Edited by GasBag, 29 April 2008 - 01:19 PM.
1
..
Started by GasBag, Jan 23 2008 09:48 PM
3 replies to this topic
#1
-
- Forum Member
-
- 16 posts Joined: 21-January 08
CoolRunner
- Gender:Male
Posted 23 January 2008 - 09:48 PM
.
Support our Australian advertisers:
#2
-
- Forum Member
-
- 588 posts Joined: 14-April 06
veryCoolRunner
- Gender:Male
- Location:Sweltering in the West
Posted 24 January 2008 - 08:31 PM
Hi GasBag,
I'm assuming you want to work out your MHR for fat burning (based on your other thread) if so the basic MHR formula of 220 minus age should suffice. Please note I am not expert. However if it is for fat burning you really want to be training in a zone betwen 60-80 percent of your MHR. Yes if you train harder you will burn greater overall calories - but it isn't sustainable as you will take longer to recover so the lower intensity will do marvels (provided diet etc supprts fat loss).
If however you are trying to calculate for other reasons there are a number of different ways to do this but they involve some high intensity running - and I believe that you are struggling with injury so to err on the side of caution use the 220 rule. I hope this has been of some assistance, if not ignore at will
Cheers
IHS
I'm assuming you want to work out your MHR for fat burning (based on your other thread) if so the basic MHR formula of 220 minus age should suffice. Please note I am not expert. However if it is for fat burning you really want to be training in a zone betwen 60-80 percent of your MHR. Yes if you train harder you will burn greater overall calories - but it isn't sustainable as you will take longer to recover so the lower intensity will do marvels (provided diet etc supprts fat loss).
If however you are trying to calculate for other reasons there are a number of different ways to do this but they involve some high intensity running - and I believe that you are struggling with injury so to err on the side of caution use the 220 rule. I hope this has been of some assistance, if not ignore at will
Cheers
IHS
#3
-
- Forum Member
-
- 652 posts Joined: 20-October 01
veryCoolRunner
- Gender:Male
- Location:Keilor
Posted 24 January 2008 - 10:05 PM
inhisshadow, on Jan 24 2008, 09:31 PM, said:
Hi GasBag,
I'm assuming you want to work out your MHR for fat burning (based on your other thread) if so the basic MHR formula of 220 minus age should suffice. Please note I am not expert. However if it is for fat burning you really want to be training in a zone betwen 60-80 percent of your MHR. Yes if you train harder you will burn greater overall calories - but it isn't sustainable as you will take longer to recover so the lower intensity will do marvels (provided diet etc supprts fat loss).
If however you are trying to calculate for other reasons there are a number of different ways to do this but they involve some high intensity running - and I believe that you are struggling with injury so to err on the side of caution use the 220 rule. I hope this has been of some assistance, if not ignore at will
Cheers
IHS
I'm assuming you want to work out your MHR for fat burning (based on your other thread) if so the basic MHR formula of 220 minus age should suffice. Please note I am not expert. However if it is for fat burning you really want to be training in a zone betwen 60-80 percent of your MHR. Yes if you train harder you will burn greater overall calories - but it isn't sustainable as you will take longer to recover so the lower intensity will do marvels (provided diet etc supprts fat loss).
If however you are trying to calculate for other reasons there are a number of different ways to do this but they involve some high intensity running - and I believe that you are struggling with injury so to err on the side of caution use the 220 rule. I hope this has been of some assistance, if not ignore at will
Cheers
IHS
#4
-
- Forum Member
-
- 773 posts Joined: 27-March 06
veryCoolRunner
- Gender:Male
- Location:Darwin, NT
Posted 25 January 2008 - 07:23 AM
I agree with the above posters - while in general the 220-age is a bit dicey to use for an individual (as it is based on an average across a population), seeing as your own maxHR was pretty close, it is as valid a measurement as you'll be able to make given that you can't actually run at high-intensity at the moment.
As for maxHR for other sports, I'm pretty sure there is a forum somewhere in CR that has talked about this, but I remember 10-15 beats less per minute being a good rule of thumb for swimming.
Personally, I don't use/own a heart rate monitor, so I conduct my workouts by 'feel' or by a specific running pace, depending on the type of run I am doing. So, take any HR advice I spout with a grain of salt.
As for maxHR for other sports, I'm pretty sure there is a forum somewhere in CR that has talked about this, but I remember 10-15 beats less per minute being a good rule of thumb for swimming.
Personally, I don't use/own a heart rate monitor, so I conduct my workouts by 'feel' or by a specific running pace, depending on the type of run I am doing. So, take any HR advice I spout with a grain of salt.
