Target Heart Rate???
gamboolman
I have no idea what a target heart rate is or should be. I am
jogging to lose weight and get fitter. I would appreciate all advise
in how to utilize the heart monitor effectively. I am jogging 5 miles
in one hour usually 6 days per week.
Thanks in advance!
Steve Freides
monitor and go out for a run that feels easy, a pace at which you could
carry on a conversation with a running partner. (If you run by
yourself, talk to yourself to see how feels - no kidding.) That's
probably a good rate for you, whatever it is.
There are lots of formulas out there based on one's age but I, for one,
don't seem to fit them terribly well. My relaxed running pace is about
150 beats/minute and I'm 46 years old and 150 lbs. For many people this
number is lower, I know.
Once you're established a zone for yourself, try to keep your efforts
mostly in that zone. If you want to do speed/interval work, then your
heart rate will be faster but you should buy yourself a book on heart
rate monitor training at that time.
-S-
The Nuclear Marine
You are 42 in decent shape, so you can enjoy the max potential this
useful device offers.
I use a Timex Ironman, which sets you at Aerobic range of 124-141. You
can also use the formula 180-age for max aerobic range (138 in your
case) to 180-2xAge for min aerobic range (96 for you). I say go with the
124-141 as you have the training.
What all this means is that if you warm up in 10 mins to your aerobic
range then run only up to your max range for 30-45 mins then allow for a
5 min. cool down you'll be burning mad fat cells. Ok, you're running
slow if not walking (your case might be an exception as you keep a 5mph
pace the whole hour so you might find you have to speed up). This is
common for people who just start out. In 2-4 weeks if you keep this
pace though you'll notice a significant boost in your energy levels if
not a smaller waistline. If it beeps, slow down (or up if you're being
a turtle), consider it an electronic motivator/coach.
"It's too freaking slow Nuke, I can run faster than this!" Yes, but
then you are burning sugars (glycogen) instead of fat cells. Healthy
also, but it does not accomplish your weight loss goals. To improve
your speed, you have to look in concepts such as Intervals (for your
anaerobic and VO2 levels) plus weight training. Don't worry about it
yet, get into the habit of running aerobically. You will get the
maximum potential out of your 6 hours/week without the drain on your
system then worry about ways to maximize your work outs even more
(supplements, diet, technique, etc.).
Hope it helps. But remember, people in Newsgroups are not
professionals, they just pretend to be every now and again. I myself
fix electronics and don't run for a living
Nuke
Sam
energy than you are consuming.
"The Nuclear Marine" <nuke-marine@*remove*cox.net> wrote in message
news:8Csi8.1570$5S6.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
Peter Flaxman
Thanks
"The Nuclear Marine" <nuke-marine@*remove*cox.net> wrote in message
news:8Csi8.1570$5S6.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
>
Dan
by Edmund R. Burke
ISBN 0-88011-770-2
"Peter Flaxman" <pfla...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mbvi8.54181$Ci6.12...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
The Nuclear Marine
Sam wrote:
>
> Nuke, it does not matter what you "burn" as long as you are expending more
> energy than you are consuming.
>
Gotta disagree with you same. If you are working out anaerobically all
the time, yes you burn in 30 minutes what I would burn in 45 minutes.
I, however, might end the session fully refreshed and ready to tackle
the day (I work out in the morning burning about 1000 calories) whereas
you might feel sore and ready for a nap. The next day, your body is
still recovering from your workout so would need less (a lite day) to be
at the same level of wear whereas mine is ready for the same level of
exercise.
As for burning, Compare gas to coal. Coal will need gas to start, but
then burns steady for a long time afterwards. Gas can start on its own,
burns hot, but will not last long. Your fat cells are like coal, much
better to use to cook. Gas is like your sugars, much better for quick
time energy and start-ups. Save your gas for when you really need and
build up on burning coal as much as possible. More efficient that way.
Your heart is your speedometer. Would you drive a car not knowing how
fast you are going? Knowing what levels you can accomplish at what
heart rate makes you an efficient machine. Your exercise and races
become the best because you are not listening to your ego but to your
body now.
Nuke
--
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the
genuine precepts of Jesus himself." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to
Benjamin Rush-1803
"Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and
first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus." Thomas Jefferson in a
letter to William Short-1820
The Nuclear Marine
One other thing gambool, what I gave you as levels in the previous post
were based solely on numbers and not on you as an individual. You might
want to look into the Kevkorian curve to get the most accurate list of
heart rate levels for you.
How it works:
1. find your resting heart rate-wear your heart monitor first thing you
wake up, lay down for five minutes and have someone monitor your heart
for the lowest number that pops up. This is your RESTING HEART RATE
(your heart with the minimum amount of strain) ex. 60 BPM.
2. Do 30 sec max intervals (running as hard as you can for 30 sec.) and
look for you highest heart rate that pops up. This is your bodies MAX
HEART RATE. If at later times you see a higher number, then you have a
new Max heart rate. ex. 185 BPM
3. Calculate. At 100% should be your max heart rate. You want to
exercise at 70% and no higher daily (your recovery/aerobic zone). For
this take your Max-Minimum(ex. 185-60=125), Multiply by .70(ex. 125 x
.70=87.5), then add your Minimum to that (ex. 87.5+60=147.5 or 148).
Of course, since you want to know what you can do at levels above 70%,
just replace .70 with the percentage you want to test out. Say you want
to see how well you run the 5k at 90%, just calculate (173 in the
example) and run your 5k without ever going over that number to see how
you feel at the end. Interval training will help improve what you can
accomplish at higher heart rates, but the training should be limited
with 85-90% of your running being aerobic.
Also, although you max heart rate does not change much (fairly steady)
your resting heart rate will definately lower as you improve (world
class athletes can go below 40 BPM) so you may want to measure that once
a month and redo your numbers if it changes more that 5-10 BPM.
A good website with an automatic calculator and explanations of zones is
http://home.connectnet.com/eoinf/heartrate.html
Hope this helps,
Nuke
-------
Clyde
> One other thing gambool, what I gave you as levels in the previous post
> were based solely on numbers and not on you as an individual. You might
> want to look into the Kevkorian curve to get the most accurate list of
> heart rate levels for you.
Umm, I *really* don't think you should recommend the Kervorkian method!
The Karvonen method OTOH does have some uses.
> Also, although you max heart rate does not change much (fairly steady)
> your resting heart rate will definately lower as you improve (world
> class athletes can go below 40 BPM) so you may want to measure that once
> a month and redo your numbers if it changes more that 5-10 BPM.
Note that if you rely on Karvonen, you are penalized for improved
fitness. Play with the numbers and see what happens when your RHR
decreases.
Sam
research to support that substrate utilization makes a difference in fat
loss. I can point you to several studies along with some exercise
physiology texts that destroy the myth of "fat burning". Granted, you are
correct in terms of recovery, but that was not the issue. Also, someone
just beginning should hold off on high intensity training until a base is
established, but that is a training issue.
"The Nuclear Marine" <nuke-marine@*remove*cox.net> wrote in message
news:t4Ni8.12045$5S6.5...@news2.west.cox.net...
The Nuclear Marine
Sam wrote:
>
> Your knowledge of exercise physiology is poor.
True, but the fact I can run 5 miles in 35 minutes (well, that was 3
months ago) and not be able to continue, yet run slowly at 6-7/hour now
and keep on running suggests for me that I was burning my sugars in the
first run. I stated in another post I fix electronics for a living, not
study runners. But I am basing my statements on 8 years experience with
a wide range of military PT combined with my recent knowledge of a
heart-rate monitor.
> There is no substantial research to support that substrate utilization > makes a difference in fat loss. I can point you to several studies > along with some exercise physiology texts that destroy the myth of "fat > burning".
Please do so, knowledge is never frowned upon by myself.
> Granted, you are correct in terms of recovery, but that was not the > issue. Also, someone just beginning should hold off on high intensity > training until a base is established, but that is a training issue.
>
Clydsdale stated he runs five miles in an hours time for 6 days a week,
this did not seem like a beginner to me. Nor would I call working below
70% your heart rate for an hour high intensity. But then YMMV. Perhaps
you would be kind as to answer his post to correct my inaccuracies.
gentolm
how long have you been with a heart monitor ,, just finished a marathon
with one ,,, i have run faster and i have run slower but never as much
consistency (165-170HB) the whole race !!!BTU Josh is the local MD
poster though i have not seen him lately=)
plodzilla
gentolm
how long have you been with a heart monitor ,, just finished a marathon
with one ,,, i have run faster and i have run slower but never as much
consistency (165-170HB) the whole race !!!BTU Josh is the local MD
poster though i have not seen him lately=)
plodzilla
The Nuclear Marine
gentolm wrote:
>
> Hey Nuke
> how long have you been with a heart monitor ,, just finished a marathon
> with one ,,, i have run faster and i have run slower but never as much
> consistency (165-170HB) the whole race !!!BTU Josh is the local MD
> poster though i have not seen him lately=)
> plodzilla
>
I haven't been using a monitor for long, but the results are the most
visible in the last month than in the last 12 years of physical training
(Highschool, USMC and Navy) without one. Turns out I've been
supercharging my anaerobic system all that time so now I can steadily
build my aerobic system now. As I was already at a high level, building
back up to it doesn't take as long.
I've only used a monitor for one race (my only race :^) with odd results
but it was the farthest I have ever run in a set run and I definately
will use it again for a half-marathon next month.
So what was the result of your run? Did you follow a set plan (ie
80%-10 miles, 85%-8 miles, 90%-5 miles, 95%-3 miles) or just set HR the
whole way? Also, do you run for time or distance when training?
Nuke
--
gentolm
(1)my total time was 4:36
(2) my set HR was 165 the entire race , my next plan will be 165-170HR
(3)in training , depending on the day, 5 minutes at 160 and 1 minute at
170 for 7 miles in 1 hour,I use to only do 6 miles in 1 hour. Now i will
train 5 minutes at 165 and 1 minute a 175 for 7-8 miles. On my slow days
160-165 for 10 miles . On my hard days 1 mile at 165 and 1 mile at 175
for 8 miles. I have found out that running with most men that were in
the military they run far above the their threshold and slowing them
down is like pulling teeth. Due to the K formula most THRZ are about 150
but most insist on running at 180 ... Feet hurt , knees hurt , legs hurt
, I try to tell them go out slower but most insist that they know about
running due to their background then they pull up with an injury.
Sometimes i could just scream.Do you keep a running log. BTW do you take
your blood pressure AND pulse in the morning. It is a good way to track
over training . If your pulse and blood pressure goes up with
sleeplessness while sleeping more ( could be other things) but shows as
overtrainging. Also have you heard you throw with your legs but you run
with your arms, Good arm strength is a must , JUst my 2 cents=))
plodzilla
gentolm
read your other post i agree , seems a little high on your percent rate
,,, I think that after 70% you go into threshold (does depend on fitness
level) and maintain that percent on a marathon will be difficult ,,, BTW
i read, i think it was OZ ,going 30 secs faster in the beginning of a
race will result in 30 minute slower at the end .. i go 15-30 secs
slower till mile 3 Then hit like 165 in the middle , then 170-175 at the
end . This will change due to length of race=))
plodzilla