Heart Rate Monitors

[Student Bob]

blah blah blah

Excuse the bluntness Neil, but this shows an ignorance of simple GCSE Biology. Training zones are well established, and whilst this is wholly the wrong place for a biology lesson (I prefer old bikes) the concept of training zones is verified by basic physiology.

Anyone NOT interested in cellular physiology can now go put the kettle on.....

The fats in the 'fat burning zone' are intramuscular triglycerides, the lipolysis of triglycerides and subsequent mobilisation and absorption of their constituent parts depends on the concentration gradients across the cell membranes which in itself is an expression of work - so any change in work rate alters the concentration gradient and the absorption rate across the cells - effectively switching between 'fat burning zones' and anaerobic zones, so it's genuinely not as simple as training harder for shorter which, I think, was what your point was?

The dirty little secret of training is that people don't realise how little they have to work to actually have a benefit - I have to consciously slow myself down to keep below 55%HRR.

Regarding your point on calorie burning, if you understood what a calorie is, you'd understand why your question is pointless, it's all about the individual. The best I can offer is that most activities are based around a generalised sample of the public, so to burn 3,000kcal in the 'fat burning zone' you'd need to run about 30-35 miles.

Clearly it can be horrifically more complicated than that when you really get into it, but I've got NO desire to do that outside of school.....

 

[Neil]

blah blah blah

Excuse the bluntness Neil, but this shows an ignorance of simple GCSE Biology. Training zones are well established, and whilst this is wholly the wrong place for a biology lesson (I prefer old bikes) the concept of training zones is verified by basic physiology.

Anyone NOT interested in cellular physiology can now go put the kettle on.....

The fats in the 'fat burning zone' are intramuscular triglycerides, the lipolysis of triglycerides and subsequent mobilisation and absorption of their constituent parts depends on the concentration gradients across the cell membranes which in itself is an expression of work - so any change in work rate alters the concentration gradient and the absorption rate across the cells - effectively switching between 'fat burning zones' and anaerobic zones, so it's genuinely not as simple as training harder for shorter which, I think, was what your point was?

My point was simply this - for weight / fat loss, deficit matters - not fuel source.

In terms of the "training zones" as you put it, well assuming pushing the boundaries of the cardiovascular thresholds isn't the key goal (the discussion seems to be mostly about weight / fat loss (given the focus on the "fat burning zone"), then all that shifting the target heart rate about, during training, is change how the energy is sourced (fat or glycogen).

For sustained weight / fat loss, though, that doesn't matter a damn. Because there's no true, tangible, notable-above-being-negligent, advantage in weight or fat loss from sourcing (by means of exercise and level of effort), or diet (ketosis) on an ongoing basis, to sustained weight or fat loss.

Energy is conserved. Laws of thermodynamics apply - whether they are complex to measure for the human body, or not. So fuelling exercise from fat doesn't matter a damn, over time, because other fuel sources won't be being used, and surplus goes right back (long-term) as bodyfat.

And for diet - again, doesn't matter a damn (forcing the body to use fat for "fuel), unless by merit of cutting out (largely) a whole macronutrient, over time, calories are sufficiently reduced to create a conducive deficit.

"Training Zones" may be of significance for other purposes - cardiovascular thresholds, sport specific improvements, but for sustained weigh / fat loss, sustained deficit matters.

And how that's best achieved, varies wildly. Some people prefer lower intensity "fat burning" exercise levels, some prefer briefer periods, or intervals. With weight or fat loss as a goal, though, all that really matters, is sustained deficit (and after that, trying to gee metabolic slowdown every so often... and trying to preserve LBM).

Regarding your point on calorie burning, if you understood what a calorie is, you'd understand why your question is pointless, it's all about the individual.

What is? A calorie isn't an individual measure. Individuals may have differeing metabolic rates, and they may have differeing rates of absorption. But what matters for sustained weight / fat loss, is sustained deficit. If fuelling by a particular energy source mattered a damn, the ketogenic diets (for most normal people) would be the best way to lose weight and fat - but it's not, and they're not.

What I'm not trying to say is "training zones" are totally pointless - all I'm trying to say is that for weight / fat loss purposes, they aren't significant. What is (for those goals) is sustained deficit - however the individual chooses or prefers that to be, and what type of exercise assists that deficit the most.

For true athletes, then degrees of effort in terms of heart rate truly do matter.

The best I can offer is that most activities are based around a generalised sample of the public, so to burn 3,000kcal in the 'fat burning zone' you'd need to run about 30-35 miles.

The point I was making, was that for an individual training session, the concept of being able to train for longer, before (normally) running out of "juice" (so to speak) ain't that relevant, for those that are merely looking to lose weight / fat - because as you say, to deplete 3000 cals, based on averages, is a sh1t load of effort - far more than most people looking to simply lose weight / fat would contemplate for a training session.

 

[Carge]

Cor - I'm getting tired just reading all of this

@KeepItSteel - fancy just going out for a ride at the weekend instead? A ride along the Kennet to Newbury?

 

[KeepItSteel]

Cor - I'm getting tired just reading all of this

@KeepItSteel - fancy just going out for a ride at the weekend instead? A ride along the Kennet to Newbury?

As long as you can promise that i'll burn at least 3000 calories and i'll be burning them in the fat burning zone?

 

[KeepItSteel]

Try this book for starters if you decide to go for it. Or if you see it in a book shop it'll tell you all you need to know in the first few pages, the rest is just padding(authors admission).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1891369849/r ... 1891369849


The 220 minus age formulas are as outmoded as throwing witches in the water to see if they float or not.

To add to and probably complicate the 'fat burning zone' theories. You normally utilise fat as an energy source as well as glycogen(carbs). The harder you exercise the more you use, the problem being you only have a finite supply of glycogen compared to fat. Using up your glycogen will cause you to bonk. Staying in the 'zone' should keep you mostly using your fat supplies and postponing the bonk. Thus exercising in the zone means you can go longer and ultimately burn more calories. You do not pass through the zone were you switch from fat to glycogen, you continue to burn fat. The heart rate monitor will allow you to train at a level were you can increase your anaerobic threshold, ie allowing you to work harder whilst utilising fat as a primary energy source. Off the top of my head you have around 3000 calories of glycogen stored in your muscles and liver but have around 30,000 calories worth of fat (average man).

Thanks Kaiser, ill be checking the book out for sure.

I also like the look of the Suunto t3d, which model do you use?

 

[kaiser]

I have the first T3 and use it with the bike pod. Best thing about the watch is the upgrade ability and the fact that it looks like a normal watch. Quite easy to use as well and the training effect function us pretty good as a starter trainer.

 

[Tallpaul]

I've never had to 'lose' weight, but I understood the concept to be pretty straight-forward; burn more calories than you consume. Am I missing something?

The only caveat to that sentiment being the calories you consume should come from a sensible, balanced diet i.e. cut out the junk food and stop pouring copious volumes of ale down your neck every night.

I bought a heart-rate monitor on a whim in Tesco and wore it for a while during my usual run, I learned nothing except what my heart-rate was. It's now at the bottom of a drawer somewhere.

 

[KeepItSteel]

You missed the part about being able to (visually) stay within certain thresholds in order to maintain training effort for better quality results.
Also the ability to (reasonably accurately) log calorie consumption.
Also being able to track training progress by way of recovery data.
Also being able to accurately track distance covered (when utilising GPS or foot pods).
Amongst a few other reasons im sure. I've convinced myself, have I convinced you to give yours another go?

 

[KeepItSteel]

coolio - just won me a nice Suunto HRM with foot pod to track distance covered.
Hoping I get to see some benefits now.

I can hear my iPod beckoning me now...'its the EYE OF THE TIGER!, the thrill of the fight'...