Just Labradors banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I like to use this formula to Calculating my desired heart rate for burning the most fat

1. 220 - (your age) = your maximum heart rate. let's use an example, age 25.
220-25= 195 beats per minute (NEVER exceed this for ANY workout)

2. For fat burning, the ideal heart rate to reach is 60 to 70% of your max.
195 x .6 = 117
195x.7= 136.5 beats per minute

I got myself a this watch to help me.
http://www.heartmonitors.com/polar/polar_f5_heart_rate_monitors.htm

I used the one on the machine a few times then tested it, and notice it was off anywhere from 10-15 BPM..


Here are the top heart rate monitors over $100
http://walking.about.com/cs/heartratemonitor/tp/hrmover100.htm

Top under $100
http://walking.about.com/cs/heartratemonitor/tp/hrm.htm



I used the one on the machine a few times then tested it, and notice it was off anywhere from 10-15 BPM.....you can still go by that, but its not the best option out there.

If you have anyother input please do so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,129 Posts
Of course, if you can exceed your "maximum heart rate," then it's not your maximum heart rate. :) One cool thing about the HRM is that you can test your actual maximum heart rate, so if you don't conform to the formula (and most people don't) you can adjust yourself accordingly. It should be said that only healthy people with a doctor's permission should test their maximum heart rate, as it can kill you if you have an underlying heart condition. The way I used to test it was to warm up, run 6x400 meter repeats on a track (1:1 repeat:interval), rest 2 minutes, and then do 3 minutes all out until I fell in a crumpled, vomiting heap. Good times. ::)

Keep in mind that the "fat burning" zone is only useful in that it tends to be gentle enough to allow you to work out for longer periods of time. Although there is some truth to the idea that you burn a greater percentage of calories from fat at this HR, what really counts is the absolute number of calories burned, not the percentage.

I used to use an HRM religiously when I was training seriously. Now I find that my perceived exertion is just as good. The HRM is a great tool if you tend to push yourself too hard or not hard enough, as it gives you relatively objective feedback.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,129 Posts
karebella said:
that rate of perceived extertion always confuses me.
I use the following levels:

Can exercise and sing at the same time = easy, recovery pace (60-65%)
Can exercise and carry on a conversation but not sing = good for long slow distance or basic training run (65-75%)
Can talk in spurts, but it's getting harder (75-85%). It used to be thought that this was a worthless range for training, as it's too hard for long slow distance, and too easy for real speed or training benefits. It's a fine pace for basic fitness training, though.
Ouch = lactate threshold (90%-ish)
When will this end? = wind sprints/interval training (95%)
Blargh! = maximum heart rate (100%)
 
K

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
hmm, I'm gonna have to try this singing talking thing... i can always find some way to talk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,676 Posts
Yeah, the rate of perceived exertion versus MHR is always a big contention of facts on the WW board. The formula that is mentioned in the OP is a good starting point of figuring out your MHR...however, to get a true reading of your MHR, you have to go through an expensive test...which no one wants to do.

I do the RPE....and am okay with the results.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top