Cardio=fat loss?

ForeverYoung90

Male 21,6'2,14st.I want to lose my belly and have been told to do it I must eat clean and RUN,RUN,RUN!Ive joined a gym so what would be the best cardio machines to use and how many days a week should I be doing it?thanks.

gibraltar

ForeverYoung90 wrote: »

Male 21,6'2,14st.I want to lose my belly and have been told to do it I must eat clean and RUN,RUN,RUN!Ive joined a gym so what would be the best cardio machines to use and how many days a week should I be doing it?thanks.

I would say that to lose the belly (and keep it off) RUN, RUN, RUN is not the only answer.

What exercise do you enjoy? long term you are far more likley to suceed if you are doing something you enjoy rather than something you dread.

If you have joined a gym ask a staff member for advice on how and when to train. have a go on the various machines and see what you like.

Again I would say start easy, its easy to be too eager and overtrain and pick up an injury.

Mellor

gibraltar wrote: »

I would say that to lose the belly (and keep it off) RUN, RUN, RUN is not the only answer.

What exercise do you enjoy? long term you are far more likley to suceed if you are doing something you enjoy rather than something you dread.

If you have joined a gym ask a staff member for advice on how and when to train. have a go on the various machines and see what you like.

Again I would say start easy, its easy to be too eager and overtrain and pick up an injury.

Exercise is a help but diet is far ffar more important.
No point in him finding new hobbies and gettign gym advice if he isn't eating well.

Say you will eating clean is not near enough.
OP post a typical "clean" diet for you, include quantites if you can
Post everything, meals, snacks, all drinks

ForeverYoung90

breakfast bowl of cornflakes
lunch hot chicken roll
dinner fish/steak potatoes carrots brocilli glass milk

Mellor

Breakfast is not clean
Lunch is filthy
Dinner is ok, is portions are in check

Hal Emmerich

Mellor wrote: »

Breakfast is clean
Lunch is filthy
Dinner is ok, is portions are in check

Clean and filthy...odd choice of words....why is lunch filthy?

Mellor

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

Clean and filthy...odd choice of words....why is lunch filthy?

How are they odd?
"Clean" is a standard way of describing a good diet. I was highlighting that corn flakes for breakfast isn't a good choice. I used filthy for lunch to highlight how terrible it is, are you seriously asking why a hot chicken roll is a bad choice?

BlastedGlute

Hahaha Mellor is being trolled on the most obvious word analogy. Everything about this....ahem...diet....is wrong. You probably won't gain or lose a kilo from your current load on this kind of scoff but you can forget about dramatic physical changes to.

It's only when I'm asked to explain what it is I, do in the gym/eat/sleep etc do I realise how extreme it might sound to somebody starting out. For me it's just a life style now. I've drank, maybe 4 times, in nearly 2 years. I eat even when I can't chew(I have a mouth ulcer from a cut I got on my gum last week. Yesterday I blended 2 cooked chicken fillets with water and drank them down to save me chewing)

Cornflakes and chicken rolls from spar. You've a journey ahead man. Outline your goals(I wanted to look like Bale in American psycho in the beginning) realise that your body is a product of your lifestyle. If one changes then so does the other.

BigDuffman

If you do anything OP lose the chicken roll (and any other white bread ya may be sneaking in) also a wrap is not much better so avoid that too. Sub in a chicken / lean beef salad (home made dressing lemon juice etc).

Increase your protein intake decrease your starchy / sugary carb intake, watch the portion size, drink lots of water through out the day, read food labels (not all fats are bad but watch for sat / trans fats).

Aim for 5 small portion controlled meals. Snacks like Peanut butter on Rivita or a tin of tuna + sweet corn with a dash of tobasco.

There's plenty of advice and plans out there on the internets on full eating plans. But in short my 2cents on eating plan based on above:

Brekkie: Boxed Cereal is not idea. Try porridge oats mixed with some blue berry and a dash of honey / cinamon if you need to sweeten it up.

Snack: Hand full of unsalted almonds / cashews + small furit portion

Lunch: Chicken / beef / tuna salad (home made if possible, avoiding shop bought dressing and fried chicken.

Snack: Peanut butter on rivita - protein shake / smoothie (not a zumo fruit smoothie).

Dinner: Lean beef / Chicken/ Fish (cod, coley, tuna in the george forman or grill. With big portion of veg (broccoli is great) a few potatoes (but try avoid shed loads on account of starch) or brown rice. Season / Spice to taste!

digzy

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Hahaha Mellor is being trolled on the most obvious word analogy. Everything about this....ahem...diet....is wrong. You probably won't gain or lose a kilo from your current load on this kind of scoff but you can forget about dramatic physical changes to.

It's only when I'm asked to explain what it is I, do in the gym/eat/sleep etc do I realise how extreme it might sound to somebody starting out. For me it's just a life style now. I've drank, maybe 4 times, in nearly 2 years. I eat even when I can't chew(I have a mouth ulcer from a cut I got on my gum last week. Yesterday I blended 2 cooked chicken fillets with water and drank them down to save me chewing)



Get yourself some corsodyl mouthrinse and gel for the ulcer. Use the rinse 4 times/day-i find it has a 'numbing' effect and apply the gel with a cotton bud at night after dabbing it dry. They sting like f*ck but the corsodyl really helps me.

LJD10

Hi Here are some tips that worked for me

• Healthy Eating

Basically cut out all the crap eating i.e. chocolate , chips, bread, sweets, crisps, processed food etc and supplement with fruit, veg, lean meats, eggs, nuts and wholegrain carbs. No harm in treating yourself every once in while but not gorging on them every day as part of your daily diet.

• Eat more often

Eat smaller portions, but eat more often to keep your metabolism ticking over. So instead of 3 big meals have 5 or 6 small meals. The bigger the portions you eat the harder it is for that "full" feeling to kick in, which makes you progressively eat more and more. So if you start training yourself to eat smaller meals eventually you wont feel the need to eat as much in any one sitting.

• Build more muscle

The more muscle you have the more calories you burn as muscle uses energy even when watching the telly, fat does NOT. So hit the weights. However if you want to build muscle you will need more protein so make sure your protein intake is increased. Even having a a protein shake in the morning and straight after exercise will make a difference. But remember to include any extra shakes when working out your daily calorie requirements plus make sure to pick a high quality protein powder thats not loaded with sugars. You also need carbs to build muscle so be sure not to cut out carbs completely, just switch to slow releasing ones.

• High intensity interval training

If you want to burn fat fast high intensity interval training is excellent as it goes straight to your fat stores for energy plus keeps your metabolism elevated for longer afterwards. HIIT also builds muscle, if you dont believe me compare the body of a sprinter to a long distance marathon runner.The idea behind HIIT excercises is that you work at your maximum capacity for a short duration of time followed by a recovery period. Examples of this could include ten 1 min sprint/1 min walk combos , or 4 then 3 then 2 then 1 min sprints progressively getting faster but with 1 min recovery in between each sprint. You can apply HIIT to any form of cardio though. Just as long as you are going like the clappers for a period of time that you cannot do any more and you have a recovery periods in between each burst to get your breath back to go again. Honestly after 20 mins of this you will be KNACKERED! This is great if you dont have the time to put in hours of cardio.
This is not to say that slow paced cardio such as jogging, walking and cycling etc is not good. This is also good for burning off extra carbs consumed that day and not to mention improving your over all cardiovascular health. A healthy balance would be to do a bit of both for example 2 days a week do an 30-45 mins of jogging/walking or cycling then 2 other days do your interval training. If you dont fancy forcing yourself to do HITT keep an eye out for boxing classes , spinning classes or even cross fit classes in the gyms as these are all forms of HIIT.

• Drink plenty of water to flush out any toxins. Water is also need to build muscle.

• Enjoy

Hanley

LJD10 wrote: »

[*]High intensity interval training
[/LIST]

If you want to burn fat fast high intensity interval training is excellent as it goes straight to your fat stores for energy plus keeps your metabolism elevated for longer afterwards. HIIT also builds muscle, if you dont believe me compare the body of a sprinter to a long distance marathon runner.

There’s so much wrong with this.

Here’s some things HIIT doesn’t do…
-go “straight to fat stores for energy”
-build muscle
-leave your metabolism elevated to any appreciable amount

Sprinters and marathoners look different at the top level because they type of person who exceeds at both has a very different body type. They’d look different even if they never trained.

Sprinters lift weights, work on power and explosiveness and try to maintain muscle mass. That’s why they’re big. It’s of benefit to their sport.

Marathon runners actively seek to avoid weight gain, will do everything they can to become lighter, and don’t train with weights or seek to increase muscle mass. Running long distances is harder the more weight you carry. That’s why they’re small.

The fact that one runs really fast for a short amount of time is barely even relevant when it comes to how they look.

That’s not to say HIIT is useless or worse than LIT. It’s definitely worth doing if it’s something that interests you. But some of the stuff people make up about it when they’re trying to convince others to do it is ridiculous.

LJD10

well hanely you are entitled to your own opinion but I was just trying to give ForeverYoung a few tips that worked for me. I stand corrected on the go “straight to fat stores for energy” , apologies I meant to say glycogen stores. There a plenty of studies on the net if you are interested that explain how HIIT can increase the production of the natural human growth hormone and fat burn for up to 24 hours after a workout. HIIT sessions constantly exceed the lactate threshold in the muscles so this acts as a stimulus to increase growth hormone production. Anyway I could on and on arguing this point by going into the nitty gritty stuff with reference to different papers and scientific facts I have studied on this, but I cant be bothered getting into a debate on this. I'll save that for another thread. Its up to the OP himself if he wants to try out my suggestions. I have trained for marathons, half marathons, and numerous 10k and 10 miles races over the years with a combination of HIIT and long distance running and it has worked perfectly for me HIIT always helps me get my speed up and strengthen my legs and whilst long distance running increases my endurance capacity..and more importantly, what he is looking for "keeping the belly down". Why dont you offer some suggestions of your own, that would be more helpful to ForeverYoung

Jarren

I really liked Lyle McDonald explanation on this issue

Simplistically
As you move from lwo intensities to higher intensities, the amount of fat vs. carbs burned shifts from one to the other

At low intensities, you may burn near 100% fat
At the highest intensiy (acually just about anything above lactate threshold), you burn 100% carbs

at any intensity between, you burn a proportion of the two. As you move from lower to high intensity, you burn proportionally less fat and proportinally more carbs until you reach a point taht the body can only burn carbs.

The issue with the 'fat burning zone' concept is that people confuse %ages with absolutes

Say you're walking at 3mph and burning 5 cal/min, but you're burning 100% fat. That's 5 cal/min of fat.

Say you're running at 6 mph and burning 10 cal/min but you're burning 50% fat.

Ruh roh, that's less fat, isn't it? No, it's not. 10 cal/min * 50% 5 cal/min of fat. It's the same amount of fat in absolute terms although it's a lower percentage. But you're also burning 5 cal/min of carbohydrates.

Say that at 6 mph you're burning 10 cal/min but still 65% fat. That's still lower by %age than at 3mph. But yo'ure burning 6.5 cal/min of fat which is higher. And you burn more total calories. And you deplete some of the carbohdyrate in your muscle.

Some studies have shown that that maximum absolute amount of fat burned occurs right around the lactat tehreshold (the highest, hardest, most painful intensity that you can sustain for an extended period) although it depends on training status and some other factors

When you deplete muscle glycogen (via burning it during exercise and/or carbohdyrate restriction), this increases whole body fat oxidation. And, for the most part, what you burn during exercise is less relevant than than what you burn the rest of the day and none of this matters if you aren't in a deficit). So say you do a hard session where you burn a combination of fat and carbs. Not only did you burn those calories, by depleting muscle glycogen

a. your body will burn more fat for the rest of the day (I'm not saying more in terms of 'metabolic rate' is increases, but more in terms of the proportions used)
b. incoming carbohdyrates tend to go to refilling muscle glycogen instead of being used for energy

Which is why, to a certain degree, it doesn't matter what you do as long as the calorie burn is roughly similar

Low intensity activity is sort of a direct fat burner, you burn mostly fat for fuel but that's all you get out of it.

Higher intensity burns some proportion of fat/carbs but impacts more greatly on what you burn later in the day

Intervals burn only carbs during training but the glycogen depletion and other factors may make you burn more fat later in the day

I think the bigger issue is that, if you do too much high intensity activity too frequently, you get overtrained and that causes too many problems.

Elite athletes do 75% or more of their volumes at low intensities, what makes fitness people think that they can handle more than this?

http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=79


I couldn't find better answer tbh:)

Hanley

LJD10 wrote: »

well hanely you are entitled to your own opinion but I was just trying to give ForeverYoung a few tips that worked for me. I stand corrected on the go “straight to fat stores for energy” , apologies I meant to say glycogen stores. There a plenty of studies on the net if you are interested that explain how HIIT can increase the production of the natural human growth hormone and fat burn for up to 24 hours after a workout. HIIT sessions constantly exceed the lactate threshold in the muscles so this acts as a stimulus to increase growth hormone production. Anyway I could on and on arguing this point by going into the nitty gritty stuff with reference to different papers and scientific facts I have studied on this, but I cant be bothered getting into a debate on this. I'll save that for another thread. Its up to the OP himself if he wants to try out my suggestions. I have trained for marathons, half marathons, and numerous 10k and 10 miles races over the years with a combination of HIIT and long distance running and it has worked perfectly for me HIIT always helps me get my speed up and strengthen my legs and whilst long distance running increases my endurance capacity..and more importantly, what he is looking for "keeping the belly down". Why dont you offer some suggestions of your own, that would be more helpful to ForeverYoung

Opinion is only relevant when there aren’t facts to back something up. The data shows that HIIT doesn’t elevate metabolism to a significant extent in the period post workout. As I was saying yesterday, 80kcals extra may be burned in the 7 hour window after a HIIT workout, but that requires working at about 75-80% of MHR for 60+ minutes. A level not sustainable by most, and certainly not repeatable with much frequency. At lower intensities and duration, the effect is even more diminished.

HIIT is great for fitness, I’m not debating that. My point is - doing either LIT or HIIT isn’t going to be what makes or breaks your weight loss. Any marginal benefit gained from HIIT is easily obtainable from dietary modification.

Look at what they’re eating and how they’re training - choosing between HIIT and LIT is honestly the least of their worries.

As for “offering advice”. This topic has been covered 2x in the last 24 hours and I’ve offered my advice there.

Brian?

Hanley wrote: »

Opinion is only relevant when there aren’t facts to back something up. The data shows that HIIT doesn’t elevate metabolism to a significant extent in the period post workout. As I was saying yesterday, 80kcals extra may be burned in the 7 hour window after a HIIT workout, but that requires working at about 75-80% of MHR for 60+ minutes. A level not sustainable by most, and certainly not repeatable with much frequency. At lower intensities and duration, the effect is even more diminished.

I reckon that if you can sustain 75-80% of MHR for 60 minutes, you're not going to be on boards looking for weightloss advice.

HIIT is great for fitness, I’m not debating that. My point is - doing either LIT or HIIT isn’t going to be what makes or breaks your weight loss. Any marginal benefit gained from HIIT is easily obtainable from dietary modification.

Look at what they’re eating and how they’re training - choosing between HIIT and LIT is honestly the least of their worries.

As for “offering advice”. This topic has been covered 2x in the last 24 hours and I’ve offered my advice there

Aye, arguing about HIIT v LIT is fairly pointless when someone is shovelling fried chicken baguettes into them.

Just in case anyone thinks I'm dissing intervals, I'm not. Sure they're only marvelous if your goal is increased aerobic capacity.

menoscemo

Hanley wrote: »

As I was saying yesterday, 80kcals extra may be burned in the 7 hour window after a HIIT workout, but that requires working at about 75-80% of MHR for 60+ minutes. A level not sustainable by most, and certainly not repeatable with much frequency. At lower intensities and duration, the effect is even more diminished.

I don't get this bit at all Hanley. For most folks who run any distance, 75-80% MHR would be considered a very low intensity work out (i.e Jogging) that you would do every day. Marathon pace for most long distance runners would be apporx 85% MHR.
I recently did an Ultra Marathon where my Av HR was 82% Max for close to 6 hours and I wouldn't be particularly fit or Elite. link here.

For Me HIIT (or intervals) would be done at 90-95% Max HR the same as a race of duration of up to 1hour.

As I said I am not particularly elite, this would be standard for most mid pack runners or cyclists.

Arthurdaly

I'm with meno on this one, I would rarely train at anything less than 70% during the season, my average would be in around 75% and would regularly train at 80% for 2+ hours.

Racing i would be in the nineties for in excess of an hour.

Brian?

Arthurdaly wrote: »

I'm with meno on this one, I would rarely train at anything less than 70% during the season, my average would be in around 75% and would regularly train at 80% for 2+ hours.

Racing i would be in the nineties for in excess of an hour.

That's because you're fit. Someone coming here looking for weight loss advice is not in the same position.

menoscemo

briankeating wrote: »

That's because you're fit. Someone coming here looking for weight loss advice is not in the same position.

I Don't really agree with that TBH, if anything the intensity of my workouts has come down as I have got fitter. I would have been constantly training at 85%+ MHR when I started running.

Someone doing a beginner programme like C25K is generally working at 90%+ MHR during their running intervals.

75-80% MHR is an easy conversational intensity, whether you are fit or not. It is not a high intensity workout. You are not even out of breath at this intensity.

I repeat I am not that fit, carry a few extra pounds even still and constantly need weight loss advice :pac:.
Telling someone unfit not to workout at higher than 75% MHR is basically going to leave them walking and not improving/getting fitter, and not working out very hard.

Arthurdaly

Meno to your average punter you are obviously very fit having trained and complete an ultra.

A newbie will not be capable of running for an hour full stop regardless of HR so I take that point. When I was gym junkie I would rarley spend anything close to an hour doing any single activity.

But for someone who is capable of exercising in excess of a hour 75% will be a pretty relaxed pace for whatever discipline.

menoscemo

Arthurdaly wrote: »

But for someone who is capable of exercising in excess of a hour 75% will be a pretty relaxed pace for whatever discipline.

That's exactly my point, 75% is very relaxed no matter what the fitness level is. For someone very fit that could mean running at 6 min/mile while for someone unfit it might be light walking.

For an unfit person to get fit they are going to have to do some training at higher than 75% MHR intensity...

Brian?

menoscemo wrote: »

Hanley wrote: »

As I was saying yesterday, 80kcals extra may be burned in the 7 hour window after a HIIT workout, but that requires working at about 75-80% of MHR for 60+ minutes. A level not sustainable by most, and certainly not repeatable with much frequency. At lower intensities and duration, the effect is even more diminished.

I don't get this bit at all Hanley. For most folks who run any distance, 75-80% MHR would be considered a very low intensity work out (i.e Jogging) that you would do every day. Marathon pace for most long distance runners would be apporx 85% MHR.
I recently did an Ultra Marathon where my Av HR was 82% Max for close to 6 hours and I wouldn't be particularly fit or Elite. link here.

For Me HIIT (or intervals) would be done at 90-95% Max HR the same as a race of duration of up to 1hour.

As I said I am not particularly elite, this would be standard for most mid pack runners or cyclists.

You're not particularly fit but you ran an ultra marathon? I think your perception of fit is a little different to most. . What are you defining your fitness based on?

My understanding is that anything greater than 80% of your Mhr is classed as anaerobic and anything greater than 90% is redline and can only be sustained for short periods. If you can sustain 95% for an hour, maybe your max us actually higher than you think and you're not actually over 90% at all.

I am open to correction on the above as I'm no expert on such matters.

cc87

Ive seen unfit people struggle to maintain 70% MHR for 30/40 minutes, never mind an hour, and this was not during what people would consider a tough session.

menoscemo

briankeating wrote: »

You're not particularly fit but you ran an ultra marathon? I think your perception of fit is a little different to most. . What are you defining your fitness based on?

How fast I can do it.
The winner was about 1hour 40 faster, he probably had the same % mhr as me, just he runs a lot faster at that intensity.

briankeating wrote: »

My understanding is that anything greater than 80% of your Mhr is classed as anaerobic

Yeah up to 80% is Aerobic. Aerobic is your bread and Butter workout. You can do this every day no matter about your fitness level, it is low intensity. That's why I questioned Hanleys reasoning that doing a workout of 75-80% MHR every day is Unsustainable.
80-87% is part aerobic part anaerobic. A wall trained endurance athltete is able to sustain this intensity for long periods is a race, burning fat as well as Glycogen. I guess the better trained they are, the more % fat they burn allowing them to continue at the pace for longer.

briankeating wrote: »

and anything greater than 90% is redline and can only be sustained for short periods. If you can sustain 95% for an hour, maybe your max us actually higher than you think and you're not actually over 90% at all.
I am open to correction on the above as I'm no expert on such matters.

I couldn't sustain 95% for an hour, maybe 20-30 minutes but 88-92% yes. As I say fitness is not relevant here, simply the fitter you get the faster you are for the same effort. Most People racing a Half Marathon (to their max ability) will be going at in and around 90% MHR for the entire race.

BTW my Max HR is definately accurate and it is well tested.

menoscemo

cc87 wrote: »

Ive seen unfit people struggle to maintain 70% MHR for 30/40 minutes, never mind an hour, and this was not during what people would consider a tough session.

I would imagine that if they are panting/red faced and struggling to keep going, they are likely at much higher than 70% MHR.
The less fit a person is the quicker their HR rises, it also takes longer to come back down.

cc87

menoscemo wrote: »

I would imagine that if they are panting/red faced and struggling to keep going, they are likely at much higher than 70% MHR.
The less fit a person is the quicker their HR rises, it also takes longer to come back down.

No they werent higher than 70%
Their lungs were unable to cope with the exercise, the muscles in their legs werent able to deal with it. Mentally they couldnt sustain it, but their hearts were ticking away grand.

Some of them were actually quite close to anerobic yet their heart rate would still not be near max.

Basically they were so unfit that their bodies could not take any level of exercise.

Now if i was to ask them to work at the level you are suggesting, they would just walk away.

All this was carried out in a lab setting with the subject hooked up to a few machines thats why i know all this detail

Hanley

Question - are we talking ACTUAL max, or theoretical (220-age)? That's important.

The study actually focused on V02 max anyway but also quoted HR figures. So maybe somethings getting lost in translation.

Hanley

menoscemo wrote: »

I would imagine that if they are panting/red faced and struggling to keep going, they are likely at much higher than 70% MHR.
The less fit a person is the quicker their HR rises, it also takes longer to come back down.

....the less time they can sustain that for.

Botched_Job

I found i could never drastically change my diet without breaking it and going back to my old ways after a few weeks. it's just not in me i think :P So for me the key to losing weight was only eating when i am hungry, and only eating enough to satisfy that hunger.
I know a lot of guys that eat 'filthy' food all the time and never do any physical activity, but are still very skinny, and this is down to how much they eat.
For instance, next time you get a chicken fillet roll, stop eating when you are full as opposed to when the roll is gone. i bet you'll find that you are full after a half or three quarters of the roll, but you just eat the rest cas it's there (Fyi-rolls we get can be up to 1000 calories, and for those of us with desk jobs, around 2300 calories is our recommended daily allowance). same applies for other meals.. eat to when your full, and just save the rest for tomorrow or something. Also, if you feel tired after your food, you've eaten way too much!

for working out, don't do something you hate or you'll never keep it up! for me, i hate running, i just find it painfully boring, but id cycle all day long! for me the main thing with this is to have a routine. without a routine, il find myself at the end of a week after saying i'd go out three times not having gone out once. but if i stick to some sort of a routine, il go out more.

another thing is to have a final goal, and realistic milestones. you won't get anywhere unless you fell like your achieving something!

Mellor

menoscemo wrote: »

I recently did an Ultra Marathon where my Av HR was 82% Max for close to 6 hours and I wouldn't be particularly fit or Elite. link here.

So based off the data in the link, your average HR for the 6 hrs was 150bpm, and you Max was 182bpm. I'm sure these garmin figures are perfectly accurate. And your calcualtion is correct and 150 is 82% of 182.

But 182 was the max HR you ran for that run. How do you know this is your max possible HR. Is it likely you would hit your MaxHR on a ultra? (i ahve no idea tbh)


Also, you averaged 82%, that isn't the same as sustaining 82%. At some points your HR was way below this.

Brian?

menoscemo wrote: »

How fast I can do it.
The winner was about 1hour 40 faster, he probably had the same % mhr as me, just he runs a lot faster at that intensity.

Fair enough, if that's your definition of fitness so be it. It's a subjective term. I would say that by your definition you are probably fitter than 99% of the population, as 99% of people couldn't complete an ultra marathon. I think that puts you in the "fit" category, wouldn't you say?

Yeah up to 80% is Aerobic. Aerobic is your bread and Butter workout. You can do this every day no matter about your fitness level, it is low intensity. That's why I questioned Hanleys reasoning that doing a workout of 75-80% MHR every day is Unsustainable.

Hanleys reasoning is correct though, untrained individuals would not be able to sustain a HR of 75-80% of MHR for anything more than a short period of time. It's going to take time and effort to reach that level. Therefore this is high intensity.

80-87% is part aerobic part anaerobic. A wall trained endurance athltete is able to sustain this intensity for long periods is a race, burning fat as well as Glycogen. I guess the better trained they are, the more % fat they burn allowing them to continue at the pace for longer.

Yes that's fine for trained athletes, it is not true for untrained.

I couldn't sustain 95% for an hour, maybe 20-30 minutes but 88-92% yes. As I say fitness is not relevant here, simply the fitter you get the faster you are for the same effort. Most People racing a Half Marathon (to their max ability) will be going at in and around 90% MHR for the entire race.

BTW my Max HR is definately accurate and it is well tested.

What is you MHR, how was it measured? I am not calling you out or anything. I am just curious, because as I said before it was my understanding that you cannot sustain 90% of MHR for anything more than short periods of time. 20-30 minutes sounds improbable to me. I wonder if your figures are wrong, if they're not then I'd like to know why I'm wrong.

uglyjohn

menoscemo wrote: »

I don't get this bit at all Hanley. For most folks who run any distance, 75-80% MHR would be considered a very low intensity work out (i.e Jogging) that you would do every day. Marathon pace for most long distance runners would be apporx 85% MHR.
I recently did an Ultra Marathon where my Av HR was 82% Max for close to 6 hours and I wouldn't be particularly fit or Elite. link here.

For Me HIIT (or intervals) would be done at 90-95% Max HR the same as a race of duration of up to 1hour.

As I said I am not particularly elite, this would be standard for most mid pack runners or cyclists.

Just passing through.....dont mind me....i just wanted to say that is a bloody good time. i did the connemarathon a few years back and it is a great course.

menoscemo

Mellor wrote: »

So based off the data in the link, your average HR for the 6 hrs was 150bpm, and you Max was 182bpm. I'm sure these garmin figures are perfectly accurate. And your calcualtion is correct and 150 is 82% of 182.

But 182 was the max HR you ran for that run. How do you know this is your max possible HR. Is it likely you would hit your MaxHR on a ultra? (i ahve no idea tbh)


Also, you averaged 82%, that isn't the same as sustaining 82%. At some points your HR was way below this.

If you look at the HR graph the 'peak' come right at the start. Garmin HRM's are notorious for not giving a proper reading at the start of the workout, after a mile or two, with a bit of sweat the connection between the HRM and the chest improves and you get a more accurate reading. You can pretty much always disregard the reading for the first mile when using a garmin.

So No, I definitely never hit 182 in that race.

menoscemo

briankeating wrote: »

What is you MHR, how was it measured? I am not calling you out or anything. I am just curious, because as I said before it was my understanding that you cannot sustain 90% of MHR for anything more than short periods of time. 20-30 minutes sounds improbable to me. I wonder if your figures are wrong, if they're not then I'd like to know why I'm wrong.

I just base it as the max I have ever hit (disregarding peaks and inaccurate readings as mentioned in the previous post). After years of training I am pretty sure my MHR is 184 or 185.

@ Hanley, I have never used the 200- age formula, though in my case it wouldn't be that far off. I know people with a max HR well over 200 for whom that formula would be completely inaccurate.

Brian?

menoscemo wrote: »

I just base it as the max I have ever hit (disregarding peaks and inaccurate readings as mentioned in the previous post). After years of training I am pretty sure my MHR is 184 or 185.

I think you're calculating you max wrong. It would explain all your figures being skewed.

@ Hanley, I have never used the 200- age formula, though in my case it wouldn't be that far off. I know people with a max HR well over 200 for whom that formula would be completely inaccurate.

It's actually 220-age, but you're right it can be wildly inaccurate.

menoscemo

briankeating wrote: »

I think you're calculating you max wrong.

Really, Why?

briankeating wrote: »

It would explain all your figures being skewed.

I am pretty sure my figures aren't skewed, ask anyone on A/R/T specifically the triathletes as they are stat nerds :P
75-80% is general aerobic 'train all day' intensity.
80-85% is what most people will hold for a very long race, such as a marathon/ultra marathon/ Iron man etc...

Brian?

menoscemo wrote: »

Really, why ?

Again, because you said you can work at your 95% of your max heart rate for 20-30minutes. This shouldn't be possible, that's why it's called the red line zone. If 184 is the highest you've observed, what conditions was thus under?

I am pretty sure my figures aren't skewed, ask anyone on A/R/T specifically the triathletes as they are stat nerds :P
75-80% is general aerobic 'train all day' intensity.
80-85% is what most people will hold for a very long race, such as a marathon/ultra marathon/ Iron man etc...

I never argued any other way. I only said +80% MHR is unsustainable for an untrained person and that +90% shouldn't be sustainable got anyone.

menoscemo

briankeating wrote: »

Again, because you said you can work at your 95% of your max heart rate for 20-30minutes. This shouldn't be possible, that's why it's called the red line zone. If 184 is the highest you've observed, what conditions was thus under?

That was at the very end of a 10k race, where a sprint to the line up a hill left me puking after the race.

If I was doing 400m intervals or Hill repeats, I'd generally hit 179-181 at the very end of the of the intervals but 184 is the highest I have ever observed. I wear the HRM for pretty much every workout or race and train about 6 times a week, so after 3 years of data I am pretty sure that 184-185 is my MHR figure.

Ref 95% being unsustainable, again read the logs over in the A/R/T forum and that is pretty normal for anyone giving a 100% effort in a 'short' race (5-10k).