Heart rate way to high

[brotobunz]

Somthing similar happened to me. Was very fit then fell off the bike for a few years. A year ago tried to get fit fast using my HR, doing intervals etc and ended up with Aterial Fibralation for a week,visiting cardiologists and all sorts at 31. Dont push yourself too hard, go very slow. LSD, lots of long slow distance. I slowed down and got fit slowly over 6 months and have lost 6KG's

Keep your heart rate down below 150 BPM , 135bpm sounds good. Dont rev the engine too hard too fast, build up slowly over  a 12 to 16 week period before you start scrutinising you performance too much.

 

Good luck and enjoy pushing those pedals.

[SwissVan]

Ive started training after a lay off of approx 6 years.

Bought myself a mountain bike (prev roadie) and got a Deplhi 5 with HR monitor.

I read the Lore of HR training

Did a decent road trip this morning' date=' and anticipated to ride at approx 60% of max HR to get my weight down first.  At 32 yr of age my max HR should be approx 188.  At 60% i should be training approx 113 bpm. 

Problem is that i just have to sit in the saddle to get to 120.  My avg for the +- 30km was 150.  On the flats it easily clocked 140+ and even the sight of a small hill (or bump in the round) took it to 160.

What the heck should i do?  Just keep peddling at this HR and hope it comes down eventually or slow to a crawl to get to 60% target.

Will i still burn fat at 80% of max HR?

Kinda venting some frustration here (seems this "getting back into it" is gonna take a lot longer than i thought and looking for any tips the hubbers might have.
[/quote']

 

If you have not done any training for 6 years your HR will easily go above 60%, especially with extra resistance such as a hill or wind.

 

Also as previously stated the 220 - age formula is not always accurate, on AVERAGE it works out ok for most people when trying to work out training zones without getting complicated. Clearly in your case you are not one of the lucky ones who can rely on the 220 - age formula.

 

Try calculate your training zones using this formula

 

Max HR - resting HR = ?

? x 60% + RHR = desired heart rate

 

For example if max HR = 190, Resting HR = 55

190 - 55 = 135

135 x 60% = 81

81 + 55 = 136 bpm

 

Resting HR should be taking lafter lying down for a few minutes in a relaxed state first thing in the morning before you eat or drink anything and after you have been to pee (pee only if you need to, holding it in could increase your HR). 

 

The problem here is you do not know what your real MHR is.

I would suggest a month or so of low intensity training and then do a max HR test on long constant hill.

 

< 140bpm sounds about right for your first month or so....

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

[swoosh1973]

Go slow at first (stick to the 60%)' date=' forget about distance and speed, and focus on time ONLY!
[/quote']

Yeah, thanks, will do.  Perhaps i will just forget abt the HR for a month and then see whether the 60% is workable then.  As things are now, i dont even have to peddle, just need to stare at the bike for the HR to get to 60%

 

This is spot on. I have spent thousands of rands on HR monitors gadgets and crap that i almost forgot to enjoy myself instead of dammaging my bank account. I dont dispute the value and use of HR monitors under controlled conditions where fitness instructors can give advice to athletes whithout having to see each other face to face.

 

But quite frankly the time it took just to learn how to operate the damn thing was crazy. However over the years i know how long it will take me to finish a race and pace myself accordingly so that i operate at my max pottential withouit hitting the wall. Then it's a succesfull race!

[CJVDM]

 

 

You burn a higher percentage of fat at lower intensities. But you might actually burn a higher quantity of fat at higher intensity.

 

e.g you burn 100kJ at 60% MHR and 60% of that is fat i.e. you burn 60kJ from fat and 40kJ from other sources.

Now lets say you up your intensity and burn 200kJ at 85% MHR and 30% of that is fat. You've still burnt 60kJ of fat' date=' but you you also burnt 140kJ from other sources and doubled your total energy consumption.

 

Most research shows that fat burning over long periods (e.g. 24hrs) depends on total energy consumption, rather than the percentage of fat burn during exercise. Here is a literature review outlining the research:

Myths Under The Microscope Part 1: The Low Intensity Fat Burning Zone

 

There may be other, valid, reasons why you wouldn't want to train above 60%, but the 'fat burning zone' is not one of them.

[/quote']

 

I told you i didnt know enough.  But seriously, thanks!!  This clears up a lot and actually makes a lot of sense.

 

[CJVDM]

 

 

 

If you have not done any training for 6 years your HR will easily go above 60%' date=' especially with extra resistance such as a hill or wind.

 

Also as previously stated the 220 - age formula is not always accurate, on AVERAGE it works out ok for most people when trying to work out training zones without getting complicated. Clearly in your case you are not one of the lucky ones who can rely on the 220 - age formula.

 

Try calculate your training zones using this formula

 

Max HR - resting HR = ?

? x 60% + RHR = desired heart rate

 

For example if max HR = 190, Resting HR = 55

190 - 55 = 135

135 x 60% = 81

81 + 55 = 136 bpm

 

Resting HR should be taking lafter lying down for a few minutes in a relaxed state first thing in the morning before you eat or drink anything and after you have been to pee (pee only if you need to, holding it in could increase your HR). 

 

The problem here is you do not know what your real MHR is.

I would suggest a month or so of low intensity training and then do a max HR test on long constant hill.

 

< 140bpm sounds about right for your first month or so....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote']

 

Yes!!  Your suggestion for a revised calc is actually spot on.  It calcs my 60% at 137 bpm iso 114 (still using MHR as 220 - age).  I did another ride today (on tar) and increased distance from 27km to 42km (almost same route as yesterday + more).  I revised my zone to ride between 120 and 150 and managed that more or less.  My avg HR came to 140.  It was a nice ride and the moment my legs starting shouting at me (at approx 160 bpm) i would switch gears and tone down on the pace.  It felt awesum to do some distance at least.

 

Im currently abt 112kg's and i was aiming to get below 100 (lets say 95 - 97) by end Dec.  Thats a lot more than the 1kg per month as stated by someone else on this thread.  Im not saying the 1kg per month is incorrect, as ive heard that many place before, just wondering whether i can still make my target and not put myself at risk?

 

 

CJVDM2009-10-04 14:31:17

[Slipstream Sean]

One more thing to remember in the ongoing debate of 'low intensity endurance vs hard intervals' with regards to fat burning...

 

Let's say you rip some hard intervals and effectively kick the living $hit outta your body. Now you stretch-out, shower and plonk yourself down in front of the tele with some grub. Whilst stuffing your face, your HR  is still in the 'cardio zone' from your intense workout, and could remain in this region for hours(depending on fitness), and effectively you continue to burn more fat on the couch. Conversely after a low intensity endurance ride your HR recovers a lot quicker. Obviously fitter riders recover quicker but this is all relative and applies to all levels of fitness.

 

But never underestimate the importance of base training(to echo sum of the other hubbers comments)...low intensites, longer duration, hypertrophy. Let your body adapt before you try hard intervals. The better your base program in the pre season, the better your season... It's that simple... I learned that first hand!

 

[Slipstream Sean]

Oopsie! Just saw Edmans link pretty much says what I went on about regarding fat burning zones, missed that part. Forget what I said and read the link...it's more professionally worded.

[Minion]

 

Is there someone local that you know of that is able to provide assistance to frustrated athletes with weight loss issues?

I'm afraid I can't really help there. It is said that proper diet is the biggest factor influencing weight loss, so I would suggest consulting a registered dietician. Perhaps someone else can make a suggestion.

 

I say dietician because they have to be registered with the HPCSA, so you get some level of confidence in their qualifications. Registration of nutritionists only becomes complusory some time this year or next.

 

[JohnnyReggae]

I've had my HR monitor for a few years now.I find it very useful to keep track of how much I'm exerting myself, although it's not hard to figure out without the HR Monitor .

 

Mostly I used it now to track my fitness level. ie. How quickly does my HR drop after some hard intervals, and overall fitness with my average HR on a ride, and lastly just to track my riding time.

 

[MildlyWild]

You can easily lose that much without putting your body under too much pressure.  By increasing your energy expenditure with a bit of cycling, and automatically upping your base metabolism with a bit more muscle mass (legs), you will lose the weight if you watch your intake.  No need to starve yourself - you'll need to eat a bit more than before probably, but keep it reasonable.

The 1kg/month thing is likely better suited to an overweight, sedentary person who wants to lose weight by just eating less.

 

Keep up the riding and the weight will come off without you trying too hard.

 

 

Im currently abt 112kg's and i was aiming to get below 100 (lets say 95 - 97) by end Dec.  Thats a lot more than the 1kg per month as stated by someone else on this thread.  Im not saying the 1kg per month is incorrect, as ive heard that many place before, just wondering whether i can still make my target and not put myself at risk?

MildlyWild2009-10-06 01:22:32