Heart Rate Zones / Ping gbb

[rsvdaz]

after reading post #3 in this thread:

http://www.cyclechat..._1#entry1846238

i've had a look at what my average heart rate is during my rides and it ranges from 133 to 146 which puts me in the 70% training zone and not the fat burning zone at 60%..as well as getting fit I would also like to shift a bit of weight...should I try and ride that little bit slower to get in the FBZ..will it make a huge difference?


Interested to know if gb155(Gaz) uses a HRM and what zone he was in whilst shifting all that weight?

 

[gb155]

Do you mean me ?

I have always been over the " fat burning zone" while losing weight , I figured the harder I went for it, the sooner I'd get the job done, it seemed to work, dunno if I would have dropped off sooner in the FBZ but I lost approx 1 stone a month so I wouldn't have wanted it any faster anyway

Check my blog for a link to my garmin connect stats from a ride yesterday to see where my hr is at now

 

[rsvdaz]

Do you mean me ?

I have always been over the " fat burning zone" while losing weight , I figured the harder I went for it, the sooner I'd get the job done, it seemed to work, dunno if I would have dropped off sooner in the FBZ but I lost approx 1 stone a month so I wouldn't have wanted it any faster anyway

Check my blog for a link to my garmin connect stats from a ride yesterday to see where in at now

yes..sorry...gb155...not gbb.

thanks for the info popping over to your blog now...

 

[gb155]

yes..sorry...gb155...not gbb.

thanks for the info popping over to your blog now...

Gimme a shout if you need anything else

Gaz

 

[amaferanga]

If you ride for 1 hour at 70% HRmax you'll burn more calories than if you did an hour at 60% HRmax. Though the percentage of calories that come from fat me be higher at the lower HR, the total number of calories is still less and so all else being equal you'd lose weight less quickly at the lower HR.

If weight loss is your goal then ride as hard as you can for the time you have available. Obviously if you have a LOT of time available to ride then you'll need to do at least some of your riding at a lower intensity or you'll soon become permanently fatigued and eventually unable to ride as much.

 

[ttcycle]

I've got to say the above is not the best advice.

How long have you been cycling for rsvdaz?
You're better off cycling at the 60% HR threshold and building up your distances.

The higher intensity stuff is as you mention not for weight loss.
That is training up the body for high intensity loads for competition and working towards the ability to have a higher anaerobic load.

You really want to be working so that your lungs etc are adapting as well as your muscles and work aerobically for now, especially if you're new to the sport.

It's like saying to lose weight go and do some sprint intervals.
Build up your base and when you're stronger and fitter do a ride or two a week at 70% and the rest at 605 or under.

 

[Rob3rt]

I think the answer is somewhere between ttcycle and amerferanga's advice.

1) Higher intensity will burn more calories during and after but you wont be able to go as long.

2) Lower intensity will burn less calories during and after, but you may be able to go significantly longer.

There will be a point where the two calories consumptions intersect, for example say 45 mins hard riding burns more total calories than 75 mins at a lower intensity, and 75 mins is your limit at lower intensity, the higher intensity work will be more "efficient". On the flip side, if you can last say 2 hours at the lower intensity, then these 2 hours at a lower intensity may burn more total calories than 45 mins at the higher intensity, thus this may be the best way to loose weight.

In the real world though where people have time contraints, in terms of time efficiency, in general higher intensity work would be better. BUT, higher intensity work requires more recovery time and carries increased risk of injury so you might have to train less often, another consideration.


In conclusion, you should have a varied training regime in which you adopt the best of both worlds, some short hard efforts and some longer endurance efforts.

 

[rsvdaz]

I've been cycling seriously on and off for about 18months.....started early spring 2010 in all earnest and was getting in rides varying from 25 miles to 60 miles about 3 times a week.

It all tailed off during the winter and life go in the way (went self employed) until mid summer 2011 (now managing life/work ratio a lot better) and currently doing 25-30 mile rides twice a week and mixing it with a few hills (there is a few around my part of Devon!) once a week short at 10 miles but big hills.

got myself a Garmin edge a couple of weeks ago with a HRM/cadence sensor and now hung up on my stats.

As its very lumpy round these parts its pretty hard to stay in the FBZ

sounds like from rob3rts conclusion i'm doing the right thing.

 

[ttcycle]

I've been cycling seriously on and off for about 18months.....started early spring 2010 in all earnest and was getting in rides varying from 25 miles to 60 miles about 3 times a week.

It all tailed off during the winter and life go in the way (went self employed) until mid summer 2011 (now managing life/work ratio a lot better) and currently doing 25-30 mile rides twice a week and mixing it with a few hills (there is a few around my part of Devon!) once a week short at 10 miles but big hills.

got myself a Garmin edge a couple of weeks ago with a HRM/cadence sensor and now hung up on my stats.

As its very lumpy round these parts its pretty hard to stay in the FBZ

sounds like from rob3rts conclusion i'm doing the right thing.

keep at it! Sounds like you are doing the right thing, try not to obsess over stats too much (I know what that's like)

and have fun!

 

[amaferanga]

The higher intensity stuff is as you mention not for weight loss.

70% MHR isn't high intensity.

A newbie to cycling will find it very difficult to ride anywhere at <60% MHR.

 

[ttcycle]

70% MHR isn't high intensity.

A newbie to cycling will find it very difficult to ride anywhere at <60% MHR.

No not if we're talking about anaerobic systems- that's more 90% etc.

But it's useful to take into account exercise that prepares the vessels etc and equips your body to be more efficient at releasing glycogen. Best to train that up through gradual lower intensity ie 60%