets before hitting the 300/360 pound plus bench presses...

Specifically, I dont see you answering this question, how would increasing your anaerobic metabolism BENFIT with these bench presses at 350 pounds...?

And usually by the time these athletes start to perform the resistive exercises at the "real" weights, you can see that some of them are already with increased breathing and so on...

I am really looking for a specific answer as why running on a treadmill at low intensity would be any better for this type of work outs..?

Thanks PsychExerSci.

Is the calorie count shown in these cardio machines reliable? If so, the lesser the intensity the lesser the calories burned - which is quite true. This really worries me a lot. I wanna burn as much as I can.

Finding your own MHR is hard to do on a sheet of paper. However you do not need to have a clinical test ot get a rough estimate of it. The best way to do a "home MHR test" is to start your usual cardio routine the way you normally do (if you warm up great!) once you have reached your fat burning heart rate (generally speaking 65-85% of your Max) work at this speed for 10 to 15 mins. Once you have started hitting the top of this zone you are going to begin doing "wind sprints"
for those of you who arent fit enough to literally sprint don't worry, the name is a bit of a misnomer. What you do is increase your speed (or resistance if you are using elipticals/bikes/steps) to a higher level of difficulty (the first time not alot just push yourself outside of your 85 range) go at this increased pace for 30 seconds then drop back down to the rate you were at before the "sprint" the trick here is to continue at the pace you were at before

I know, I know, its hard! but after you make it past the initial recovery you will be able to continue as this rate, just stick it out for the first 15-30 seconds where you feel like you want to stop. continue at your "low" speed for 1 min. then pump it back up. add to the speed/resistance incrimentaly so that you are pushing yourself harder each time then always going back to your "low rate" and catching your breath while working for 1 min. Although there is no perfect number I try to increase then drop back down 8 times. On the eighth (or how ever many you did) push yourself as far as you can go without injuring yourself. At the end of this 30 second period you will reach essentially your MHR. If you have a heart moniter (or handles on the machine that check it for you) this is the time to notice your number. If you do it the old fashioned way you will have a harder time checking it since you will be sprinting. Make sure after your final push that you drop back down to your low rate for a few mins. then slower until you start a cooldown (cooldown is VERY important after doing i high stress excersize like this).

A great way to check another indicator of fitness after this is to check your 5-min. recovery. How this works is checking your heart rate when you finish your cool down. Then going and doing light stretching with minimal movement for a 5 min period. How much did your heart rate drop? the more fit you are the deeper your heart rate will fall in this period of time. You can check your 5-min recovery after all of your cardio sessions. write down your number the first time and then check it again after a few weeks, its a good way to measure how your cardio-vascular fitness is improving after time.


Seriously though, be careful with high-stress tests like this, if you arent in great shape you might not want to try this cause it really kicks your ass.
enjoy!

gillian, the cardio machines rely on standard formulas that don't account for all the factors that influence how many calories you burn on them. Someone with a higher level of bodyfat is going to burn somewhat fewer calories than someone of identical weight with relatively more muscle mass, but, on the other hand, a fitter guy is more generally more efficient at the same work output and so burns less, too.

Beyond the individual variability, there's evidence that cardio machines generally OVERestimate calories burning by about 10 to 15%. But that's a gross estimate across all types and brands, so you can't adjust your particular machine down by 15% and then assume its accurate.

More importantly, sounds like you really care more about burning fat than calories. While they're certainly closely related, they aren't the same. If you work the elliptical at your maximum effort, you'll burn more calories than at an easier pace--but you may burn less fat. The conversation on this thread about this has been a bit technical and scientific, but worth diving into for just that reason.

Gosh! I have been training mg heart too much for too long.

I already modified my cardio exercise. I am just following my MAX recommended training heart rate of 157 beats per minute.

Exercise longer not harder is the key. ;) I feel better after every session.

Im gonna buy a stopwatch with heartrate monitor one of these days.

"Do I still burn fat just by keeping it in the fat-burning zone?"

God theres an awful lot of spiel in here if this was your direct question.

Calorie depletion burns fat and in particular the level of deficit.

You burn fat whatever th level of activity providing you create a deficit, this whole fat burning zone issue is a farce as there are way too many other variables that need to be taken ino account

bgf1...
you need O2 to burn fat...it's that simple. if you are anaerobic (without O2) you burn carbs and very little fat.

fat burning zone is for real!!! it's clinically proven.

If you walk / run fast and get your heart rate up you burn more calories in that time but its less efficient on fat. Slower and longer is what you seek here then so 130-140 sounds pretty much okay for like 95% of the people I walk with, especially if you seek the maximize teh effect on bodyfat. I try to be close to 150 which is my personal high end in the aerobic zone. some HR watches offer something called an "own zone" you complete a 5 min training within certain heart rates and the watch calculates your heart rates on that specific day for the condition you are in that day. From what I heard its pretty accurate, I actually had one and tried it a dozen times and it did differ quite some form the formula calculated one. I now switched it out for a watch with a foot pod since the values didn't really change much at the end anymore. The most accurate way is to go to a sports physician and let him prod your ear for like a gazillion times :=). then you know pretty much exactly suppose you have slept,exercised regular the recent days.

You wouldnt be alive if you didnt have oxygen, what you are referring to is an optimale level of fat burning not that it does not exist elsewhere

your body will start to utilise body fat as it depletes carbohydrates, starts breaking down protein and utilising glycogen and will burn body fat. diet is the most important factor in that equation tho

read that back and id made garbage sense brain is kerfuddled must be oxygen depletion from a hard training session

didnt mean to imply the zone doesnt exist merely that people place way too much importance on it when there are other areas that warrant far greater input ie diet/hydration/routine structure/form/sleep

Hey, guys:

Interestng discussion. I'm pretty new here. I mainly participate in the forums at Men's Health. Over there, everybody's into HIIT big= time. I think most of the MH guys would tend to disagree with the basic philosophy of this thread.

They'd say that it's simply not appropriate to focus on what you burn while doing your cardio. It's what you burn afterwards. That's why a good 20-25 minutes of HIIT is so effective. It resets your metabolism Over a 24 hour period you end up burning more calories (taking into account your higher post-exercise metabolic rate) than if you'd done a full hour of exercise at a lower rate.

Anyone have thoughts on HIIT?

Another thing: I agree with everyone who is doubtful about the Max HR formulas, especially the 220 minus age. The only one that makes any sense for me is the "perceived exertion" scale.

I'm 58, so my max would be 162 according to the "220" formula. Heck, I can do 160-162 for an entire cardio session. I sweat, and I can't carry on a very interesting conversation, but that's about the extent of it. If I used the rule of thumb, and exercised in my formula fat burning zone, I'd fall asleep.

Just my two cents worth, but I'd like to hear peoples' thoughts on HIIT.

Thanks

I use the treadmill for jogging 30mins or more per session. I can't get my hear rate above 114 on eliptical or any other device becides treadmill.

Long time ago my heartbeat was like 136 on the eliptical.

You get fit and you move up. It's the name of the game. That's why some can run marathons and some can't. Practice. Your heart and circulatory system will get better.

HIIT is as effective as any other method of fat loss but still not exercising for calorie expenditure and diet is way more efficient.

If you can eat less daily and then spend your gym time working muscle harder and to failure then you stand more chance to retain more muscle mass.

If you are doing a fat loss campaign based on HIIT chances are you are working out minimum 4 times a week and probably a session lasting 45 mins a time whereas you could achieve the same effect in 3 times a week and sub 45 minutes but if running is what it takes to make you stick to it then by all means thats the most effective way for you

Ofc daily routine, eating habits influence what you do. I changed my diet pretty much, however that was not really the question that started the whole thread. I also think most people who run 4,5 times a week dont run home open the fridge and eat 4 bags of tacos dripping with cheese. I totally agree with bfg1 , though i still think its important to train the most effective way or at least interesting to know whats going on.

As to HIIT
I searched for the definition of cardio and came up with this.

"Pertaining to activity which elevates the resting heart rate. This is bodybuilding jargon for moderate to intense aerobic activity."
you
When you do HIIT :

A HIIT session involves a warmup period, several short, maximum-intensity efforts separated by moderate recovery intervals, and a cooldown period. The period of alternating effort and recovery intervals typically lasts a total of 15 minutes.

I don't doubt this works according to studies regarding burning fat. I cant imagine it will give you a high training factor regarding improved fitness in terms of performing longer in your zones if thats what your after additionally.
To me cardio training is mainly long duration sports going after endurance, I must admit I wasn't even aware you can do cardio weight training. I found this topic pretty interesting and read some articles and thought i share the most interesting ones reagarding HIIT and cardio..

http://www.shapefit.com/cardio-exercises.html
http://www.naturalphysiques.com/faq/432.html

Regards
George

Tacos dripping with cheese?! Where?! I'm on it! Yum!

When I first started reading this article I saw how some of you were working beyond the fat burning range and were more in the cardiovascular range.
I don't see why this is so difficult for people to get. As a personal trainer I've had a difficult time with some clients and athletes who feel like they're not working hard enough when training in a fat burning mode, which is roughly 70%. They're so tempted to increase the resistance and feel the need to be dripping with sweat and gasping for air and feel a "burn" while trying to focus on fat loss.
But when these individuals finally succumb to my advice they see more fat loss and notice more energy for their free weight and machine workouts.
It's great to be able to run a marathon and/or swim for miles on end. But to be honest, I know a lot of triathletes and while they are far from obese they are not very ripped. A few are but that is rare and probably related mostly to genetics.
When I work at 70% of my maximum heart rate which is 120 bpm, in a month's time I notice good results. In another month the the veins below my navel that go downward toward the "family jewels" start to pop out. I like when that happens.
I can't always remember nor do I care to do the math to figure out my target heart rate to burn fat or my clients'. Fellas, the machines do it for you. When I get on a recumbent bicycle it asks me what sort of workout I want. When I say fat burning, it asks for my age and "presto", I have my target heart rate to burn fat suggested for my age.
I don't understand why this is such a mystery for some people. Some of us feel the need to work harder but the goal is to work wisely.
Don't mean to make this super long but when you work at a target heart rate higher than fat burning, you also burn glycogen from your skeletal muscle stores. Bodybuilders don't do this because then it makes their muscles look flat AND they don't have the energy for lifting heavy weights.
And yes some machines work better at helping you get to your target hear rate while others don't. Stick with what works. The elliptical machine use to not get my target heart rate up to 120bpm. However, it does now. I like the elliptical for low impact on my knees as well as the recumbent bike.
In addition, try to do your fat burning in the morning before eating anything. Just drink water and possibly take some amino acids or L-glutamine. If you don't see results in a month's time from working at a fat burning mode, you may have to reassess your diet or get a hormone profile done to make sure that nothing is out of wack when it comes to your hypothalamus and endocrine system functioning properly.

muchmorethanmuscle saidIn addition, try to do your fat burning in the morning before eating anything.

fasted cardio is of no benefit its would have the same effect as you listed for running above target heart rate ie glycogen depletion as the body would not have a recently digested carbohydrate source to work from. Therefore the body would look to glycogen to support the process whilst it is starting to metabolise body fat.

Furthermore if you were to employ that process long term whilst in calorie deficit you could invoke muscle catabolism.

I don't where you're getting your information from but all I can say is that this works for me and has worked for my clients.
30 minutes on a treadmill or elliptical or whatever 3x a week in the morning before any solid food isn't going to emaciate anyone. And if one needs to be on a calorie restricted diet, they are going to more than likely lose some muscle in the process of losing overall bodyweight. I for one eat roughly 4,000 calories a day. That's far from calorie restrictive.
On a different yet similar note, powerlifters overeat to feed their muscles and stay in a constant positive caloric state. They tend to be slightly fat. They don't mind this, however, because their sole interest is strength. And even though their fat stores are pretty much full they notice that their muscles are fuller and in the opposite state of catabolism. They are also stronger. They are aware that if they eat a calorie restrictive diet that they will not only loose the fat but will become smaller and weaker. I look at sedentary people in the same way who want to get into shape. They will ultimately be smaller but they will be and look in much better shape by the time they reach their fitness goals.
That's why you see some of those guys with 19" arms yet a 37" waist. Sure, they have thickness in all of their muscle bellies but yet they're not that muscular looking. Get this same guy to prepare for a contest and his arms drop to 16" but his waist also drops to 30" and now has extremely low body fat. Yes, he lost 3" on his arms but he also lost 7" on his waist and now looks amazing.
That's how it works.

Oh and by the way, the next best time to do fat burning on your cardio equipment is after a good intense weight training session. I for one have done fat burning in the morning before food and after weight training.
I personally see faster results doing it in the morning. And quite frankly, spending more than one hour at the gym at one time can be too much. I want to get in and out.
My building has cardio equipment on the first floor so I can easily do this in the morning without having to go to my regular gym twice a day. If that's too much for some people to do then I recommend doing it after your weight training session. This saves time traveling to the gym more than once a day and is more practical, for obvious reasons.

muchmorethanmuscle saidI don't where you're getting your information from but all I can say is that this works for me and has worked for my clients.

I dont doubt your results just dont put it down to fasted cardio put it down to overall deficit

Information from:

Coyle EF, et al. Fatty acid oxidation is directly regulated by carbohydrate metabolism during exercise. Am J Physiol. 1997 Aug;273(2 Pt 1):E268-75.

Civitarese AE, et al. Glucose ingestion during exercise blunts exercise-induced gene expression of skeletal muscle fat oxidative genes. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Dec;289(6):E1023-9.

Wallis GA, et al. Metabolic response to carbohydrate ingestion during exercise in males and females. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Apr;290(4):E708-15.

Coyle, et al. Muscle glycogen utilization during prolonged strenuous exercise when fed carbohydrate. J. Appl. Physiol. 1986;6:165-172.

Coyle, et al.. Carbohydrates during prolonged strenuous exercise can delay fatigue. J. Appl. Physiol. 59: 429-433, 1983.

Horowitz JF, et al. Substrate metabolism when subjects are fed carbohydrate during exercise. Am J Physiol. 1999 May;276(5 Pt 1):E828-35.

Febbraio MA, et al. Effects of carbohydrate ingestion before and during exercise on glucose kinetics and exercise performance. J Appl Physiol. 2000 Dec;89(6):2220

One of the best authors on the subject I find is Alan Arragon as he does summise alot of the studies in a way most can understand if you are not familiar with research papers

I hope this helps

muchmorethanmuscle said

30 minutes on a treadmill or elliptical or whatever 3x a week in the morning before any solid food isn't going to emaciate anyone. And if one needs to be on a calorie restricted diet, they are going to more than likely lose some muscle in the process of losing overall bodyweight.

2 points here

1) I didnt say that they would emaciate anyone, I said it could lead to glycogen depletion as this would be the primary source of fuel and not fat.

But we are talking optimal here and fasted cardio is not optimal, now the degree we are talking is ounces over a week but then compare that ounces difference to the level of activity input its all about risk reward at the end of the day.

If this method though is the one you employ and with great success no doubt then that is what is optimal for you. Horses for courses as thats why there are so many different trainers with great approaches and great results, but that wasnt the question

2) Likely if they are not trained appropriatly in diet and nutrition but no not a given as if the tools are right and they employ them well then there is no reason why they should lose any.

muchmorethanmuscle said

They are aware that if they eat a calorie restrictive diet that they will not only loose the fat but will become smaller and weaker. I look at sedentary people in the same way who want to get into shape. They will ultimately be smaller but they will be and look in much better shape by the time they reach their fitness goals.

That's why you see some of those guys with 19" arms yet a 37" waist. Sure, they have thickness in all of their muscle bellies but yet they're not that muscular looking. Get this same guy to prepare for a contest and his arms drop to 16" but his waist also drops to 30" and now has extremely low body fat. Yes, he lost 3" on his arms but he also lost 7" on his waist and now looks amazing.

That's how it works.

Smaller yes, weaker no as loss of body fat and retained water does not lead to a loss of strength. Again studies do not support your assumption. Lean muscle mass dictates strength not fat and water.

I totally agree with you that defined lean muscle mass does appear bigger than a body with larger muscles and a higher body fat.

I could try and look for studies that support how maintaining a positive caloric diet, which eventually leads to to extra body fat, is related to having more strength in the gym. It's not my assumption, it's my observation. And not only of myself but of other guys in the gym as well.
If this weren't the case then most powerlifters wouldn't look the way they do, which is basically on the fat and bulky side. Even competitive bodybuilders allow themselves to get fat and engorge a bit, in the off season, in order to help maintain a more anabolic state for growth. This is related not only to making sure muscle cells are well fed but this supports an increase in strength as well.
The only athletes that toy with calories in this way seem to be bodybuilders. Ask any one of them if they feel weaker during contest preparation and stronger when they can eat what they want during their off season. I don't know any that will not say "yes."

bfg1 and muchmorethanmuscle both have valid points. To reconcile the two, it's not so much a loss of muscle strength as much as a loss of the energy resources to achieve and maintain your expected level of strength when lifting heavy weights.

Your muscles will switch to the ATP-producing pathway that is the most efficient for a given type of exercise. In the case of sprinting, you'll have more glycolytic ATP (pyruvate only) than that produced by oxidative phosphorylation (most ATP produced using oxygen) or beta oxidation (using fat) because of how fast the ATP can be produced. For lifting, your muscles will switch to both oxidative phosphorylation and beta oxidation. For heavy lifting your muscles will likely switch entirely to beta oxidation because it requires less oxygen to produce ATP. Even though less ATP is produced than with ox-phos, you are saving oxygen so that you can prolong ATP production. If you look at the numbers closely, you don't really save that much oxygen and you're probably not going to be lifting long enough for it to matter. If you had a choice you'd probably stick with ox-phos, but I guess that's not how we evolved. So, when you cut out most of the fat from your normal diet your muscles will lose the ability to produce their maximal power output. Now, it also takes glucose to break down fat, so you still need a lot of carbs in your diet as well.

On the other hand, in my observations in olympic weightlifing competitions, it's the mid-weight class (64-77kg) with very little body fat that has the most strength in terms of the ratio of how much they lift to how much they weigh. Those who are not competitive in the 77kg weight class move up to the 85kg class but usually do not have a proportional increase in performance. So perhaps you don't need too much accumulated fat to be readily available for your muscles to use? Maintaining a steady and balanced diet throughout the year is probably much better physiologically and mentally than gorging yourself in the off season and starving before competitions.

muchmorethanmuscle saidI could try and look for studies that support how maintaining a positive caloric diet, which eventually leads to to extra body fat, is related to having more strength in the gym. It's not my assumption, it's my observation. And not only of myself but of other guys in the gym as well.
If this weren't the case then most powerlifters wouldn't look the way they do, which is basically on the fat and bulky side. Even competitive bodybuilders allow themselves to get fat and engorge a bit, in the off season, in order to help maintain a more anabolic state for growth. This is related not only to making sure muscle cells are well fed but this supports an increase in strength as well.
The only athletes that toy with calories in this way seem to be bodybuilders. Ask any one of them if they feel weaker during contest preparation and stronger when they can eat what they want during their off season. I don't know any that will not say "yes."

Yuo are not comparing like with like here and are assuming the benefit. Without doubt being in excess calorie state allows you to build more muscle but it does not mean the same as "when depleting that fat and going into a deficit then there strength will reduce".

They would be able to continue to lift the same but their progression in weights would decrease. BUT and this is a big butt. Even if they were to remain big the same would apply if they increased the intensity and duration of their exercise to massively exceed their current calorie supply.

Body builders have discipline thats far greater than most of us on here can employ due to lifestyle other commitments and indeed personal preference. They are prepared to sacrifice the additional pounds for the potential growth that can occur, why? Because they know that its the inches difference and the quality of definition that counts in competition. They are also rigorously disciplined when it comes to the cut again a vast difference to most.

besides which muscle size is not a direct correlation to strength and ability in fact it is a poor marker yuo only have to look at the strength and abilities of sportsmen like those enagaged in Martial Arts to see that

Wow, I just read through a lot of this thread, and read the markallen heart rate article. Well, I kinda skipped the middle about warmups and cooldowns cuz that was a little too much detail (and plus I tend to tune out when Boarder posts cuz he never knows what he's talking about, haha j/k ;).

I'm psyched to really start burning fat, making sure my HR isn't going too high. I _just_ started using an HR monitor and did the whole 220-age*.65 or whatever and saw that my HR jumps all over the place, especially if I'm running in hilly places. I guess even surfaces or treadmill is the best way to control this, though its hard for me to be a good boy and do the same thing for 30 min. straight.