questions about cardio training (frequences, intensity, etc...)

"Hueyduck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi everyone,

I just bought a device to measure my heart rate monitor, and I find it

<snip>

Quoted message said:

- The instruction manual of my monitor says that in orderto use fat, you
need to be between 60 and 70 bpm.

It says 60 and 70 *PERCENT* of your max heartrate, not bpm :-) HUGE diff :P

Peace,
Pen
--
Pawbreakers - The Candy for Cats!
http://www.pawbreakers.com

Penelope Baker said:

Quoted message said:

- The instruction manual of my monitor says that in orderto use fat, you
need to be between 60 and 70 bpm.

It says 60 and 70 *PERCENT* of your max heartrate, not bpm :-) HUGE diff :P

Sure. I absolutely understood that . I just made a mistake typing the
message.
Actually, I know that the best rate to lose fat is 113 to 132 bpm for me.

Thanks anyway for pointing this mistyping :-)

Huey

Hueyduck <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Hi everyone,

I just bought a device to measure my heart rate monitor, and I find it
so much fun to be able to see precisely how effective my activity is.
Anyway, I have some questions for the cardiotraining specialists out there:

- for those who took the time (and spent the money) to check their
*real* maximal heart rate, did you find a big difference between the
results and the theoric "220-age" number ?

YES

Quoted message said:

- The instruction manual of my monitor says that in orderto use fat, you
need to be between 60 and 70 bpm. They say it is a light to moderate
effort. Is there any real proportion between heart rate beating and
calorie burned ? I guess so but it's not so obvious to me.

you burn a higher PERCENTAGE of fat to glucose at that level, but at
higher intensities you burn more overall calories.

Quoted message said:

Thanks for your answers and have a nice evening.

Huey

============================================
Huey / started LC October 27th 2002
(1.74 m) 5ft 8 inch tall
lbs : 234 / 186 / 147 (-47) mini-goal : 182 lbs by August 20th 2004
kg : 106.4 / 84.9 / 67 (-21) mini-goal : 83 kg by August 20th 2004
===========================================

billydee said:

Quoted message said:

- for those who took the time (and spent the money) to check their
*real* maximal heart rate, did you find a big difference between the
results and the theoric "220-age" number ?

YES

Thanks for your answer. Could you give us number. Like the theoric
number and the real thing after having been to the doc.

Thanks again.

Huey

"billydee" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

you burn a higher PERCENTAGE of fat to glucose at that level, but at
higher intensities you burn more overall calories.

That's right. I read a good post from Lyle MacDonald once that addressed
this subject. Maybe Huey could find it by doing a Google search. At any
rate, he pretty much shot out of the water the concept of exercising at
certain rates in order to "burn more fat".

True that you burn different proportions of fat to glucose depending on
various factors including exercise intensity and duration, but the bottom
line is to use up energy (calories) via any permutation of exercise in order
to hopefully create or increase a negative calorie balance. That's what
actually causes fat loss over a period of days, weeks etc. In other words,
burn more calories and you'll lose more fat, assuming food intake stays the
same.

Besides which, if you're doing a ketogenic low-carb diet, you don't have all
that much stored glucose anyhow and will be burning mostly fat regardless of
intensity.

HG

Hueyduck <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

billydee said:

Quoted message said:

- for those who took the time (and spent the money) to check their
*real* maximal heart rate, did you find a big difference between the
results and the theoric "220-age" number ?

YES

Thanks for your answer. Could you give us number. Like the theoric
number and the real thing after having been to the doc.

Thanks again.

Huey

My actual max HR is about 200 determined through a stress test at the
drs office. My predicted using 220-age is 181. If you do regular
cardio there is no reason you have to lose a beat a year, though it
eventually will decrease--no stopping the aging process entirely. The
220-age thing was designed for sedentary individuals and is more
accurate for those that eat bon-bons on the couch than those who
engage in regular activity.

"Hannah Gruen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"billydee" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

you burn a higher PERCENTAGE of fat to glucose at that level, but at
higher intensities you burn more overall calories.

That's right. I read a good post from Lyle MacDonald once that addressed
this subject. Maybe Huey could find it by doing a Google search. At any
rate, he pretty much shot out of the water the concept of exercising at
certain rates in order to "burn more fat".

True that you burn different proportions of fat to glucose depending on
various factors including exercise intensity and duration, but the bottom
line is to use up energy (calories) via any permutation of exercise in order
to hopefully create or increase a negative calorie balance. That's what
actually causes fat loss over a period of days, weeks etc. In other words,
burn more calories and you'll lose more fat, assuming food intake stays the
same.

Besides which, if you're doing a ketogenic low-carb diet, you don't have all
that much stored glucose anyhow and will be burning mostly fat regardless of
intensity.

HG

At higher intensities you have to be careful of
overtraining--especially on a ketogenic diet. Sometimes it is best to
back off the intensity. You have to listen to your body. It's not
always best to go as hard as you can all the time.

billydee said:

Hueyduck <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

billydee said:

>- for those who took the time (and spent the money) to check their
>*real* maximal heart rate, did you find a big difference between the
>results and the theoric "220-age" number ?

YES

Thanks for your answer. Could you give us number. Like the theoric
number and the real thing after having been to the doc.

Thanks again.

Huey

My actual max HR is about 200 determined through a stress test at the
drs office. My predicted using 220-age is 181. If you do regular
cardio there is no reason you have to lose a beat a year, though it
eventually will decrease--no stopping the aging process entirely. The
220-age thing was designed for sedentary individuals and is more
accurate for those that eat bon-bons on the couch than those who
engage in regular activity.

I think it's an individual thing. My calculated max HR is 180, and that's
about what my max HR is according to my HR monitor. But my max HR has
been 180 for a while now.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

"billydee" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

At higher intensities you have to be careful of
overtraining--especially on a ketogenic diet. Sometimes it is best to
back off the intensity. You have to listen to your body. It's not
always best to go as hard as you can all the time.

Good point. I'm not sure whether I agree this is more true for a person who
is long-term adapted to a ketogenic diet, but you could be right. I totally
agree about the "listening to your body" thing. I think it's the most
important thing I've learned over the years, in terms of both diet and
exercise.

've gotten myself into an overtrained state more than a few times and it's
really counterproductive in the long run. I don't think most casual
exercisers are aware of it when they get there. In fact, I'd never really
heard of it nor was I aware of the symptoms. Even after hearing about it, I
assumed it would apply only to "serious" athletes, not just some middleaged
lady who came home from work and ran too many miles, too often.

HG

Hannah Gruen said:

"billydee" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

At higher intensities you have to be careful of
overtraining--especially on a ketogenic diet. Sometimes it is best to
back off the intensity. You have to listen to your body. It's not
always best to go as hard as you can all the time.

Good point. I'm not sure whether I agree this is more true for a person
who
is long-term adapted to a ketogenic diet, but you could be right. I
totally
agree about the "listening to your body" thing. I think it's the most
important thing I've learned over the years, in terms of both diet and
exercise.

've gotten myself into an overtrained state more than a few times and
it's
really counterproductive in the long run. I don't think most casual
exercisers are aware of it when they get there. In fact, I'd never really
heard of it nor was I aware of the symptoms. Even after hearing about
it, I
assumed it would apply only to "serious" athletes, not just some
middleaged
lady who came home from work and ran too many miles, too often.

HG

It would be great if there was a simple test for overtraining.
Supposedly, you can take your heart rate in the morning as soon as you
wake. If your resting HR is several beats above what it is normally, you
might be overtrained (or had one too many beers!). However, even this
isn't that reliable, supposedly. My problem is that I have to get up so
quickly to get dressed and get outside, that I always forget to take my HR.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Hueyduck wrote:
|| Hi everyone,
||
|| I just bought a device to measure my heart rate monitor, and I find
|| it
|| so much fun to be able to see precisely how effective my activity is.
|| Anyway, I have some questions for the cardiotraining specialists out
|| there:
||
|| - for those who took the time (and spent the money) to check their
|| *real* maximal heart rate, did you find a big difference between the
|| results and the theoric "220-age" number ?

I've found it to be pretty close for me, but others frequently find
otherwise.

||
|| - The instruction manual of my monitor says that in orderto use fat,
|| you need to be between 60 and 70 bpm. They say it is a light to
|| moderate effort. Is there any real proportion between heart rate
|| beating and calorie burned ? I guess so but it's not so obvious to
|| me.

This old notion has been challenged a lot in recent times. If you train in
the range of 60 to 70%, you may indeed burn more fat, but you don't expend
that much energy. On the other hand, if you mix really hard intervals of
training with low intervals, you can end up burning more energy in the same
amount of time. In addition, according to the theory, you can ramp up your
body's use of energy for a longer period of time after the exercise. So, if
you do the latter (called high-intensity interval training, or HIIT) you can
get (so the theory goes) up to 9 times more fat burned. But rather than
reading my 2-minute description, do some reading of your own:

http://www.wsu.edu/~strength/hiit.htm
http://www.stumptuous.com/cardio.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~strength/bodycomp.htm
http://www.cbass.com/FATBURN.HTM

and if you try it, please report back on your progress.

||
|| Thanks for your answers and have a nice evening.
||
||
|| Huey
||
|| ============================================
|| Huey / started LC October 27th 2002
|| (1.74 m) 5ft 8 inch tall
|| lbs : 234 / 186 / 147 (-47) mini-goal : 182 lbs by August 20th 2004
|| kg : 106.4 / 84.9 / 67 (-21) mini-goal : 83 kg by August 20th 2004
|| ===========================================