PDA

View Full Version : Ideal heart rate......?



dan the man 67
11-27-2007, 12:23 PM
Okay, I've taken the step to get back into shape by getting onto my eliptical trainer again.

What is the ideal heart rate for burning fat? I remmeber hearing a while back, some formula like 220 minus age, etc, etc. Can anyone help me out?

leejames1
11-28-2007, 09:23 AM
i always thought the ideal heart rate for burning fat is between the 150 and 180bpm mark i try to keep mine at about 180 185 when im doing cardio but thats hard work normally im more around the 170 mark

dan the man 67
11-28-2007, 10:09 AM
i always thought the ideal heart rate for burning fat is between the 150 and 180bpm mark i try to keep mine at about 180 185 when im doing cardio but thats hard work normally im more around the 170 mark

I know it varies with age. I found out it is 220 minus your age. Then target rate will be between 75% - 85% of whatever that number is.

Ramma
11-28-2007, 02:54 PM
This should answer all your questions, but let me know if you have any more.

http://www.dietandfitnessresources.co.uk/fitness_exercise/heart_rate_chart_m.htm

dan the man 67
11-29-2007, 05:07 PM
This should answer all your questions, but let me know if you have any more.

http://www.dietandfitnessresources.co.uk/fitness_exercise/heart_rate_chart_m.htm

Hmmmmm, that chart says weight loss rate should be 60 - 70% of max heart rate.............I was told it should be between 75 - 85%.

dan the man 67
12-04-2007, 10:06 AM
So I did 3 days last week on my eliptical, 30 minutes keeping my heart rate at about 150 on average. Plan to do it 4 times this week, and continue at 4 times per week.

Frustrating part though is I have not lost any weight. I am not super strict in my diet, but I really don't eat a lot of crap at all, except some on the weekends. I am 6'-2", and weigh just under 220. Ideally, I'd like to get down to 200, 190 at the most. Thing I hate the most is having a size 40 waist. It used to be 32 in college.

I am very results-driven.............if I don't see anything soon, I'll be pretty disheartened.

TN94z
12-20-2007, 03:56 PM
One big thing I have always been told is not to use s scale. Always take measurements and pictures.

dan the man 67
01-22-2008, 11:48 AM
Here's a question for any exercise experts;

If I am exercising with the goal of keeping my heart rate in my maximum fat-burning target zone, does it make any difference what the actual exercise is? Someone told me that the best cardio exercise is the good 'ol treadmill, but I am thinking that as long as the heart rate is where it should be, then it doesn't matter how you get it there, be it bike, elliptical, or whatever.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Jon-E-Law
01-23-2008, 09:55 AM
^^ no it doesnt matter and all the machines have the target heart rate on them.I personnally suggest swimming. 2 laps at max effort=20 min on the tredmill at 4.5. Honestly i think the eliptical is for people with bad knees or backs if you can hit the tredmill hard or swim do it!:grinsmile1:


Edit: I have a great diet. Iv lost about 16 pounds in a week and a half. Ill type it up if your interested..

puhalu
01-23-2008, 02:06 PM
I'm well-versed in this stuff. I used to run a rehab program (cardiac and physical), managed a fitness center, and trained pro athletes (my advice is solid, guaranteed).
Here's the skinny:


Hmmmmm, that chart says weight loss rate should be 60 - 70% of max heart rate.............I was told it should be between 75 - 85%.

This is debatable and varies among different people. If you're just starting an exercise routine, the most important thing right now is to find a program you'll stick with (5 X per week 30 minutes minimum is ideal). You can adjust the duration/intensity after a few weeks.


So I did 3 days last week on my eliptical, 30 minutes keeping my heart rate at about 150 on average. Plan to do it 4 times this week, and continue at 4 times per week.

Frustrating part though is I have not lost any weight. I am not super strict in my diet, but I really don't eat a lot of crap at all, except some on the weekends. I am 6'-2", and weigh just under 220. Ideally, I'd like to get down to 200, 190 at the most. Thing I hate the most is having a size 40 waist. It used to be 32 in college.

I am very results-driven.............if I don't see anything soon, I'll be pretty disheartened.

1 week is WAY too soon to see any results. If you want to lose weight the right way, you won't notice any significant change for AT LEAST a month. Think about it this way: you didn't put on all the weight in 1 week, or even 1 month, right?
Your body just doesn't store or metabolize fat in large quantities overnight.

I would suggest that you focus on the the routine, not the results right now.


Here's a question for any exercise experts;

If I am exercising with the goal of keeping my heart rate in my maximum fat-burning target zone, does it make any difference what the actual exercise is? Someone told me that the best cardio exercise is the good 'ol treadmill, but I am thinking that as long as the heart rate is where it should be, then it doesn't matter how you get it there, be it bike, elliptical, or whatever.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Exercise type most definitely makes a huge difference as far as fat metabolism. Weight-bearing exercise is more effective (walking/running is best, swimming/cycling are least effective). Your body works harder to counteract gravity on a treadmill. Buoyancy in a pool and a saddle on a bike are crutches that support some of your weight. Ellipticals can be OK, but only if used properly (ie no leaning on the handles). Also, you cannot discount the vertical component of running. It takes energy to leave earth with every step. This is the best exercise.

You should also consider some weight training. If you increase muscle mass your basal metabolism will increase quite a bit because your body is nourishing that tissue 24/7. You don't have to train like a body builder to get the benefits. Even moderate resistance training will help a lot (ie push ups, sit ups, etc in the basement).

If you have more Q's, I'd be glad to answer here or by PM

Jon-E-Law
01-24-2008, 04:36 PM
This is debatable and varies among different people. If you're just starting an exercise routine, the most important thing right now is to find a program you'll stick with (5 X per week 30 minutes minimum is ideal). You can adjust the duration/intensity after a few weeks.

Definatly debatable


1 week is WAY too soon to see any results. If you want to lose weight the right way, you won't notice any significant change for AT LEAST a month. Think about it this way: you didn't put on all the weight in 1 week, or even 1 month, right?
Your body just doesn't store or metabolize fat in large quantities overnight.

You should definatly be able to see results in a week. That is if you are eating and trainingg correctly.




Exercise type most definitely makes a huge difference as far as fat metabolism. Weight-bearing exercise is more effective (walking/running is best, swimming/cycling are least effective).

This is absolutly wrong. Swimming "correctly" meaning useing the right form is the most effective calorie burner out there.

Swimming:
At a speed of 1:15 per 100 yards, youíre likely burning between 15 and 25 kcals per minute of actual swimming time. Therefore, one hour at this intensity would burn roughly 900-1500 kcals. These values confirm that swimming is one of the best all around exercises available, due to the large number of muscle groups heavily involved.

Running:
Running at 8:00 per mile will generally use 11-20 kcals per minute, while a speed of 6:00 per mile (fast!) will use 14-25 kcals per minute. So an hour at 8:00 per mile garners a consumption of 660-1200 kcals, while an hour at 6:00 per mile uses between 840 and 1500 kcals. Values are slightly lower than those for swimming since youíre not using your upper body muscles to the same degree as while swimming.

Cycling:
At 10 miles per hour, you could expect to use anywhere between 6 and 10 kcals per minute, while at 20 miles per hour you may see a consumption of 15-20 kcals per minute. So for an hour of cycling, this ranges from 360 to 600 kcals at the lower intensity, to 900-1200 kcals at the higher intensity.





You should also consider some weight training. If you increase muscle mass your basal metabolism will increase quite a bit because your body is nourishing that tissue 24/7. You don't have to train like a body builder to get the benefits. Even moderate resistance training will help a lot (ie push ups, sit ups, etc in the basement).

This is true and will also help with a result reliant personalty. Try and burn more cals through out the day than you eat. A specified diet will make it harder for you to eat the wrong thing. For example saying that you are just eating clean allows for relapse like eating ice cream just this once. Go to GNC and get a metabolism booster also eat 6 times a day this also helps boost your matabalism. And have a multivitamin to make sre you are getting the prober nutriants. The diet is still up for grabs and is proven. Im on it right now!!!!!!

puhalu
01-25-2008, 02:20 PM
Dan the Man-
Here's a short article from the American College of Sports Medicine:

http://www.acsm.org/Content/ContentFolders/Publications/CurrentComment/2002/energy071002.pdf

I would have brought the whole thing over, but it's a pdf.

Anyway, it parallels my original post.

Law man-
I agree that swimming is great exercise, it's just not as good as weight-bearing exercise (read the article for more specific info).

I don't agree that your diet will be effective long-term. It's physiologically impossible for your body to metabolize 1.6 lbs of fat per day. This assumes, of course, that you're not morbidly obese (which I'm sure you aren't).
The weight you're losing right now is mostly water. If you've gone from a typical American 'hyper-salt' diet to one that's low in sodium, this is a good thing (decreased BP due to less H2O retained).

It's also potentially dangerous to use OTC "metabolism boosters". These are just stimulants. They help you lose weight by giving you a 'buzz' that makes you forget you're hungry. For decades, housewives used diet drinks that had amphetamines in them. Many of them turned into junkies. Those products are now illegal, but others (assumingly safer) have taken their place.

I'd be happy to give you more info if you'd like.