Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Hr in beats per minute
- Thread starter gjohnson5
- Start date
Well your maximum HR should be 186 for your age.....148-160 puts you in the aerobic zone
This zone is the most effective for overall cardiovascular fitness and is often called the "aerobic zone" or "target heart rate zone". This is the optimal zone to workout in to increase your cardio-respitory capacity or the bodies ability to transport oxygenated blood to the muscle cells and carbon dioxide away from the cells. After a while you will be able to cover more distance during workouts in less time. Your body will burn less glucose and more stored fat as fuel thereby working more efficiently. This zone is also effective for increasing overall muscle strength.
This zone is the most effective for overall cardiovascular fitness and is often called the "aerobic zone" or "target heart rate zone". This is the optimal zone to workout in to increase your cardio-respitory capacity or the bodies ability to transport oxygenated blood to the muscle cells and carbon dioxide away from the cells. After a while you will be able to cover more distance during workouts in less time. Your body will burn less glucose and more stored fat as fuel thereby working more efficiently. This zone is also effective for increasing overall muscle strength.
Synpax
Well-known member
GymGurl has some good info but I have a different take:
We can't really think anything of it because we don't have enough information to develop a thought.
We don't know:
- What your actual maximum HR is. There isn't any science behind the 220-age rule and variance can be huge.
- What fuel you are burning when you are at that heart rate. Just like max hr, those charts you see on the machines and on the wall can be wildly inaccurate as there is much variance among people due do genetics and fitness.
- How much of your weight is fat.
- What your cardio fitness condition is.
- What you were doing to get into that zone. Biking/running/swimming/whatever. They don't translate well at all as there is minimal cross-benefit. Best example is Lance Armstrong's marathon performance.
And most importantly, we don't know what your goal is.
Insofar as you aren't lab tested for HR zones, you can make guesses based on perceived effort.
But the real value for your non-lab tested HRs is that you can compare them to each other. This is more valuable than looking at a stand-alone figure. The lower HRs for the same activity over time indicate increasing fitness, and higher HRs can indicate illness or overtraining.
Maybe you can fill out the above.
We can't really think anything of it because we don't have enough information to develop a thought.
We don't know:
- What your actual maximum HR is. There isn't any science behind the 220-age rule and variance can be huge.
- What fuel you are burning when you are at that heart rate. Just like max hr, those charts you see on the machines and on the wall can be wildly inaccurate as there is much variance among people due do genetics and fitness.
- How much of your weight is fat.
- What your cardio fitness condition is.
- What you were doing to get into that zone. Biking/running/swimming/whatever. They don't translate well at all as there is minimal cross-benefit. Best example is Lance Armstrong's marathon performance.
And most importantly, we don't know what your goal is.
Insofar as you aren't lab tested for HR zones, you can make guesses based on perceived effort.
But the real value for your non-lab tested HRs is that you can compare them to each other. This is more valuable than looking at a stand-alone figure. The lower HRs for the same activity over time indicate increasing fitness, and higher HRs can indicate illness or overtraining.
Maybe you can fill out the above.
nodiggitydave
New member
What do I think?
I'm Impressed.
I'm Impressed.
disturbed311
New member
Whats even better to use than maximum heart rate, or percieved effort is training using your lactate threshold levels. Once you know what your LT is, then you can base your heart rate training off of that. Look up Joe Friel's "Total Heart Rate Training" book. It'll let you know whats up
parameathead
New member
don't really understand your question,if your sitting down watching t.v and your heart rate is 160 then there is a huge problem.If your running or doing some sort of physical activity then it is probably normal for you.If your asking is it bad for your heart rate to be at 160 for a 60 minute cardio session then the short answer is no.Some people twice your age do that every morning before breakfast.
Similar threads
