Heart Rate Monitoring advice

Twonk

Heart Rate Monitor (HRM) advice needed:

I'd like a Heart Rate Zone guide and/or a weekly training program, but can't seem to find any beginner HRM stuff for MTB

- I'm biking with my HRM; mainly trail and a little XC

In return for the help, I lose weight for you and live longer

MountainMonster

You have to find what your different zones are, normally a HRM will do this automatically, but you can input your own data into the settings. To burn fat you want to be between 65% and 75% of your maximum heart rate.

I can't find the link now, but one of the posts in Health and Fitness on here has a link to a site which helps calculate the zones. Remember though, those are only rough guides and take them with a grain of salt because everyone is different with these kind of things, even if the variables are the same.

Twonk

I know the Fat Burning Zone concept is bull, so I'm looking for some real advice on what zones I need to stick with in general

eg., What would a good starter routine be, once I've worked out my min/max HR, etc?

Anonymous

I've heard a few trainers claim that the "fat burning zone" is a big myth anyway. Do you find it actually works?

Twonk

Yeah, you're right; it's a myth

From my understanding, the FBZ is crap and just cons people into thinking that working at 65% is better than working at 80% (it will never be better), so I was looking for some HRM advice not based on FBZ

I've read up lots, but my brain can only process so much!

Anonymous

Ok, I was just curious. I've heard people claim both ways.
I guess the best way to burn fat, is to try and find a balance between a level you can keep going at for ages, but is still pushing yourself enough to be burning metric fuctons of energy.

Twonk

Yeah, exactly

I know I can discount the 65/70% marks that FBZ suggests, so am left curious as to what high end HR % I should be aiming for (and for how long without exploding, so to speak)

I like number related goals so would prefer them to tell me what to aim for!

Anonymous

How about, go as fast as you possibly can, for as long as you possibly can?
Now THERE'S science for ya

Twonk

Science?!

It sounds more like the most disturbing chat up line ever!

MarkLG

I've never found using a HRM for to trail riding that useful. There are just too many variations in conditions to maintain a target rate. The only time you can maintain a steady HR is on long climbs or long flat sections.
They're great for maintaining a set pace and doing interval work if you're riding on the road or easy cycle tracks. You can set a target zone and stick with it for 20 minutes or whatever.
One thing they're useful on long rides is keeping your heart rate down to a sensible level on climbs to avoid fatigue later in the ride.
There are plenty of online zone calculators around - you want to be looking for the aerobic zone based on your max HR. This is usually around 70-80% of your maximum and is the most effective zone for improving fitness and endurance.
FBZ is all crap - your body can't metabolize fat quickly enough to provide enough energy, even at the lowest level of effort.

rhyko7

work out your lactate threshold and base your zones around that rather than your max heart rate

MountainMonster

Funny so many people here are saying the fbz is complete horsedoo. Riding buddy of mine had been riding for a year running at about 85% of HR, and lost a few pounds, but then figured he'd try out fat burning zone type of HR and dropped weight faster.

Everything weight loss related is open to huge debate, one person will say it works well, then another will say it's complete shit. It's alot like those weight loss pills, or penis enlargement pills. Some live by them and claim greatness from them, others just hated them.

Personally i've noticed a good difference in belly size by trying to stay within my FBZ than before, but hey thats just me. Also just to clarify, having a average heart rate that's quite high say 80 to 85% will actually burn off muscle rather than building it, so beware of that as well.

May I ask, have any of you who are saying it's so crap actually tried it? Or are you only going off second hand advice such as a website?

Twonk

MountainMonster wrote:

Or are you only going off second hand advice such as a website?

All advice is second hand once you receive it, unless you personally gave that advice, surely?

Anyways...

Personally, I started researching Heart Rate Zone training with an open mind, and it seems the most comprehensive and logical sounding details I have read have also all said that the FBZ is a myth.

I'm still open minded, though!

MountainMonster

Then give FBZ a chance before saying it's shoot before even trying it. It's not like bike components where you can read a review and see a product isn't up to par. I highly suggest giving it a try.

rhyko7

the fat burning zone is not a myth, its scientifically proven that you burn a higher % of fat in this zone whilst exercising, its an important point that we are talikng about a ratio of fat to carbs not ammounts of fat here, you could well burn more fat by going a bit harder.-however it is not as simple as that. the body is a complicated machine, from all the reading i have done on the matter (which is a lot believe me) it comes down to a very simple equation:
to lose weight you have to create an energy deficit i.e. burn more energy that you put into your body, it makes very little difference what zone you do it in.
the simplest way to explain this: becuase our bodies are so efficient at converting energy you could train in the fat burning zone and burn fat, but as soon as you eat your fat stores wll get replenished, whereas if you trained in a higher zone you would be mainly using carbohydrates, but when you eat your body uses the energy that it has lost rather than converting it to fat. so its swings and roundabouts to which zone you train in and each has its advantages and dissadvantages.
the amusing thing to me is that the lower the heart rate the higher % of fat you burn, there fore sleeping is the best way to lose weight.

MountainMonster

Glad to hear another one in the know about the FBZ.

People may read on 50 sites that it isn't true and is just a bit of bull, but the credibility of the site must always be checked.

Stuntman

Who said lighter people live longer anyway?? lol - only kiddin'

I agree that the FBZ isn't a myth. I've seen test results from pro riders who burn fat effiiciently up to about 90% of their max heart rate. That's how they win National and World XC titles. The issue is that everyone seems to think that riding slowly isn't going to burn fat, get impatient and then carry on riding like normal(and carrying on wearing the monitor to prove they've earned the calories they throw in their stomach after a days trail riding).
You have to also change your diet so that you aren't eating a tonne of sugar that your body will have access to all the time. Lower GI-valued foods will force your body to burn fat more efficiently.

The more efficient you can do a few of these things, means that before you know it you won't be craving a can of coke and a chocolate bar after a 2 hour midweek riding session.

You don't want to do a year of fat burning training, that'd be boring(but would prepare you for a mega endurace race). So do 4-8 weeks of it, keeping the heart rate in those boundaries and not above. Then after those 8 weeks start to add intensity to your rides, and before you know it, it'll be spring 2011 and you'll be faster than your riding buddies.

mea00csf

no-one appears to have pointed out that regardless of whether the FBZ is correct or not, if you don't know your max heart rate what's the point?? You need to do test to exhaustion to get this (difficult and little dodgy if you're not with someone who knows what they're doing). You can't look up your max heart rate from a website.

Also just to clarify, having a average heart rate that's quite high say 80 to 85% will actually burn off muscle rather than building it, so beware of that as well.

I can't believe that for second, if i'm cycling up a steep hill at 85% hr and my legs are killing, your saying I'm burning off muscle??? :?

Stuntman

I think what someone was trying to say is that once your energy stores are depleted(glycogen from muscles) from exercising at a high heart rate then your body will start to use muscle as an energy rather than transform fat to energy, this is because muscle is in a simpler form for your body to use it. In order to make fat a useful fuel it takes a bit of energy which your body won't sacrifice if you have an elevated heart rate.

Be careful when you do a max heart rate test as they're very demanding. You can't get your max heart rate from a website.

blackhands

A lot of muddled thinking here:

At lower intensities (say 60% of maximum heart rate MHR) you will burn a higher proportion of fat (say 60%), but you will be exercising gently so using fewer calories - say 800 per hour.

At higher intensities (say 80%of MHR) you will burn a lower proportion of fat (say 40%) but you will be exercising more intensively so using more calories - say 1500 per hour.

So in the FBZ you will burn 480 calories from fat (60% of 800) but at the higher intensity you will burn 600 calories (40% of 1500)..

These numbers are only examples - the exact figures for any indivual will depend on a number of factors.

BW you won't burn muscle unless your energy stores are very depleted - that means you have used most of your fat - and that would theoretically take many hours of exercise with no feeding.

How do I know this - I am an exercise physiologist.

Twonk

Thanks for the input, blackhands