# Heart Rate?



## knottyknicky (May 15, 2011)

I just joined a gym (hooray!) and am a little confused about the importance of heart rate 'zones' for different kinds of training. I'm around 285, so I'm starting slow, mostly just doing the treadmill or elliptical for 30 minutes and then doing a few weights here and there. My focus isn't necessarily to lose weight, but I would like to shape my body overall, and that will most likely include some degree of weight loss. 

My question is, for anyone who knows, what should my target heart rate be? I've done the calculators online (my max is 199), which gives me an idea, but I'm a little confused. I just got back from the gym and walking at just under 3.0 mph, which broke a sweat but definitely didn't leave me breathless. My hear rate was around 139 while at this pace, which according to the little chart do-dad I found online, puts me in a cardio zone rather than a 'fat burning' zone? Do you burn less the higher your heart rate is? Will I miss the benefits I'm looking for, like lower blood pressure, etc, that I would get with a lower heart rate? Maybe I should ignore heart rate altogether and just go by how I feel. At 139 I feel like Im working but have the gusto to jog for a minute at a time, which bumped me up to around 150 and then dropped back down to 140ish. 

I know there are some workout buffs on here, so I'm hoping for a little insight  Thanks!


----------



## Jon Blaze (May 15, 2011)

I would say I know the answer, but there's actually two viewpoints on this. 

The first one is that yes:

Fat burning is done at a moderate percentage of your max heart rate (60-70%). It's believed that here you have the best of both worlds. Your body targets the fat more, and muscle isn't lost from cardio that is too intense. 

The other is that no: You burn the most calories and fat with work that requires a higher heart rate to maintain than that, and because a lot of people are focused on hitting 60-70%, they aren't reaching their goals of whatever (Weight loss, fat loss, etc...)

The big thing here is what burns more fat. More intensity always burns more calories per the same period time in comparison, but whether or not that means more fat burned is still a big ?


My view:

First of all, You are on the right path. In the beginning of a fitness program, you should never start at full blast or anything near it. It's really dangerous to. Always start slow, and then gradually rise to a point where you feel comfortable. Then for yourself: Experiment with what works for you. No one has the same goals, so while you can have an idea where a person may be best at based on who they are, one can't really know 100% what is most practical for another person.


If you are starting out and capping at 60-70% ("Fat burning" zone), I would recommend that at the very most: Bump up to the next zone (70-80%) ONLY if you feel comfortable with the fat burning zone. Then start experimenting with various intensities. Don't just weigh how much of your goal is me either. A higher zone may mean more calories or fat burned, but how do you feel afterwards? Refreshed? Sluggish? How about your joints? These are all things to consider.


----------



## knottyknicky (May 15, 2011)

Thanks Jon, I was hoping you'd chime in. 

After today I felt fantastic. I was surprised to see that my heart rate was as high as it was because I didn't really feel like I was pushing myself that hard. I felt like if I pushed myself much harder, I'd be out of breath, but while I was around 140 I felt like I was just walking hard enough to get something out of it. If I slowed down, I got bored and felt like I wasn't doing enough, if that makes sense. I feel like around 3.0 is a brisk enough walk that I'm doing something, but if I'm negating the positive benefits by pushing myself too hard right now, I'll slow down. 

I felt a little tired immediately afterwards, but in that good way, like I worked hard and accomplished something, not exhausted, sore, or faint. I worked up a respectable sweat, at least. I came home, took a shower, made dinner, and sitting here now I'm feeling very calm (which is great because I deal with mild anxiety sometimes), and like I'll sleep well tonight when I'm ready for bed. In short, I feel fantastic and am eager to return tomorrow to go again. If I should slow down for a while though, to keep my HR around 60 instead of 70 percent, I'm okay with that.

Since I've honestly never stuck with a program long enough to see any major results, I'm wondering how long it will take me to build up to more intense exercise without sending my HR through the roof. You see folks on shows like the biggest loser and you really wonder where their heart rates are.


----------



## Jon Blaze (May 15, 2011)

That's one of the many reasons why I don't watch the biggest loser. Exercise that intense would be risky for me. Doing that to someone who may not have a moderate to high fitness level (Regardless of size) is just ridiculous. Beginners should not be anywhere near it. It's dangerous from the get go. I'm surprised there haven't been any deaths or grave injuries on that show. 

60-70 is just that range of that view point. If you can stay on 70%, there is really nothing wrong with that. It's all about how you feel. An even bigger question is: How easy was it to maintain your target rate for thirty minutes?

It sounds like you had a perfect balance. You felt you did a decent amount of work, and while you felt tired initially, you felt refreshed eventually. See how you feel in a week or two. If it's getting easier, then try upping it to 3.5. Check your heart rate through it all.


----------



## knottyknicky (May 15, 2011)

Dont get me wrong, I feel the same way about shows like the Biggest Loser. I'm 'fairly' fit for my size, and after seeing how quickly my heart rate gets up after just warming up, it really makes me wonder whats going on with those contestants and how it could possibly be safe for them to push themselves so hard. Even more frustrating are the not so subtle hints from others who think that if a few select people on TV can do it, why can't I/all fat people do it? 

I got up to around 138 fairly quickly and as long as I maintained my pace, I stayed there. My HR didn't fluctuate or continue to rise, or if it did it was only by 2 beats or so. The only major upswing I saw was when I turned the machine up past 4 or so and started to jog for a minute, partially to see how out of shape I was, and partially to see what my HR would do. It came right down after I slowed down though, and I did slow down to a snails pace to make sure I recovered okay, and then went back up to my usual 2.8 pace. I'd be curious to know what my heart rate was a few days ago when I worked with the trainer. We didn't do cardio, but we did a lot of weights that were definitely bringing my heart rate up. He didn't mention anything about the subject at all, but why would he give me free info when he's about to go in for the sales pitch?


----------



## lypeaches (May 17, 2011)

I've read a couple different things lately that indicate for straight cardiovascular health, it is better to do short, intense spurts of exercise than it is do slow and steady exercise. 

Here's one of the articles...sorry couldn't remember where I saw the other one.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110405194101.htm

Kind of makes sense to me... considering that the heart is a muscle, and thinking of how people weight train. I find it somewhat comforting though, to know I'm getting similar cardiovascular benefits from 15 minutes of intense exercise as from a longer, lower key workout. Good for busy days.

PS. note that these results were just for cardiovascular health. Nothing noted about calorie burning/weight loss


----------

