Very unfit and out of shape

2

Comments

  • big.bream83SGjmJv
    big.bream83SGjmJv Posts: 53
    webboo said:

    As Masjer says above the higher your heart rate the longer it is elevated so you burn more calories. The thing with low intensity is you need to do it for a reasonable duration, it’s not doing much if you only do it for an hours cycling.

    Kind of don't agree.

    Heart Rate falls back to Zone1/2 fairly quickly. If I run a Half Marathon sat in Zones 4 and 5 (takes me about 1hr 40min), my Heart Rate will be back in Zone 1/2 within 5-10minutes.

    From a Fat loss perspective I'd be better running that Half Marathon in Zone 2/3, but it would take probably twice as long.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    So your saying that if I do 4 hours at level 2, I will burn off more calories than doing 4 hours at level 3. In your dreams maybe.
  • big.bream83SGjmJv
    big.bream83SGjmJv Posts: 53
    webboo said:

    So your saying that if I do 4 hours at level 2, I will burn off more calories than doing 4 hours at level 3. In your dreams maybe.

    You will burn more Fat, that is what the Science says...

    Mate, I don't want to fall out with anyone, I'm just saying what has worked for me after reading up on it quite a lot.

    I went from 20+ years of not doing anything to Running Ultras (50km * 4, 73km * 2, 100km and several Marathons all off road) and Cycling 100miles very regularly all off the back of training at Low Heart Rates, and all injury free.

    But, I'm not am expert, if you guys know more than me so so be it, we can all learn from one another.

  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    I’m not saying that doing part of your training at low intensity is not valuable. I’m saying that training at fat burning levels is a myth invented by the gym industry to get people in to buying passes and courses. The idea being you are telling people they really don’t have to exercise to get fit.
  • Ncovidius
    Ncovidius Posts: 229
    big.bream83SGjmJv said:

    webboo said:

    As Masjer says above the higher your heart rate the longer it is elevated so you burn more calories. The thing with low intensity is you need to do it for a reasonable duration, it’s not doing much if you only do it for an hours cycling.

    Kind of don't agree.

    Heart Rate falls back to Zone1/2 fairly quickly. If I run a Half Marathon sat in Zones 4 and 5 (takes me about 1hr 40min), my Heart Rate will be back in Zone 1/2 within 5-10minutes.

    From a Fat loss perspective I'd be better running that Half Marathon in Zone 2/3, but it would take probably twice as long.
    As with everything with cycling ( or any form of physical exercise/ training ) there are no binaries, however, as you’ll know if you’ve ever used the fancy machines in a gym, there are ways of exercising that favour ‘fat feeding’ ( sometimes seen as “fat burning modes”). It’s getting into the murky world of ‘actual training’ but to cut a long story short, if you’re using particular muscle fibres in particular ways, you’ll find that your body is ‘fat burning’ more effectively. The trick is to learn what to do to get this to happen.
  • big.bream83SGjmJv
    big.bream83SGjmJv Posts: 53
    edited August 2021
    webboo said:

    I’m not saying that doing part of your training at low intensity is not valuable. I’m saying that training at fat burning levels is a myth invented by the gym industry to get people in to buying passes and courses. The idea being you are telling people they really don’t have to exercise to get fit.

    Don't know webboo, you might be right.

    I just listened to the GB coach at the Polar seminar, it all seemed to make sense so I just rolled with it and it seemed to work (for me at least).

    I think we both can agree that no-one will get fit without putting in the effort, nothing is free :smile:
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    I just had a look at the Polar web site and it’s got on there calculating your max heart rate by 220 missus your age, it does say this might not be accurate for some people.
    Given this I wouldn’t trust a thing they are saying.
  • big.bream83SGjmJv
    big.bream83SGjmJv Posts: 53
    edited August 2021
    webboo said:

    I just had a look at the Polar web site and it’s got on there calculating your max heart rate by 220 missus your age, it does say this might not be accurate for some people.
    Given this I wouldn’t trust a thing they are saying.

    webboo,

    220 - Age is a standard calculation that all (Garmin, Coros, etc) use to determine a rough estimate of your maximum Heart Rate.

    You can change/update this in the settings.

    Polar (via the Flow App) will actually suggest changes to this value as you build up data within the Software. Garmin no doubt will do the same. For example, my max Heart Rate has gone up by 2 bpm as suggested by Polar, this doesn't really affect the Zones too much.

    Without getting a proper test performed all you can do is estimate it.



  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    Why suggest a calculation that is inaccurate.
  • big.bream83SGjmJv
    big.bream83SGjmJv Posts: 53
    webboo said:

    Why suggest a calculation that is inaccurate.

    Find me a Calculation that is accurate?

    Without getting your max heart rate specifically tested in a Lab then all you can use is an estimate. I'm guessing that even in a Lab it will be an estimate/averaged value (although very accurate).

    Every single Heart Rate vendor will use an estimate of some description for the initial system setup.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    You get pretty accurate rating by doing a ramp test up a hill.
    According to that calculation I did my 79 mile ride yesterday at an average heart rate of 89.6% with a maximum of 114.29%. No wonder it felt hard.
  • masjer
    masjer Posts: 2,663
    edited August 2021
    big.bream83SGjmJv said:

    webboo said:

    So your saying that if I do 4 hours at level 2, I will burn off more calories than doing 4 hours at level 3. In your dreams maybe.

    You will burn more Fat, that is what the Science says...

    Mate, I don't want to fall out with anyone, I'm just saying what has worked for me after reading up on it quite a lot.

    I went from 20+ years of not doing anything to Running Ultras (50km * 4, 73km * 2, 100km and several Marathons all off road) and Cycling 100miles very regularly all off the back of training at Low Heart Rates, and all injury free.

    But, I'm not am expert, if you guys know more than me so so be it, we can all learn from one another.

    Your low heart rate training (Maffetone method?) looks great for long/ ultra distances, as you've proved for yourself. You will always lose weight training long hours and eating well, but hour for hour you'll lose more weight training at high intensities compared to low (higher calorific expenditure). As you've pointed out though, you can't/shouldn't train very long hours all at high intensities month after month and remain health and injury free.
    Myself, (now) I train with a similar approach to yours -long hours at low intensity with sprinkles of high intensity. Polarized training.
  • big.bream83SGjmJv
    big.bream83SGjmJv Posts: 53
    webboo said:

    You get pretty accurate rating by doing a ramp test up a hill.
    According to that calculation I did my 79 mile ride yesterday at an average heart rate of 89.6% with a maximum of 114.29%. No wonder it felt hard.

    You are smarter than most then, you have at least tried to find your max heart rate.

    I can be fairly certain that 99% of people just use the estimate of 220-Age value as that is what Garmin, Polar, Coros and most others will use as an initial value.

    I guess this is part of the Zones problem...

    Two people with say a max rate of 180 (but unknown to them). One has performed a Ramp Test and found the max rate is 180, the other has used the default 220-age and it's saying 190.

    This messes up the Zones straight away.

    No wonder some people swear by Zone 2 and others say it should be Zone 3.
  • Ncovidius
    Ncovidius Posts: 229
    edited August 2021
    big.bream83SGjmJv said:

    webboo said:

    You get pretty accurate rating by doing a ramp test up a hill.
    According to that calculation I did my 79 mile ride yesterday at an average heart rate of 89.6% with a maximum of 114.29%. No wonder it felt hard.

    You are smarter than most then, you have at least tried to find your max heart rate.

    I can be fairly certain that 99% of people just use the estimate of 220-Age value as that is what Garmin, Polar, Coros and most others will use as an initial value.

    I guess this is part of the Zones problem...

    Two people with say a max rate of 180 (but unknown to them). One has performed a Ramp Test and found the max rate is 180, the other has used the default 220-age and it's saying 190.

    This messes up the Zones straight away.

    No wonder some people swear by Zone 2 and others say it should be Zone 3.
    I did a lab based assessment a few years ago. It was nasty. Basically push until you very nearly pass out, look at the H.R. at that point, that’s your max H.R. I’d recommend using the rough estimate / calculations, they are cautious if anything. It’s also ( yet ) another good reason to work with power zones, rather than H.R.

  • vincesummerskRoxcBTr
    vincesummerskRoxcBTr Posts: 1,109
    I would have thought that the way to start getting fitter on the bike is to cycle 2 or 3 times a week with a mix of effort ( i.e. do some hills and some faster sections). Do what you can that seems like hard work and you will get fitter and find it getting easier or faster!
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,345
    Ncovidius said:

    big.bream83SGjmJv said:

    webboo said:

    You get pretty accurate rating by doing a ramp test up a hill.
    According to that calculation I did my 79 mile ride yesterday at an average heart rate of 89.6% with a maximum of 114.29%. No wonder it felt hard.

    You are smarter than most then, you have at least tried to find your max heart rate.

    I can be fairly certain that 99% of people just use the estimate of 220-Age value as that is what Garmin, Polar, Coros and most others will use as an initial value.

    I guess this is part of the Zones problem...

    Two people with say a max rate of 180 (but unknown to them). One has performed a Ramp Test and found the max rate is 180, the other has used the default 220-age and it's saying 190.

    This messes up the Zones straight away.

    No wonder some people swear by Zone 2 and others say it should be Zone 3.
    I did a lab based assessment a few years ago. It was nasty. Basically push until you very nearly pass out, look at the H.R. at that point, that’s your max H.R. I’d recommend using the rough estimate / calculations, they are cautious if anything. It’s also ( yet ) another good reason to work with power zones, rather than H.R.

    Is that not just similar to doing an FTP test?
    You can’t find out without suffering either way.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Ncovidius
    Ncovidius Posts: 229
    pblakeney said:

    Ncovidius said:

    big.bream83SGjmJv said:

    webboo said:

    You get pretty accurate rating by doing a ramp test up a hill.
    According to that calculation I did my 79 mile ride yesterday at an average heart rate of 89.6% with a maximum of 114.29%. No wonder it felt hard.

    You are smarter than most then, you have at least tried to find your max heart rate.

    I can be fairly certain that 99% of people just use the estimate of 220-Age value as that is what Garmin, Polar, Coros and most others will use as an initial value.

    I guess this is part of the Zones problem...

    Two people with say a max rate of 180 (but unknown to them). One has performed a Ramp Test and found the max rate is 180, the other has used the default 220-age and it's saying 190.

    This messes up the Zones straight away.

    No wonder some people swear by Zone 2 and others say it should be Zone 3.
    I did a lab based assessment a few years ago. It was nasty. Basically push until you very nearly pass out, look at the H.R. at that point, that’s your max H.R. I’d recommend using the rough estimate / calculations, they are cautious if anything. It’s also ( yet ) another good reason to work with power zones, rather than H.R.

    Is that not just similar to doing an FTP test?
    You can’t find out without suffering either way.
    Yes, and I agree.
  • Ncovidius
    Ncovidius Posts: 229
    vincesummerskRoxcBTr said:

    I would have thought that the way to start getting fitter on the bike is to cycle 2 or 3 times a week with a mix of effort ( i.e. do some hills and some faster sections). Do what you can that seems like hard work and you will get fitter and find it getting easier or faster!

    Or “interval training” as it’s called now.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    big.bream83SGjmJv said:

    webboo said:

    You get pretty accurate rating by doing a ramp test up a hill.
    According to that calculation I did my 79 mile ride yesterday at an average heart rate of 89.6% with a maximum of 114.29%. No wonder it felt hard.

    You are smarter than most then, you have at least tried to find your max heart rate.

    I can be fairly certain that 99% of people just use the estimate of 220-Age value as that is what Garmin, Polar, Coros and most others will use as an initial value.

    I guess this is part of the Zones problem...

    Two people with say a max rate of 180 (but unknown to them). One has performed a Ramp Test and found the max rate is 180, the other has used the default 220-age and it's saying 190.

    This messes up the Zones straight away.

    No wonder some people swear by Zone 2 and others say it should be Zone 3.
    Another way to find it. Go to the Alps and on the first day when it’s in the 30’s start riding up a col that’s in the shade and just when your feeling the altitude and get breathless. Ride out in to the sun and then think your heart rate monitor is malfunctioning as it’s gone in to the 200’s. :D
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    big.bream83SGjmJv said:


    Find me a Calculation that is accurate?

    Without getting your max heart rate specifically tested in a Lab then all you can use is an estimate. I'm guessing that even in a Lab it will be an estimate/averaged value (although very accurate).

    Every single Heart Rate vendor will use an estimate of some description for the initial system setup.

    There is no 'calculation' that is accurate. '220' has no basis whatsoever in physiology. HRM vendors may well use 220 or similar as an initial setup, but it's still wrong.

  • big.bream83SGjmJv
    big.bream83SGjmJv Posts: 53
    imposter2.0 said:

    big.bream83SGjmJv said:


    Find me a Calculation that is accurate?

    Without getting your max heart rate specifically tested in a Lab then all you can use is an estimate. I'm guessing that even in a Lab it will be an estimate/averaged value (although very accurate).

    Every single Heart Rate vendor will use an estimate of some description for the initial system setup.

    There is no 'calculation' that is accurate. '220' has no basis whatsoever in physiology. HRM vendors may well use 220 or similar as an initial setup, but it's still wrong.

    And that if you actually read and understand what I’ve written is my exact point. There is no way other than some sort of lab test to get an accurate reading.

    Hard work this forum, it really is.
  • big.bream83SGjmJv
    big.bream83SGjmJv Posts: 53
    webboo said:

    big.bream83SGjmJv said:

    webboo said:

    You get pretty accurate rating by doing a ramp test up a hill.
    According to that calculation I did my 79 mile ride yesterday at an average heart rate of 89.6% with a maximum of 114.29%. No wonder it felt hard.

    You are smarter than most then, you have at least tried to find your max heart rate.

    I can be fairly certain that 99% of people just use the estimate of 220-Age value as that is what Garmin, Polar, Coros and most others will use as an initial value.

    I guess this is part of the Zones problem...

    Two people with say a max rate of 180 (but unknown to them). One has performed a Ramp Test and found the max rate is 180, the other has used the default 220-age and it's saying 190.

    This messes up the Zones straight away.

    No wonder some people swear by Zone 2 and others say it should be Zone 3.
    Another way to find it. Go to the Alps and on the first day when it’s in the 30’s start riding up a col that’s in the shade and just when your feeling the altitude and get breathless. Ride out in to the sun and then think your heart rate monitor is malfunctioning as it’s gone in to the 200’s. :D
    webboo said:

    big.bream83SGjmJv said:

    webboo said:

    You get pretty accurate rating by doing a ramp test up a hill.
    According to that calculation I did my 79 mile ride yesterday at an average heart rate of 89.6% with a maximum of 114.29%. No wonder it felt hard.

    You are smarter than most then, you have at least tried to find your max heart rate.

    I can be fairly certain that 99% of people just use the estimate of 220-Age value as that is what Garmin, Polar, Coros and most others will use as an initial value.

    I guess this is part of the Zones problem...

    Two people with say a max rate of 180 (but unknown to them). One has performed a Ramp Test and found the max rate is 180, the other has used the default 220-age and it's saying 190.

    This messes up the Zones straight away.

    No wonder some people swear by Zone 2 and others say it should be Zone 3.
    Another way to find it. Go to the Alps and on the first day when it’s in the 30’s start riding up a col that’s in the shade and just when your feeling the altitude and get breathless. Ride out in to the sun and then think your heart rate monitor is malfunctioning as it’s gone in to the 200’s. :D
    If I ever reach 200 it’ll be a heart attack!! :smile:
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    By lab test I guess you mean in a lab. Where as most people would just do a ramp test or the like either on a turbo trainer or a hilly road.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    big.bream83SGjmJv said:

    imposter2.0 said:

    big.bream83SGjmJv said:


    Find me a Calculation that is accurate?

    Without getting your max heart rate specifically tested in a Lab then all you can use is an estimate. I'm guessing that even in a Lab it will be an estimate/averaged value (although very accurate).

    Every single Heart Rate vendor will use an estimate of some description for the initial system setup.

    There is no 'calculation' that is accurate. '220' has no basis whatsoever in physiology. HRM vendors may well use 220 or similar as an initial setup, but it's still wrong.

    And that if you actually read and understand what I’ve written is my exact point. There is no way other than some sort of lab test to get an accurate reading.

    Hard work this forum, it really is.
    I'm arguing against using an 'estimate'. I never had a lab test, but I had a pretty good idea of my MHR in my racing days. I just used the highest number I had seen/recorded and set that as my max - and set all my levels accordingly. If you ever exceed that number, then that's your new max. It's an approximation based on actual data - not a guestimate based on your age. Small but important difference. If I used the Polar estimate chart that came with my first HRM, my max HR would have been set at 15bpm lower than it actually was at the time. That equated to an entire training zone's worth of error.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,170
    big.bream83SGjmJv said:

    imposter2.0 said:

    big.bream83SGjmJv said:


    Find me a Calculation that is accurate?

    Without getting your max heart rate specifically tested in a Lab then all you can use is an estimate. I'm guessing that even in a Lab it will be an estimate/averaged value (although very accurate).

    Every single Heart Rate vendor will use an estimate of some description for the initial system setup.

    There is no 'calculation' that is accurate. '220' has no basis whatsoever in physiology. HRM vendors may well use 220 or similar as an initial setup, but it's still wrong.

    And that if you actually read and understand what I’ve written is my exact point. There is no way other than some sort of lab test to get an accurate reading.

    Hard work this forum, it really is.
    But what's the point of trying to use a number that's likely to be completely wrong? Even as a temporary measure? Where's the benefit in training to numbers that are meaningless?

    I've never had a lab test, but I know that 220 minus my age is a long way off, and I can estimate it as 20 bpm higher. Because I've seen higher numbers.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,345
    kingstongraham said:

    big.bream83SGjmJv said:

    imposter2.0 said:

    big.bream83SGjmJv said:


    Find me a Calculation that is accurate?

    Without getting your max heart rate specifically tested in a Lab then all you can use is an estimate. I'm guessing that even in a Lab it will be an estimate/averaged value (although very accurate).

    Every single Heart Rate vendor will use an estimate of some description for the initial system setup.

    There is no 'calculation' that is accurate. '220' has no basis whatsoever in physiology. HRM vendors may well use 220 or similar as an initial setup, but it's still wrong.

    And that if you actually read and understand what I’ve written is my exact point. There is no way other than some sort of lab test to get an accurate reading.

    Hard work this forum, it really is.
    But what's the point of trying to use a number that's likely to be completely wrong? Even as a temporary measure? Where's the benefit in training to numbers that are meaningless?

    I've never had a lab test, but I know that 220 minus my age is a long way off, and I can estimate it as 20 bpm higher. Because I've seen higher numbers.
    Is it not simply a rule of thumb for those who don't know better?
    Not worth wasting time over. Including this post. 😉
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    All 220 minus your age is useful for is being able to say according to my real maximum heart rate I am x numbers of younger than I am.
  • masjer
    masjer Posts: 2,663
    Is knowing your max heart rate even useful? Max heart rate is a genetic outcome (decreasing with age) and doesn't indicate current fitness to any degree.
    Testing lactate threshold heart rate, then working out training zones from there is much more useful as the training zones are based on your fitness.
    When new to exercise, Max heart rate can give you a loose guide to training zones only. As your fitness increases, train zones should change too.
  • photonic69
    photonic69 Posts: 2,834
    ....and yet nobody has mentioned minimum resting heart rate which could be a better indicator of health and fitness than MaxHR?


    Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.

  • big.bream83SGjmJv
    big.bream83SGjmJv Posts: 53
    edited August 2021
    Heres some basic numbers I've worked out this morning, based on my age.
    (Source : https://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm)

    Estimate most people use => 220 - age = 174
    Miller Formula => 217 * (0.85 * age) = 178
    Londeree and Moeschberger => 206.3 - (0.711 * age) = 174
    Miller, Londeree and Moeschberger = 178
    USA Researchers=> 206.9 - (0.67 * age) = 176
    UK Researchers => 202 - (0.55 * age) = 177

    Average value from the above calcs => 176
    My Polar setting, taken from 4 years of data = 177

    So, I'm 3 bpm above the standard estimate of 220 - age. Pretty damn close and with no real adjustment to the Zones.

    If your estimate is 20bpm out then that seems very odd and I would say is statistically classed an outlier.

    An estimate is just that... an estimate.

    If you want to find a max HR then ditch trying to find it on a bike, find the nearest steep hill and run up it as fast as you can. Running will elevate your HR far higher than a bike ever will.

    Aside from all of the above, nearly everyone uses wrist based HR monitors, which aren't accurate in the first place... I'll get my coat.

Categories