Understanding heart rates?

tarpaullynn

My wife goes to the gym and does various cardiovascular exercises and has the following results

Max 183

Average 150

Putting her age into a heart rate calculator gives her a VO2 Max of 170-183 and an aerobic figure of 145-157.

If she wants an aerobic exercise is the figure of 145-157 a maximum heart rate that she should be aiming for or an average?

If its an average she's obviously bang on but if its a Max then she is going to hard?

I know what I'm rying to ask but having re-read the above I'm not sure if its clear........but then again my head is done in with calculations :?

AntLockyer

I was told that the aerobic training zone is 70-80% of MHR (note V02 max is a different thing alltogether).

She should be aiming to keep her heart rate in this zone once warmed up. If she is going to her max she is going way too hard at some point. Aim to keep it constant (which means your intensity may have to go down toward the end due to HR creep.

Bronzie

The theory behind heart rate training zones is that your cardiovascular system receives the most beneficial training if your heart rate is in the aerobic or "target heart rate zone" for the majority of the duration of your excercise.

So for your wife (assuming an actual measured MHR of 183 rather than one arrived at from an age related calculation) is in her target zone between 128-146bpm (70-80%).

That is not to say that her fitness will not benefit from training above or below this target band, but that the majority of time she is training, her heart rate should be in this range to train her cardiovascular system at its optimum. It does of course depend on what she is training for.............but I think I'm right in saying that the 70-80% of MHR is the optimum for general fitness.

Does she have a HRM that can be set with her target heart rates and record the time she spends "in the zone"?

tarpaullynn

Bronzie wrote:

Does she have a HRM that can be set with her target heart rates and record the time she spends "in the zone"?

She does have a device which allows her to do this.

So would I be right in saying that her HR should be kep within the aerobic zone to maximise benefits and that her HR shouldn't go over that up to her Max?

Bronzie

tarpaullynn wrote:

So would I be right in saying that her HR should be kep within the aerobic zone to maximise benefits and that her HR shouldn't go over that up to her Max?

The simplistic answer is "Yes"..................but a browse in the "Training" forum will reveal that there's far more to it than that (depending on how complicated you want to make things)!

As I said, training in different heart rate zones still brings benefits in fitness. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve. It would be no good to do all your training in the 70-80% zone if you wanted to race - you need to train your "top end" or anaerobic fitness as well to be able to do well in races.

Smeggers

Interesting post - nice to see it simplified, your wife has the same MHR as me, so its even more relevant!

Would I be right in thinking that at 70-80% MHR the training is more for weight-loss / endurance? Rather than 80%+ which is more muscle development?

I too go the gym, however I try and do 2x20's mins of 85% MHR beleiving that it will be good for weight loss when time is limited?

Bronzie

Smeggers, have a look here for cycling-specific heart rate training zones:
http://www.timetrialtraining.co.uk/S7Tr ... ensity.htm

Some people argue that "fat-burning" rides are best done at low intensity (70-75% MHR) as your body burns fat more readily as these intensities rather than sugars at higher intensities. Others argue that as long as you are expending more energy than you are eating, you will loose weight.
Have a look at these threads:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12555742
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12544454
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12537161

Training at higher intensities doesn't train the muscles so much as it conditions the body to utilise stored energy and clear the build up of lactic acid in the muscles more efficiently.

Rich Hcp

I'm happy as long as mine keeps beating!

I go for the weight loss./general fitness approach.

Which suits me just fine

nmcgann

Smeggers wrote:

Interesting post - nice to see it simplified, your wife has the same MHR as me, so its even more relevant!

Would I be right in thinking that at 70-80% MHR the training is more for weight-loss / endurance? Rather than 80%+ which is more muscle development?

I too go the gym, however I try and do 2x20's mins of 85% MHR beleiving that it will be good for weight loss when time is limited?

At 85% you could do a straight hour with no gaps which is very time-efficient for endurance training (and weight loss) without being so stressful that you have to be fresh to do it.

The sessions commonly known as 2x20 would typically be done at 90%+ MHR and you would really need the gap between to recover a bit as they are hard sessions.

These sessions are all aerobic - if you can sustain the exercise intensity longer than a couple of minutes then it is aerobic. See here: http://www.asmi.org/sportsmed/Performance/aerobic.html and here http://www.asmi.org/sportsmed/Performan ... robic.html for good definitions.

Neil