What heart rate zone should I be training in?

a900ss

Hi,

I hear a fair bit of conflicting advice regarding training so I’d just like to get your thoughts on where I should be training.

At the start of the year I was over 17 stone; diet and riding the bike got me down to just over 13.5 by the summer. I then had an injury (non bike-related), couldn’t train, ate too much and am now at 15 stone. I really want to get down to about 13 stone by next spring.

I appreciate diet is the biggest factor here and I will deal with that but what about my training?

Time is limited and I also have to look after my young children during the weeknights so I’ve bought a turbo trainer to help me keep active and lose weight/gain fitness.

Now I am never going to race, I purely ride for fun. When I can get out on the bike, I try to ride 3 times at the weekend, perhaps 20 – 25 miles rides. I occasionally do 60 milers with my friends (perhaps 4 times a year),

Going back to the original question, where should I be training (heart rate zone).

I plan to ride on the Turbo for about an hour everyday so please work on that assumption.

Now should I ride full pelt for the hour OR do I work in the ‘fat-busting’ zone at around 70% Max Heart rate?

Yesterday and the day before, I went as fast as I could for an hour each time. Both times my average heart rate was 85/86% of max (about 155BPM for me –I’m 39 years old)

Should I keep up that intensity or am I doing too much (or even too little but I don’t think I can actually do more over a full hour)

Thanks

Anonymous

To burn calories just go as hard as you can in the time available.

danowat

NapoleonD wrote:

To burn calories just go as hard as you can in the time available.

Spot on 8)

Working as hard as you can for one hour will burn more calories (regardless of where they come from) than riding for one hour at the mythical "fat burning zone".

Weight loss is ultimately about creating a calorie deficit.

Bronzie

Agree with the above

a900ss wrote:

Both times my average heart rate was 85/86% of max (about 155BPM for me –I’m 39 years old)

Also a good idea to actually test for your max HR rather than go by the 220-Age formula which can be +/-15bpm out

a900ss

So 85 to 86% of max heart rate (worked on 220 - age, I know it's not perfect but it's a good guide) is that working hard or should I be trying for more?

In fairness, the sweat was pouring off me and I felt it in the legs afterwards.

Bronzie

a900ss wrote:

So 85 to 86% of max heart rate (worked on 220 - age, I know it's not perfect but it's a good guide) is that working hard or should I be trying for more?

In fairness, the sweat was pouring off me and I felt it in the legs afterwards.

I'd say that's a pretty solid workout for an hour

danowat

a900ss wrote:

(worked on 220 - age, I know it's not perfect but it's a good guide)

No, its not, its way out for many people.

RetroSi

It seems to me a lesson on why there is a factual fat burning heart rate & not just a mythical one is needed.

It's been medically proven quite some time ago that although any exercise will burn calories regardless, even sleeping does.

So what's the difference between fat & cardio?
Well the average 60-70% heart rate burns fat because fat is the first reserve we burn first. Although there's an easier form of energy our bodies can burn if needed. And it's this area which happens to be muscle it burns when you exercise harder because it needs energy quicker & the bodiy cannot process fat energy quick enough at higher exercise rates & so switches to burning the energy source from muscle instead.

Hope this helps & or clears up some wrong advice...

danowat

Bit of mis-information in there, bordering on scare tactics.......

The body will only start metabolising muscle protein (actual muscle) when both of the following states are present.

1) There is not enough muscle glycogen present

and

2) The intesity of the exercise is such that the body cannot supply energy needs quick enough (metabolising of fat is a slow process).

Most people have enough muscle glycogen to support there training sessions, and as such, I doubt anyone will deplete them enough to start the body eating muscle.

ANY exercise uses BOTH fat and muscle glycogen as fuel, however, as the intensity increases the percentage of fat used is reduced.

Bottomline, calories used is the key in weight loss, where they come from isn't overly relevent.

ut_och_cykla

I would normally have said give it all you've got in the limited time available ...BUT ... I've recently started on a coached programme that includes a lot of sub 80% riding and after literally years of not losing weight despite using a conservative estimate of 3500 kcal a week riding the weight has finally started ticking down so my advice would be ....

You will go down quicker if you can reduce calorie intake a bit and maximise your calories burnt. The exercise thatwill help best will be the one you can do regularly without injury or losing the desire to train.
MAybe give the turbo some serious effort 2 or 3 times a week at a rate you can just manage for an hour - or do longer and chop your hour into 3 x 20 minutes with a 10 min warm up, 5 gentler minutes between each 20 and 5 mins winding down. On the other days and weekend rides keep the efforts sustained but not too low - if you can hold an hour at 85%, two hours between 70 & 80 should be doable - but (and here is the mistake I think I've made for years) don't let yourself be egged on into riding just as hard as the hard turbo stuff for more than a few minutes. And don't oversompensate what you've ridden by eating extra - my other big no no. In this way you wont be wearing yourself out , you'll be burning calories reasonably well adn woont need any extras in the way of food
Good luck!
Good luck!

danowat

In my experiance (and having lost 10 stone, I have a little), long(er), slow(er) exercise had the affect of massively increasing my appetite and had me literally craving carbs.

I found weight loss much easier once I started introducing intervals and high(er) intensity workouts into my training program.

I am not saying do ALL your workouts balls out, but I'd say do at least a couple of hard sessions a week.

SBezza

danowat wrote:

In my experiance (and having lost 10 stone, I have a little), long(er), slow(er) exercise had the affect of massively increasing my appetite and had me literally craving carbs.

I am completely different, I can quite easily do a long ride, quite hardish, and get home, and not feel like eating. I have to force myself to actually eat so I recover properly.

I am not sure if you crave carbs, just that most items you have in the house will be largely carbs, I am sure if you had a protein/carb recovery drink, this would suppress your appetite.

To be honest if you only have an hour and you are looking to lose weight, then a hard session is best. Low level "fat burning" rides should be a few hours long at minimum really. 25 miles is not really long enough to use much energy if going at a low level.

sheffsimon

a900ss wrote:

Hi,

I hear a fair bit of conflicting advice regarding training so I’d just like to get your thoughts on where I should be training.

At the start of the year I was over 17 stone; diet and riding the bike got me down to just over 13.5 by the summer. I then had an injury (non bike-related), couldn’t train, ate too much and am now at 15 stone. I really want to get down to about 13 stone by next spring.

I appreciate diet is the biggest factor here and I will deal with that but what about my training?

Time is limited and I also have to look after my young children during the weeknights so I’ve bought a turbo trainer to help me keep active and lose weight/gain fitness.

Now I am never going to race, I purely ride for fun. When I can get out on the bike, I try to ride 3 times at the weekend, perhaps 20 – 25 miles rides. I occasionally do 60 milers with my friends (perhaps 4 times a year),

Going back to the original question, where should I be training (heart rate zone).

I plan to ride on the Turbo for about an hour everyday so please work on that assumption.

Now should I ride full pelt for the hour OR do I work in the ‘fat-busting’ zone at around 70% Max Heart rate?

Yesterday and the day before, I went as fast as I could for an hour each time. Both times my average heart rate was 85/86% of max (about 155BPM for me –I’m 39 years old)

Should I keep up that intensity or am I doing too much (or even too little but I don’t think I can actually do more over a full hour)

Thanks

Good luck with that. Personally, there is no way I could handle that mentally.

a_n_t

a900ss wrote:

(worked on 220 - age, I know it's not perfect but it's a good guide)

It really isnt. I'm 39 and my max is 196, not 181 which is 25 TT pace! That would throw my training right out using HR.

jgsi

danowat wrote:

Bit of mis-information in there, bordering on scare tactics.......

The body will only start metabolising muscle protein t.

Have to agree with Dano here....
very dubious science from Retro guy... the body doesnt at all like using muscle protein as 'fuel' .. I think body has to go into starvation mode for this to happen .. and you aint going to go ointo that on a bike 'cos we all have our soreen chunks dont we?
Oh and for the Op ...
I would vary your workouts in particular zones... if you go nuts and chucking your self into anaerobic threshold all the time..
1 .. you'll get fed up
2 .. you'll get fed up

RetroSi

Just to clarify I was only refering to training on turbos or similar equipement that can allow such extreme workouts over extended periods of time.
I'd doubt all but the fittest of athletes coulod sustain long periods of upper heart rate on the actual road.
Whereas on a turbo say more people can sustain a higher heart rate.

jibberjim

RetroSi wrote:

Just to clarify I was only refering to training on turbos or similar equipement that can allow such extreme workouts over extended periods of time.
I'd doubt all but the fittest of athletes coulod sustain long periods of upper heart rate on the actual road.
Whereas on a turbo say more people can sustain a higher heart rate.

Eh? Why?

secretsqizz

jibberjim wrote:

RetroSi wrote:

Just to clarify I was only refering to training on turbos or similar equipement that can allow such extreme workouts over extended periods of time.
I'd doubt all but the fittest of athletes coulod sustain long periods of upper heart rate on the actual road.
Whereas on a turbo say more people can sustain a higher heart rate.

Eh? Why?

he's never raced then

liversedge

On the MaxHR thing, I would add that you should do a MaxHR test on the bike, not running or any other exercise. I think it is common, and certainly is for me, that the maximum heartrate you can reach is sport specific. And yeah, of course there is only one theoretical max, but then it is 'theoretical' not 'real'.

FWIW, I'm 43 and my max HR is 185 right now - 2 years ago I recorded a MaxHR of 191 but was a lot fitter than I am now. Again, I think it is common, and certainly is for me, that as I become fitter my MaxHR goes up, albeit slowly.

To test MaxHR I ride a climb near me as fast as I can then when I feel like I'm on the edge I sprint, usually at the top of the climb (it rises to 20% at the top). I have only vomitted once, although I did come close to fainting when I did this a month ago and was very wobbly :-)

Some guys reckon a turbo is safer, I have found it more motivational to do it up a nasty climb, but then I hate my turbo!

doyler78

As regards 220-age I thought I would drag up this old poll which I done on here and it makes interesting reading for anyone that would even be remotely tempted to use to 220-age as a basis on which to set training zones. It's old yet but the science hasn't changed so still relevant

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/forums/vi ... t=12594618