Two days in and a question already

[Cuchilo]

@Chris_Kn please don't do this except under medical supervision! You are not ready for it.

Did I nearly internet kill him ?

 

[Joshua Plumtree]

Did I nearly internet kill him ?

Don't listen to him Chris! He'll have you riding TT's and be taking your photo into the bargain!

I reckon most people ride naturally at 60/70 of MHR. Anything less is rather too easy and a little tedious! And anything over 70% is quite hard to maintain for any length of time. So there's really no need to know your MHR at present.

Just turn the pedals as often as you can!

I'd recommend weight training for weight loss over cycling, at least initially; but as you have back problems this obviously wouldn't work for you.

Good luck!

 

[Cuchilo]

I think you should do it my way , this lot will have you eating nuts and shouting out car number plates so they can get their you tube kicks

 

[Chris_Kn]

A long time ago, I did a long skate with a HRM on. My HR was 200bpm for 30 minutes. I found this a bit startling, but confirmed it was right with a wrist watch and 2 fingers. My theoretical MHR at the time was 190bpm, but the fact I could keep going at that pace for half an hour meant that I must have been aerobic, so my MHR was around 250.

I'd used perceived exertion (ie the talk/sing test above) rather than a HRM.

That being said, I like gadgets, so do still wear a HRM on occasion.

No, your MHR is the fastest your heart can beat. It's a real number. It's very likely between 154 & 170, but quite possibly not. If it happened to be 130 (possible), and you assumed it was 170, then you'd be working at 90% instead of 70%. As stated above, my maximum HR was about 25% more than the calculator estimated. Yours could be, too. Or %25 less.

Use the HRM, but if you get out of breath, pull it back a notch.

Lets see if we can clear this one up, So a persons max heart rate is 220 - age. that's it in it's basic form. So 220 - 54(me) = 166bpm.
My GP said use the figure of 160 as max and work to 60/70%. That is the 2nd zone and is the best for weight control. Going beyond your max figure could damage your heart and at worst kill you.
Just in-case anyone is interested the zones are 1/ light exercise 2/weight loss 3/ Aerobic 4/ Anaerobic 5/ VO2 max the last two are hardcore and Max effort. So if your MHR was 190, working at 200 for any extended period of time could have been harmful. I presume your age was 30 at the time?? I don't understand why you say mine could be 25% less than the calculated figure.

Did I nearly internet kill him ?

I think it will take more than the odd comment on the Internet for that to happen

I think you should do it my way , this lot will have you eating nuts and shouting out car number plates so they can get their you tube kicks

Your way of doing is not totally wrong Cuchilo, but by adding rests and monitoring things it would become a Hight Intensity workout, which is not me for now.

There's nothing wrong with well meant advice and it's all appreciated.

 

[jefmcg]

Lets see if we can clear this one up, So a persons max heart rate is 220 - age.

No. MHR is an actual number that is related to your own heart. It has a physical meaning.

When you exercise, your HR goes up. When you exercise harder, it goes up more. Harder, and it gets higher. But your heart has a maximum HR, when you get there, no matter how hard you push it won't go any higher. It's an inbuilt limit in your body, though it might vary with different exercises, and tends to decrease as we age. That number is your maximum HR.

As you can see, finding out your MHR is uncomfortable, and possibly dangerous if you have an underlying heart condition, so there are various formulas to estimate it. But they are just informed guesses; they'll be dead on for some people, and wildly inaccurate for others.

2/weight loss

Ignore weight loss zone. It's been debunked.

You burn a higher %age calories from fat at this level, but you burn more actually calories of fat at higher workout levels. Plus post workout you will continue to burn more calories if the effort was harder. IE, you will burn less fat if you stick to the so called weight loss zone.

Ah (checks google), that's 60-70%. You should be working harder than that, if your body is ready for it. EDIT: Don't listen to me, listen to your doctor!

 

[Cuchilo]

My MHR is 191 and I'm 42
Edit . It went to 196 on my last ride

 

[ayceejay]

Chris" with a resting heart rate of 82 bpm I would be careful of any exercise, do you have that right as it seems awfully high. If that figure s correct a would stick to very light exercise until it goes down a bit if you look at your numbers you will see that this is already 50% of your max - be careful.

 

[jefmcg]

15 min each and the distance was around 2.6 mile, the way I did it
was to get my HR to between 60/70% of Max and maintain that rate for as
long as I could.

If you can only do 15 minutes at the HR, then this is actually a good pace for you until you get a bit fitter.

 

[Chris_Kn]

@jefmcg you may well be right, but as a starting point formulas seem to work. The 60% - 70% zone was a starting figure used by my GP as well as MHR of 160
which seems to fit in with a lot of the charts, when in my case an increased fitness level has been developed I can up things and get more serious. At the moment
it's 2 or 3 very short sessions each day. For me something is better than nothing, and yes I am taking things easy. Thanks for your replies guys.

 

[cyberknight]

You eat about twice what I do, maybe I was being simplistic about the way to lose weight is by diet but Blazes idea of doing it by exercise only is perhaps a tall order.

Shaun

He eats about half what i do , whithout knowing his non cycling lifestyle /work and as @vickster mentioned any underlying health issues its hard to pass judgement on a calorific snapshot .