Target Heart Rate

Forums: Sports
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I've just started working out again after a long break, going much more smoothly than I expected (so far, anyway) but there are things I have forgotten about in terms of getting the most out of my workouts.

Specifically, I'm trying to remember/ figure out what my target heartrate should be. I've been doing ~ 135 to ~150 or so range -- I run until it feels out of whack (haven't checked my bpm at this point, I'd guess 150 +) then walk fast until it's down to 135 or so, then start running again. For these last two days (started yesterday, went again today), that's been about 2/3 running and 1/3 walking over about 25 minutes.

I tried to find some calculators online and they give me way different results. For this one:

http://exercise.about.com/cs/fitnesstools/l/bl_THR.htm

I first plugged in my age (35) and the "novice" fitness level since this is my first time back after a while, don't want to overdo it. That gave me a 74-93 bpm range, which seems laughably low to me. (My resting heartbeat is 75 bpm.)

When I chose "beginner" fitness level, the range was 93-111. :-? "Average", 111-148.

Anyway, seems useless.

When I used this calculator:

http://www.merlinofitness.com/sub_pages/articles_tips/sub_pages/fitness_articles/target_heart_rate.php

I got a range of 141 to 163, which seems more reasonable to me.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,115 • Replies: 76

No top replies

Listening.

0 Replies

Soz- Back in the days when I was a gym rat, (You'd never know it now ) the calculation was 220- your age X .85.

Here is another way of determining your target rate.

http://www.sportfit.com/sportfitglossary/energetics_aerobic_krvnn.html

Quote:

This method of calculating your target training zone is based on your maximal heartrate and resting pulse.
The correlation here is more directly linear: 60% to 80% of your Heart Rate Reserve, HRR, equals 60% to 80% of your functional capacity.

To determine your target training zone with HRR, do this:

Take your resting pulse three mornings in a row, just after waking up. Add all of them together, and divide by 3, to get the average.

Let's say your average is 60 beats per minute.

(220) - (your age) = MaxHR

(MaxHR) - (resting heart rate) = HRR

(HRR) x (60% to 80%) = training range %

(training range %) + (resting heart rate) = (your target training zone)

so,

220 - 35 = 185 (MaxHR)

185 - 60 = 125 (HRR)

125 x .6 = 75 (60% training percentage)

125 x .8 = 100 (80% training percentage)

75 + 60 = 135 (target training zone, in beats per minute)
100 + 60 = 160 (target training zone, in beats per minute)

So, your target training zone, in beats per minute is 135 to 160. Of course, to get a 15 second target simply divide each number by 4. That would be 34 to 40 beats over 15 seconds. When counting beats, start with the first beat as zero: ie. 0-1-2-3-4...38-39-40.

0 Replies

Phoenix, I think that's the one in my second link. It seems to be called the "Karvonen formula," and I've seen it a few places.

But thanks!

0 Replies

Soz- 135-160 sounds about right. I would suggest that you aim for the lower number in the beginning, and work up gradually. There are also variations with each person. When I was in my best shape, and much thinner, a high impact aerobics class would bring my heart rate to 168, which is higher than the formula. It ran consistently that way for a number of years, and I was 45 when I started!

0 Replies

So far I've been doing what feels "right", and I just want to be a bit more scientific about it. It looks like what feels right is at least in the right ballpark. 135 is boring to me, but I bet it gets way up there before I quit running. I'll do the bpm at that point next time and see just how high it is, might cut back the upper edge if it's higher than I expected.

Other question I have is how many days a week to do it? I did two in a row, thinking a rest today and then start again tomorrow. I remember a Jane Brody column about the importance of giving your body time to recover between workouts/ do its thing between workouts, but haven't been able to remember a hook to find it...

0 Replies

I used to go three times a week, and spend at least a few hours at the gym each time. If you do more than that, you need to work differently on the in between days. Some people do aerobics on some days, and weight training in between.

I would do a couple of aerobics classes, and a tone class in between on Tuesdays and Thursdays. On Saturdays, I would do one aerobics class and some free weights. Once in awhile, I would take a stretch class, and also did some yoga. Sometimes I would do the stationary bike.

I remember when the gym was fixing the carpeting on the aerobics room, so classes were cancelled. I wanted to see if I could bike through the entire Mahler's 2nd Symphony (on my Walkman). Except for one mad dash to the bathroom in the middle, I did it!!!!

0 Replies

Soz - I believe doing what feels right for your body is more important than going by the charts.

Everyones heart is a different size and the capacity.

For my age, the 60% to 85% translates to 103-147.

However, when I exercise, I can tell you almost exactly what my heart rate is even before checking it.

120 beats for minute is my personal optimum. I can sustain that for 45 minutes, don't feel worn out, am breathing deeply and evenly. In other words, I'm enjoying myself and feeling the benefits.

I prefer exercising at a slower rate, but for a longer time.

I aim for exercising this way 5 times a week, I'll at least do it 4.

Lately I've been varying my routine. I'm thinking of getting a bellydancing video for beginners.

STOP LAUGHING!

I've been doing figure 8's on my own, and let me tell you, it feels great. When I began, it was herky jerky, now is getting smoother, real good toner.

I could never get into yoga, but swaying and the hip motions are relaxing in a way yoga wasn't, but using muscles at the same time.

Have you ever done that?

0 Replies

Cool!

My thing is running. It's what I've always liked, it's whole-body, it gets me fit fastest.

Do you think I need to purposely break that up with something else, or that I can manage the running in certain ways?

When I last worked out regularly it was at a club that always had a wait for the treadmills, and some stupid time limit like 15 minutes or something. So I'd do weights while I waited and in between times at the treadmill (I did 2 15-minute stretches), but only because I didn't want to waste my time siting there waiting for the treadmill to become available.

Weights are BO-RING to me. I'll do 'em if I have to, would prefer not to.

I'd rather not do classes, for a few reasons -- they cost extra, there's the communication issue (I pressed for an interpreter last time I took a class, a spinning class, which was weird and annoying -- there was some talking/ teaching I wanted to get, but then there was a whole lot of her [the terp] just standing there watching me get sweaty -- I didn't like it), and there is the scheduling issue (I like being flexible).

At this place, especially the hours I go, treadmills are wide-open -- a ton of treadmills and maybe 1/2 in use, no waits. So I can do as much treadmill work as I want, which I've been really enjoying.

Just want to do it right.

0 Replies

OK, now as I was writing that Chai came up with the one thing I would consider. There's a neighborhood belly dancing studio that some people I like attend, could get my mind around that. It's probably easy enough to watch + copy as opposed to having to hear (I have a dance background, if pretty far in the background)...

Hmmm...

0 Replies

Soz- How is your back? I was using the treadmill in Florida, but had to stop when it started to bother my back. It is not the treadmill itself, but the elevation that I was using. I was once told that you burn more calories at a lower speed, but with a higher elevation. It is like running up a hill.

I was going at the highest elevation at from 3.5 to 4.2 mph. If you don't have back problems, it is really very effective in burning calories.

I may try it again, but with either no, or a modest elevation.

0 Replies

I do no elevation, and vary the speed. I've been doing a wimpy 5.0 - 5.5 mph now -- when I'm in peak form, I'm more like 6.5 -7.

Back's good so far, knock on wood. (Keep expecting to have the "oooowwwww!!" moment but hasn't happened yet. Sore yesterday and today when I woke up, but stretching has taken care of it. Worst thing so far is that yesterday my toe was bothering me as I ran, seemed like the corner of one toenail was rubbing up against the next-bigger adjacent toe, didn't think much of it, then when I took off my shoes my sock had a circle of blood about 2 inches in diameter. Oops. Cut my toenail [it was SHARP!!], slapped on a bandaid, seems fine.)

0 Replies

It depends on what your goal is. There is a fat-burning zone and a cardio
zone for routine workouts and a performance zone for increasing athletic performance.

If your goal is to burn fat then you should stay down around 60-70% of your max, for cardio stay between 70% and 80%, and for performance training. Here's a good site that calculates ranges based on range and resting morning heart rate

http://www.polarusa.com/targetzone/default.asp

Also, if you are doing a cardio workout, there have been studies which demonstrate no additional cardiac benefit over a 15 minute workout until you reach 45 minutes or longer. Of course you burn more calories with a 30min workout than a 15 minute workout but supposedly it isn't a better cardio workout.

My weekly routine includes 3 fat burning walks at 115-120bpm and 3 45-60 min cardio sessions with speed intervals that keep me around 150bpm max during the speed interval and 130ish during recovery.

0 Replies

Oh, excellent info!!

45 minutes, eh? Didn't know that!

I'm not sure what my goal is. Fat-burning to start with, I guess, then cardio/ general health benefits.

So does that mean I should stay down 60%-70%? Not quite clear if that range burns fat more effectively, or if it's just that the range is more for burning fat than for cardio.

In other words, 70% - 80% is what comes more naturally to me -- should I fight that or go with it?

0 Replies

How long are your fat-burning walks? Also, how is this distributed? Are you doing one of these for 6 days a week, then one day "off"? Three in a row of one, then three in a row of the other, or alternate between them? Etc.

0 Replies

My understanding is that at the lower end of the 60-80% spectrum, the energy needed to exert is derived from burning fat. Once you get into the higher bpm zone, the energy require to sustain the heart rate comes from burning musle (I'll try to find a link).

This time of year, my fat burning walks are only 20-30 minutes because I do another 20 minutes of strength training on those days. Once I start walking outside, I'll up them to 45-60 minutes.

I alternate days, typically M-W-F are walking days and T-Th-S are cardio days. I do a few minutes of strength training (2 opposing muscle groups, such as chest/back, biceps/triceps, quads/hamstrings, shoulders/abs, inner-outer thigh, calf/butt) on the cardio days and more (2 upper body and 2 lower body opposing muscle groups) on the days I walk.

0 Replies

This is great stuff, J_B, thanks so much.

Would very much appreciate links. This is the kind of thing I started looking for but there is such a mass of info and hard to winnow out the best stuff.

0 Replies

I looked at a bunch of links and they all said basically the same thing. Here's an example

http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardioworkouts/l/aa022601a.htm

Lower intensity workouts target fat burning. Higher intensity workouts burn the same number of fat calories plus additional calories. If the goal is to lose fat, then lower intensity workouts can achieve that but do not increase fitness. Higher intensity workouts burn more total calories and increase cardiac fitness.

0 Replies

OK, looks like I don't have to fight the 70%-80% preference. Good!

And thanks for the link.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Soz- How is your back? I was using the treadmill in Florida, but had to stop when it started to bother my back. It is not the treadmill itself, but the elevation that I was using. I was once told that you burn more calories at a lower speed, but with a higher elevation. It is like running up a hill.

I was going at the highest elevation at from 3.5 to 4.2 mph. If you don't have back problems, it is really very effective in burning calories.

I may try it again, but with either no, or a modest elevation.

Phoenix, I'm recently back on the treadmill after a six month hiatus due to a back injury. I was told by my chiropractor to avoid elevation for at least another six months. He had me start off at a slow-moderate pace of 3.0mph for 15mins/day for the first week, 3.2mph for 15mins/day the second week alternating with 3.0 for 20mins/day, 3.4mph for 15mins alternating with 3.2 for 20mins the following week, etc., until I got back up to cruising speed. Only then did he suggest I increase my walk beyond 20mins. Also, after every walk he has me do some simple back stretches such as cat/dog which is to get on all fours, inhale while arching back and looking up, exhale while curling back and looking down - do 5 to 10 reps in each direction.

0 Replies

Target Heart Rate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know