Question about Heart Rate.

[JayBizz]

Hey there, Cathe.

I'm Julia, I've been a *huge* fan of your videos for several years - and STOKED to find this forum!!! MY QUESTIONS WILL *NEVER* *STOP*!!!! :7

I'm 5'5", currently at 139. I'm looking to lose 20-25 pounds. I'm going to London in July, and my goal is to "hit it" as hard as I can exercise-wise. I am starting strength training with a personal trainer three times per week in a gym, but will be doing your cardio-focused step videos on the days I don't see my trainer.

So, from the research I've done on heart rate, I understand that there's an optimal "fat loss" zone, which is approximately 60-70% of your maximum heart rate. There's a "cardio intense" zone, about 70-80% of your max heart rate. I bought a Polar Heart Rate monitor and used it for the first time while doing PowerMax this morning. I pride myself on being able to keep up (most days, anyway! ;-) ), but the monitor indicated my heart rate was *way* *past* even the cardio zone! I think my max was around 162, I got as high as 182 in some sections!

My question is, how detrimental is working above my zone to weight loss? I suspect that if I stayed in the fat loss zone, I wouldn't feel very challenged with whatever exercise I was doing. This is okay with me, if the weight comes off better that way.

Please advise.

You're *fantastic*, Cathe. Don't ever stop.


julia

 

[elsie3]

I am anxious to hear Cathe's reply to this question! I, too, didn't feel challenged enough in my "zone." And I've always wondered about the standard formula because it doesn't take cardiovasular fitness into account. In fact, I couldn't do Cathe at all if I went by it. I used to go by "perceived exertion" more than heart rate, but that doesn't tell you much. I found a site, www.stevenscreek.com, where you can calculate your target heart rate corrected for a resting heart rate. They have a formula for fit people that uses 211-Age/2 instead of the 220-age.

I'm 5'2" and almost 37 years old. My resting heart rate is 57. I recently purchased a heart rate monitor and this new formula works great for me--it feels exactly right. I did Step Works this morning, and I averaged 152, (not counting warmup and cooldown)--I got up to 174 on the side lunges with an 8-inch step. My 60% is 140 and my 85% is 171. When I'm doing interval training, I'll go as high as 180 (for a few seconds), but my workouts average in the 150's.

I got a heart-rate training book at the library and it suggested working in the cardio zone instead of the fat zone. The author's reasoning was that while you burn a higher percentage of fat in the fat zone, you burn more total calores--and consequently more fat--in the cardio zone. Before I read this, I was trying to stay in the fat zone with little results. I've had much greater success using my new heart-rate formula and working at a higher intensity. It feels better, too--like I'm working hard enough but not too hard.

I think listening to your body is the key.

Carol

 

[missyb70]

This is a great article about the "fat burning zone".
http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardioworkouts/l/aa022601a.htm

 

[lorajc]

I'd be interesting in hearing Cathe's perespective on this.