bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 10 Dec 2006 07:35:00 From: wizzywiz Subject: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by monitoring my heart rate? Thanks....   Date: 14 Mar 2007 09:27:50 From: L W REED Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? I think the reason for the confusion on the fat burning issue is due to a fundamental misunderstanding. For some time now we have been told that our muscles burn fat a lower aerobic rates. As our pace increases our bodies turn to carbs as a quick supplement to meet the growing demand. Therefore, as a percentage, the amount of fat we are burning goes down, though we are burning every bit as much as we would at a slower pace. I use a Polar heart rate monitor and it dutifully tells me that below 70% max I am burning approximately 60% fat. As I go above 70% max, the percentage falls to 55% and if I press hard enough will go even lower than that. However, this does not mean that the extra effort does not have other benefits that more than compensate for the reduction in percent of fat burning. Recent studies have shown that workouts in the higher ranges, say 70 to 90% of max, raise your metabolism higher and keep it there much longer. That means that the fat burning machine is running long after the workout is finished, as much as eighteen hours longer. Most of us have learned that too much time in the high percentages can build a cumulative fatigue that can lead to discouragement and often even a cessation of workouts. The trick then, is to find a balance between aerobic and anaerobic workouts. Clearly, the bulk of your workouts should be in the aerobic zones without ignoring the benefits of working in some anaerobic time for the added benefits. -- LEE REED "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote in message news:1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by > monitoring my heart rate? > > Thanks.... >     Date: 14 Mar 2007 13:47:27 From: Buck Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2007-03-14 13:27:50 +0000, "L W REED" <fibonacci112@hotmail.com > said: > I think the reason for the confusion on the fat burning issue is due to a > fundamental misunderstanding. For some time now we have been told that our > muscles burn fat a lower aerobic rates. As our pace increases our bodies > turn to carbs as a quick supplement to meet the growing demand. Therefore, > as a percentage, the amount of fat we are burning goes down, though we are > burning every bit as much as we would at a slower pace. > > I use a Polar heart rate monitor and it dutifully tells me that below 70% > max I am burning approximately 60% fat. As I go above 70% max, the > percentage falls to 55% and if I press hard enough will go even lower than > that. However, this does not mean that the extra effort does not have other > benefits that more than compensate for the reduction in percent of fat > burning. > > Recent studies have shown that workouts in the higher ranges, say 70 to 90% > of max, raise your metabolism higher and keep it there much longer. That > means that the fat burning machine is running long after the workout is > finished, as much as eighteen hours longer. > > Most of us have learned that too much time in the high percentages can build > a cumulative fatigue that can lead to discouragement and often even a > cessation of workouts. The trick then, is to find a balance between aerobic > and anaerobic workouts. Clearly, the bulk of your workouts should be in the > aerobic zones without ignoring the benefits of working in some anaerobic > time for the added benefits. What actually happens is that when the heart rate gets above 60-70% the max for your age and weight, your body starts to convert proteins from your muscle tissue into energy, if you keep it the 60-70% range then your body is able to burn fat instead. -- Three wheels good, two wheels ok www.catrike.co.uk       Date: 14 Mar 2007 20:33:12 From: Triathlete Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Buck wrote: > On 2007-03-14 13:27:50 +0000, "L W REED" <fibonacci112@hotmail.com> said: > >> I think the reason for the confusion on the fat burning issue is due to a >> fundamental misunderstanding. For some time now we have been told that >> our >> muscles burn fat a lower aerobic rates. As our pace increases our bodies >> turn to carbs as a quick supplement to meet the growing demand. >> Therefore, >> as a percentage, the amount of fat we are burning goes down, though we >> are >> burning every bit as much as we would at a slower pace. >> >> I use a Polar heart rate monitor and it dutifully tells me that below 70% >> max I am burning approximately 60% fat. As I go above 70% max, the >> percentage falls to 55% and if I press hard enough will go even lower >> than >> that. However, this does not mean that the extra effort does not have >> other >> benefits that more than compensate for the reduction in percent of fat >> burning. >> >> Recent studies have shown that workouts in the higher ranges, say 70 >> to 90% >> of max, raise your metabolism higher and keep it there much longer. That >> means that the fat burning machine is running long after the workout is >> finished, as much as eighteen hours longer. >> >> Most of us have learned that too much time in the high percentages can >> build >> a cumulative fatigue that can lead to discouragement and often even a >> cessation of workouts. The trick then, is to find a balance between >> aerobic >> and anaerobic workouts. Clearly, the bulk of your workouts should be >> in the >> aerobic zones without ignoring the benefits of working in some anaerobic >> time for the added benefits. > > What actually happens is that when the heart rate gets above 60-70% the > max for > your age and weight, your body starts to convert proteins from your > muscle tissue > into energy, if you keep it the 60-70% range then your body is able to > burn fat instead. I believe Chris Carmichael states in his book "Food for Fitness": the percentage of fat that you burn may go down as your heart rate goes up, but you are still burning a lot of fat if not the same amount at the higher heart rates (per calorie). The percentage of carbohydrates goes up as your heart rate increases, which is why you take gels and bars so that you can continue to burn the carbohydrates and continue to burn the fat stores.       Date: From: Subject:   Date: 28 Dec 2006 02:37:23 From: roger Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Both. Sure, it's a VERY ROUGH guide but, as I'm sure you already know, there are too many other factors to take into account before it could ever be linked to 'fat burning' or 'calorie burning' in any meaningful way. It's like saying your speedometer can predict your gas mileage. 100mph in a Ferrari or a Mini-Cooper is going to feel significantly different, and use different amounts of fuel, yet it's still 100mph. The economic cruising speed in both vehicle is going to be very different, and the economics of achieving that speed are going to be very different too.     Date: 28 Dec 2006 16:42:46 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "roger" <rohunte@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1167302243.127277.112860@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com... > Both. > > Sure, it's a VERY ROUGH guide but, as I'm sure you already know, there > are too many other factors to take into account before it could ever be > linked to 'fat burning' or 'calorie burning' in any meaningful way. > > It's like saying your speedometer can predict your gas mileage. > 100mph in a Ferrari or a Mini-Cooper is going to feel significantly > different, and use different amounts of fuel, yet it's still 100mph. > The economic cruising speed in both vehicle is going to be very > different, and the economics of achieving that speed are going to be > very different too. Or even a hot air balloon when and if the wind is right. ;) I think that was the best example yet for the OP   Date: 27 Dec 2006 16:08:22 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <1167257700.562568.264780@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com >, "roger" <rohunte@gmail.com > writes: > The answer to the op's question is NO. > > Lord, you people love the sound of your own voices combined with a > healthy dose of pseudo-science, don't you? > > Tsk, tsk. The Original Poster complicated his question by first referring to "fat burning exercises", and then asking about "calorie burning", which aren't ~necessarily~ the same thing. The more complex the question, the more complex is the ensuing discussion. So, Mr Expert, does your "NO" refer to heart rate as a measure of fat burning, or as a measure of calorie burning? cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 27 Dec 2006 14:15:00 From: roger Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? The answer to the op's question is NO. Lord, you people love the sound of your own voices combined with a healthy dose of pseudo-science, don't you? Tsk, tsk.   Date: 26 Dec 2006 22:30:44 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <KTnkh.533511$R63.476225@pd7urf1no >, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > writes: >> Incidentally, I just travelled along the Fraser Canyon >> Highway over the holidays, and noticed the tunnels now >> have cyclist pushbuttons. I guess pushing the button >> somehow warns drivers there's a cyclist in the tunnel. > Awwwh, That is disappointing, you mean you didn't cycle the FC highway? No > great stories and photos for us then? Too bad. Not this time. It would have been snowbound, but for the gravel trucks' droppings. I got a ride with my nephew up to my brother's place and back, up at Walhachin/Savona. But I seriously eyeballed the route. Especially over the instep of Jackass Mtn. It truly was unridable, with snow plowed & piled into the shoulders where cyclists are legally compelled to ride. Boston Bar was frightfully fogbound as per usual. I've ridden as far as Hope in the long ago past. That was with overnight stops in Mission, and before the new Mission Bridge was built. I loathe the Fraser Canyon. It makes me feel like I'm clamped in a vice, and it squeezes my shoulders in. I don't have any great compulsion to ride it. The Kettle Valley RR Trail parallels much of it. Offshoot trails can get you up to Spence's Bridge and other far-flung places, but they traverse Native reserves, so getting permission beforehand would be called-for. I don't know how easy or difficult it would be to get such permission. If you're ever up at Cache Creek, check out Bill Ma's Restaurant. Chinese smorgasbord on the cheap. I have yet to pop into the Oasis Hotel (TJ's Pub) for a brewskie. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 26 Dec 2006 18:52:38 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <W_djh.514037$5R2.193357@pd7urf3no >, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > writes: >>>>Not everyone lives in Vancouver, you know. > > What is that suppose to mean? I said I thought BB lived in Vancouver. > Show of hands who lives in Vancouver Proper. I do. But I think Vancouver Proper is pretty much a typical North American city for riding in. Not bad, but improvements could be made. As long as they're the /right/ improvements, rather than a bunch of lip service and white paint slap-dashed on the streets. Getting around the city is pretty easy. It's getting out to the neighbouring municipalities that becomes problematic. Especially where bridges are concerned. I have yet to try the Queensborough Bridge since they fixed it so drivers are less likely to run into pedestrians & cyclists. Incidentally, I just travelled along the Fraser Canyon Highway over the holidays, and noticed the tunnels now have cyclist pushbuttons. I guess pushing the button somehow warns drivers there's a cyclist in the tunnel. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 27 Dec 2006 05:53:46 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:m5nsme.kl.ln@bud.garden.local... > In article <W_djh.514037$5R2.193357@pd7urf3no>, > "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> writes: >>>>>Not everyone lives in Vancouver, you know. >> >> What is that suppose to mean? I said I thought BB lived in Vancouver. >> Show of hands who lives in Vancouver Proper. > > I do. But I think Vancouver Proper is pretty much a > typical North American city for riding in. Not bad, > but improvements could be made. As long as they're > the /right/ improvements, rather than a bunch of lip > service and white paint slap-dashed on the streets. > > Getting around the city is pretty easy. It's getting > out to the neighbouring municipalities that becomes > problematic. Especially where bridges are concerned. > > I have yet to try the Queensborough Bridge since they > fixed it so drivers are less likely to run into > pedestrians & cyclists. > > Incidentally, I just travelled along the Fraser Canyon > Highway over the holidays, and noticed the tunnels now > have cyclist pushbuttons. I guess pushing the button > somehow warns drivers there's a cyclist in the tunnel. > > > cheers, > Tom > > -- > Nothing is safe from me. > Above address is just a spam midden. > I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca Awwwh, That is disappointing, you mean you didn't cycle the FC highway? No great stories and photos for us then? Too bad. SN   Date: 23 Dec 2006 10:36:06 From: Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Errata.... I wrote: > The fact that we tend to hear from only people whose MHR seems > higher gives the illusion that the formulas "always" underestimate MHR. > And I am sure that we have yet to hear from all of the potentially 15 > million Americans in that category :-). Make that 7.5 million. Yeah, that makes a lot of difference ;-). (Not!)   Date: 23 Dec 2006 10:32:56 From: Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Daniel Barlow wrote: > steve common wrote: > > I'll have to check (or someone else will be less lazy than me and do it > > instead :-) but I believe that all those HR formulae are centered on yer > > "average" sedentary (or active, depending on which formula you choose) > > populations, they probably are only agnostic for ages 20-50 or so. 64yo > > just aint anywhere like "average" in that respect. > > Not even that. If I'm thinking of the right anecdote, the 220-age > formula was plotted on a plane to a conference based on 6 to 10 data > points. The subjects were post-op heart patients. Yes, something like that. But the formula has since been "confirmed" by many studies on a variety of populations. There have also been numerous other studies that derived slightly different formulas. But they all estimate MHR within about +/-6 or so of the original "220 - age" formula. And by the way, I believe the original formula has been "tested" on age groups up to 60 years old, at least. In any case, the real point is: all of the formulas, derived using statistical regression, have a standard error of +/-12 or so. Assuming a normal distribution, that means that the probability of __your__ MHR being 24 or more above or below any formula number is about 5% -- 1 in 20. The fact that we tend to hear from only people whose MHR seems higher gives the illusion that the formulas "always" underestimate MHR. And I am sure that we have yet to hear from all of the potentially 15 million Americans in that category :-).   Date: 22 Dec 2006 22:30:32 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <Xns989EE063C1B5Dznodegmxde@132.239.1.220 >, Nodey <znodeNO@CAPSgmx.de > writes: > "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in news:aq1ih.508952$R63.44439 > @pd7urf1no: > >> What the ???? is a Grouse Grind? On my mountain hikes I run downhill and >> use the momentum to get most of the way up the next hill, but that is a >> whole different subject, I think. >> Bill Baka >> >> Grouse Mtn. Hiking Trail up to the Grouse Nest. Follows underneath the >> gondola so I guess you start there. > > Not everyone lives in Vancouver, you know. Not yet, anyways. But we're getting there. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 23 Dec 2006 17:49:42 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? >>>Not everyone lives in Vancouver, you know. What is that suppose to mean? I said I thought BB lived in Vancouver. Show of hands who lives in Vancouver Proper. nash       Date: 23 Dec 2006 18:42:40 From: Mark Hutchinson Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote >>>>Not everyone lives in Vancouver, you know. > > What is that suppose to mean? I said I thought BB lived in > Vancouver. > Show of hands who lives in Vancouver Proper. I haven't been following this discussion so I don't know what this means, but I used to live Vancouver Proper, on Robson Street. I don't know if that helps.         Date: 23 Dec 2006 23:49:06 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "k Hutchinson" <kh@goamil.com > wrote in message news:Xns98A28B8236528khgoamilcom@216.77.188.18... > "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote > >>>>>Not everyone lives in Vancouver, you know. >> >> What is that suppose to mean? I said I thought BB lived in >> Vancouver. >> Show of hands who lives in Vancouver Proper. > > I haven't been following this discussion so I don't know what this > means, but I used to live Vancouver Proper, on Robson Street. I > don't know if that helps. > > > that's okay. I misjudged where someone was from because I mentioned Grouse Grind. Like I am not allowed to or something wierd. Robson Street is defininitely in Van. but anyone in the GVRD would count.   Date: 20 Dec 2006 02:02:14 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <vM_hh.1851$QU1.306@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes: > Are you >> going to tell every hard working farmer to give up their tractor and go >> back to horses? > > People would starve with the current population needs, so, no. There's lots of food for everybody. Politics just gets in the way of distributing it. > Your pedal washing machine is cute but off the bloody >> edge. > > If you were on the cycle group more you would hear some really off the > wall comments, not really meant to be practical, but definite seeds for > word wars. A pedal-powered clothes washing machine makes a lot of practical sense. I'm sorry you see that idea as unpractical and contentious. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 20 Dec 2006 23:14:29 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Tom Keats wrote: > In article <vM_hh.1851$QU1.306@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, > Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes: > >> Are you >>> going to tell every hard working farmer to give up their tractor and go >>> back to horses? >> People would starve with the current population needs, so, no. > > There's lots of food for everybody. > > Politics just gets in the way of distributing it. Not really. Too many people already due to the excess of food from machined farming. > >> Your pedal washing machine is cute but off the bloody >>> edge. >> If you were on the cycle group more you would hear some really off the >> wall comments, not really meant to be practical, but definite seeds for >> word wars. > > A pedal-powered clothes washing machine makes a lot of > practical sense. > > I'm sorry you see that idea as unpractical and contentious. I don't. I think it is a great way to think. A pedal powered television would make a lot more sense though, forcing couch potatoes to get some exercise or not get to watch the telly. Bill Baka > > > cheers, > Tom >     Date: 20 Dec 2006 17:58:09 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? A pedal-powered clothes washing machine makes a lot of > practical sense. > > I'm sorry you see that idea as unpractical and contentious. You might ask around to set others wash machines up that way. Alternative houses can be run on cycling power too. Initial outlay maybe expensive but you never pay for gas and electric.   Date: 19 Dec 2006 17:44:39 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <yFPhh.49659$dN4.686@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com >, "Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > writes: > > "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:ocm7me.gv9.ln@bud.garden.local... >> In article <SEHhh.452$ZT3.382@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, > > >> Anyways, we've all gotta keep moving. That's what we're naturally >> built to do. I just don't understand this Old World, automation- >> obsessed notion that the less exertion one makes, the better off >> one is. It's stupid and unnatural. > > I will agree that automation is abused and the reason many people are > overweight and in general not healthy. When you try to take it back to > the old world be it the covered wagon or before, you are leaping off the > rational cliff. That's not what I'm suggesting. What I /am/ suggesting is that there are plenty of readily-available, free, modern-day outlets for activity. > Yes we were made to move around but it does not mean we > were made to move every bloody minute of the day. Of course not. Gotta sit down to eat. At least, to eat with some civilised decorum. > Just as too little is > a problem so is too much. How much is too much? > If I happen to have a 5 acre lawn, I'm sure > as hell not going to mow it all running with a push mower. Heck, if you have a 5 acre lawn, you use some of it to fix up a nice kitchen garden. Or even a ket garden. That'll keep you active and well-fed. > Are you > going to tell every hard working farmer to give up their tractor and go > back to horses? Nope. But I see hand-logging is making a come-back as a sustainable method. And when you refer to farmers as "hard working", you're quite correct. Farmers & ranchers don't need to figure out ways to keep active. They've already got it. >Your pedal washing machine is cute but off the bloody > edge. Y'wanna know what's off the bloody edge? Paying a membership gym for the privilege of hopping onto human-powered machinery that doesn't go anywhere or do anything. I guess a pedal-powered conveyance to transportationally get around is off the bloody edge, too. > How about a nice cold outhouse in the winter 200 yards from the > house to take that crap? What does that have to do with maintaining an active lifestyle? > If you want to turn every facet of life into exercise be my guest. Thank you, I shall persist in maintaining my active lifestyle. > We > get into trouble when we take advantage of every automation tool that > comes down the pipe but just like there is good food and bad food, we > need to make ster choices. It's very easy to find/make excuses to not do anything. It's also easy to find stuff to do. It's just a matter of where the will directs. Maybe I'll check around and see if anyone needs any big ol' tree stumps dug up. I rather enjoy doing that. It's about time I put my axe-mattock to work. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 19 Dec 2006 15:06:12 From: Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Beginning runner wrote: > Paul Rudin <paul.rudin@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > joeuser2004@hotmail.com wrote: > > > The average American male is 5'10" and 150 lb. > > > > That sounds rekably lean - > > I was thinking the same thing. As I explained in response to others, the "150" was a typo, and I meant 180. But that is hardly the point. The point was to help __you__ understand why the age-based MHR formulas do not accurately estimate your MHR, which you said you "don't really understand". The fact that your MHR is different simply means that you are not "average". I hope you now understand. Your nitpicking seems a tad ungrateful. > > FWIW Wikipedia says 5'9" and 190 lb. > > That seems closer to reality. Interestingly, the NIH BMI calculator considers you "overweight" if you are 5'10" and 174 lb. The "normal" range for 5'10" is 129 to 173.5 lb, with the midpoint being 151 lb. It is unclear to me if the NIH "normal" is based on a statistical analysis of the population, or if it is a goal that the NIH has set arbitrarily. In either case, I do not put much stock in the BMI and in the NIH calculator in particular. But with all the nitpicking over an incidental detail, I think it is interesting that there might be some basis for it after all. (Of course, for the nitpickers, I should note that the midpoint of a range is not necessarily the average of the range.)     Date: 28 Dec 2006 16:26:22 From: Chris Malcolm Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In uk.rec.cycling joeu2004@hotmail.com wrote: > Beginning runner wrote: >> Paul Rudin <paul.rudin@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> > joeuser2004@hotmail.com wrote: >> > > The average American male is 5'10" and 150 lb. >> > >> > That sounds rekably lean - >> >> I was thinking the same thing. > As I explained in response to others, the "150" was a typo, and I meant > 180. > But that is hardly the point. The point was to help __you__ understand > why the age-based MHR formulas do not accurately estimate your MHR, > which you said you "don't really understand". The fact that your MHR > is different simply means that you are not "average". > I hope you now understand. Your nitpicking seems a tad ungrateful. >> > FWIW Wikipedia says 5'9" and 190 lb. >> >> That seems closer to reality. > Interestingly, the NIH BMI calculator considers you "overweight" if you > are 5'10" and 174 lb. The "normal" range for 5'10" is 129 to 173.5 lb, > with the midpoint being 151 lb. > It is unclear to me if the NIH "normal" is based on a statistical > analysis of the population, or if it is a goal that the NIH has set > arbitrarily. It used to be set statistically, i.e. the norm was the average. The WHO has been arguing with the US for some time over that, and recently persuaded the US to start moving its healthy normal weight range in the direction of a norm based on fat-related-disorder statistics rather than average US weights. Hence the sudden recent shift downwards in the US overweight and obesity points which created a sudden surge in the numbers of those considered overweight. -- Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]     Date: 19 Dec 2006 18:52:29 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <1166569572.831562.294440@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com >, joeu2004@hotmail.com wrote: > Interestingly, the NIH BMI calculator considers you "overweight" if > you are 5'10" and 174 lb. The "normal" range for 5'10" is 129 to > 173.5 lb, with the midpoint being 151 lb. The US Army considers overweight for a 5'10" male to be over 180 to 192 pounds, depending on age. <http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/weight/r600_9.pdf >   Date: 19 Dec 2006 10:07:29 From: Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Steve Freides wrote: > No way - the average adult American male weighs 150 lbs? That's what I > weigh and I am about the only person I know like that because everyone > else weighs more. Having trouble accepting the fact that you are merely "average"? ;-) And psychologists tell us that people unduly concerned with their physique tend to associate with fatter people to make themselves look better. Okay: I just made up that last point ;-). I don't want this nitpicking about my numbers to obfuscate my point, namely: the age-based MHR predictor formulas are merely statistical averages, so the OP should have no problem understanding the fact that his MHR seems different. I was merely some off-hand numbers to drive the point home. But if you want to nitpick.... Yes, 150 lb was a typo. I meant to write 180 lb -- and that is intended to be the average weight of a 5'10" (white) American male, not necessarily the average of all American males. But of course, you can quibble even with that number. Google "average male height" and "average male weight" and draw your own conclusions. It has no bearing on the gist of my point.     Date: 20 Dec 2006 00:03:53 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? joeu2004@hotmail.com wrote: > > Yes, 150 lb was a typo. I meant to write 180 lb -- and that is > intended to be the average weight of a 5'10" (white) American male, not > necessarily the average of all American males. But of course, you can > quibble even with that number. Google "average male height" and > "average male weight" and draw your own conclusions. It has no bearing > on the gist of my point. > That makes a lot more sense. 155 is about normal for me at 5'7" when I was 18 and the weight was evenly distributed. 145 with all my muscles in my legs made me look anorexic on top even though I felt great. The weight chart versus health says that 145 is the healthiest point so skinny is better up to a point. Below that weight the health risks started going up again, kind of like an upside down bell curve. I don't have the chart saved but I bet that average of 180 lb is heavier than the best health point and 170 would be better. Do what feels best. It's your life and your choice. Bill Baka   Date: 19 Dec 2006 16:26:57 From: Paul Rudin Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? joeu2004@hotmail.com writes: > The average American male is 5'10" and 150 lb. That sounds rekably lean - FWIW Wikipedia says 5'9" and 190 lb.     Date: 19 Dec 2006 12:32:19 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <87ac1j7sxa.fsf@rudin.co.uk >, Paul Rudin <paul.rudin@ntlworld.com > wrote: > > The average American male is 5'10" and 150 lb. > > That sounds rekably lean - I was thinking the same thing. > FWIW Wikipedia says 5'9" and 190 lb. That seems closer to reality.       Date: 19 Dec 2006 18:39:34 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote: >In article <87ac1j7sxa.fsf@rudin.co.uk>, > Paul Rudin <paul.rudin@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> > The average American male is 5'10" and 150 lb. >> >> That sounds rekably lean - > >I was thinking the same thing. I was thinking "dang, that's me"... >> FWIW Wikipedia says 5'9" and 190 lb. > >That seems closer to reality. But it does seem a bit short and a little heavy. I suppose it comes down to whether they mean "average" or "mean". That is, do they weigh every US male and divide the sum by the number of males, or is 190 pounds the point where there are as many males heavier than you as lighter? The former seems likely, the latter seems unlikely. But I would take any Wikipedia "fact" with a large grain of salt, too. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame         Date: 20 Dec 2006 03:34:58 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-20, k Hickey <k@habcycles.com > wrote: > Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net> wrote: > >>In article <87ac1j7sxa.fsf@rudin.co.uk>, >> Paul Rudin <paul.rudin@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> >>> > The average American male is 5'10" and 150 lb. >>> >>> That sounds rekably lean - >> >>I was thinking the same thing. > > I was thinking "dang, that's me"... > >>> FWIW Wikipedia says 5'9" and 190 lb. >> >>That seems closer to reality. > > But it does seem a bit short and a little heavy. I suppose it comes > down to whether they mean "average" or "mean". That is, do they weigh > every US male and divide the sum by the number of males, or is 190 > pounds the point where there are as many males heavier than you as > lighter? The correct term for the latter is "median". Non-colloquial usage of the word "average" nearly always means "arithmetic mean". Phrases like "the average male weighs []" are very confusing and unclear, because that language is intuitively suggestive of medians ( appealing to an actual instance instead of saying "x" is average weight for american males) Cheers, -- Elflord           Date: 19 Dec 2006 21:14:47 From: Todd Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message news:slrneohbr3.4ce.abuse@panix2.panix.com... > > The correct term for the latter is "median". Non-colloquial usage of the > word > "average" nearly always means "arithmetic mean". > > Phrases like "the average male weighs []" are very confusing and unclear, > because that language is intuitively suggestive of medians ( appealing to > an actual instance instead of saying "x" is average weight for american > males) Wow, this is great. Could we get a mode, a standard deviation, a T-test, a Z-Test and possibly a Cronbach's alpha definition too? > > Cheers, > -- > Elflord   Date: 19 Dec 2006 08:18:30 From: Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Beginning runner wrote: > OK, this is something I don't really understand. According to the > formula 217 - (age *.85), my maximum heart rate is 163. According to > the 220 - age formula, it is 156. > > Yet when I'm running in the neighborhood of 13:40 to 14:30 minute miles, > I can go 5K (and probably further, although I haven't tried yet) with my > heart rate averaging in the mid 150s (100% of the 200 formula, or 95% of > the 217 formula) and maxing out in the mid to high 160s, yet I do not > feel the effects that everything I've read says I should feel with heart > rates in those ranges. The average American male is 5'10" and 150 lb. But I bet you have no problem understanding it if you do not fit those dimensions. The same goes for the MHR formulas: at best, they are for the "average person". It should come as no surprise if you are not "average". > For instance, the Garmin 301 manual says > 80% to 90%: Pace fast and a bit uncomfortable; breathing forceful. > 90% to 100%: Pace a sprinting effor, unsustainable for a long period of > time; labored breathing. > > It feels more like > 70% to 80%: Pace moderate, more difficult to hold conversation. And that is exactly the empirical and non-clinical way to estimate __your__ true MHR. If 155 bpm feels like about 80% to you -- and you repeat those results over several trials spread out over time -- __your__ MHR is about 155 / 0.80 = 194. That seems unlikely -- but not impossible; mine is 30 beats above average. But "70-80%" is a difficult range to determine based on subjective factors (breathing pattern, effort comfort, talk test) -- especially since 80% feels very different from 70%. (I disagree with Garmin's breakdown of the ranges with respect to their descriptions of perceived exertion.) If you are physically fit (caution!), try pushing your HR until it feels "a bit uncomfortable; breathing forcefully". That is probably 85%, perhaps 90%. Correlate the MHR that you compute then with the one that you computed at 80%.     Date: 19 Dec 2006 19:30:35 From: Dot Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? joeu2004@hotmail.com wrote: > > If you are physically fit (caution!), try pushing your HR until it > feels "a bit uncomfortable; breathing forcefully". That is probably > 85%, perhaps 90%. Correlate the MHR that you compute then with the one > that you computed at 80%. That's exactly how I estimated mine originally - what hr was I breathing hard, but notgasping (est of VT/LT), divided by .9. I've had no readings to suggest it's any lower or much higher, including a couple hilly 5k's and hard cross-training workouts (plyos). Formulas that I had seen at the time were clearly wrong, and they say beginners shouldn't do speed work, so I just matched an obvious point on effort charts and back calculated from there. Dot -- "If we reach all our goals, we are not setting them high enough." - Matt Carpenter     Date: 19 Dec 2006 11:23:16 From: Steve Freides Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? <joeu2004@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1166545110.857798.74670@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Beginning runner wrote: >> OK, this is something I don't really understand. According to the >> formula 217 - (age *.85), my maximum heart rate is 163. According to >> the 220 - age formula, it is 156. >> >> Yet when I'm running in the neighborhood of 13:40 to 14:30 minute >> miles, >> I can go 5K (and probably further, although I haven't tried yet) with >> my >> heart rate averaging in the mid 150s (100% of the 200 formula, or 95% >> of >> the 217 formula) and maxing out in the mid to high 160s, yet I do not >> feel the effects that everything I've read says I should feel with >> heart >> rates in those ranges. > > The average American male is 5'10" and 150 lb. No way - the average adult American male weighs 150 lbs? That's what I weigh and I am about the only person I know like that because everyone else weighs more. -S- http://www.kbnj.com       Date: 19 Dec 2006 23:55:12 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Steve Freides wrote: > <joeu2004@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166545110.857798.74670@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> Beginning runner wrote: >>> OK, this is something I don't really understand. According to the >>> formula 217 - (age *.85), my maximum heart rate is 163. According to >>> the 220 - age formula, it is 156. >>> >>> Yet when I'm running in the neighborhood of 13:40 to 14:30 minute >>> miles, >>> I can go 5K (and probably further, although I haven't tried yet) with >>> my >>> heart rate averaging in the mid 150s (100% of the 200 formula, or 95% >>> of >>> the 217 formula) and maxing out in the mid to high 160s, yet I do not >>> feel the effects that everything I've read says I should feel with >>> heart >>> rates in those ranges. >> The average American male is 5'10" and 150 lb. > > No way - the average adult American male weighs 150 lbs? That's what I > weigh and I am about the only person I know like that because everyone > else weighs more. > > -S- > http://www.kbnj.com > > Way too true. The average male athlete may be 5'10" and 150 lbs, but not the average couch potato, which far outnumber the athletic kind. I went on some errands with my wife driving yesterday and the people I saw were all hugely overweight except for one woman who looked like she did way too much Cocaine and was way too thin. On an average walk around Wal-t, a 1.25 mile walk for me, I can say the average male may be about 5'10" but way more than 150 lbs. Most of the women waddle. What world did that average come from??? I am only 5'7" and when I get down to 145 my wife, neighbors, daughter, stepdaughter and grandkids all think I am dying or malnutrition. 5'10" and 150 would be even skinnier. I don't think so!!! Bill Baka       Date: 19 Dec 2006 16:29:42 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-19, Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com > wrote: ><joeu2004@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166545110.857798.74670@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> Beginning runner wrote: >>> OK, this is something I don't really understand. According to the >>> formula 217 - (age *.85), my maximum heart rate is 163. According to >>> the 220 - age formula, it is 156. >>> >>> Yet when I'm running in the neighborhood of 13:40 to 14:30 minute >>> miles, >>> I can go 5K (and probably further, although I haven't tried yet) with >>> my >>> heart rate averaging in the mid 150s (100% of the 200 formula, or 95% >>> of >>> the 217 formula) and maxing out in the mid to high 160s, yet I do not >>> feel the effects that everything I've read says I should feel with >>> heart >>> rates in those ranges. >> >> The average American male is 5'10" and 150 lb. > > No way - the average adult American male weighs 150 lbs? That's what I > weigh and I am about the only person I know like that because everyone > else weighs more. It's probably worth checking the source of those "stats". I bet it's based on data from incoming college freshmen. This is fine for estimating average adult heights (well some problems but not too bad), but weights is a different story ... Cheers, -- Elflord         Date: 23 Dec 2006 02:33:16 From: steve common Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote: >It's probably worth checking the source of those "stats". I bet it's based on >data from incoming college freshmen ... in 1937 :oP   Date: 18 Dec 2006 19:30:32 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <SEHhh.452$ZT3.382@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes: > Tom Keats wrote: >> In article <Qfrhh.1063$Gw4.246@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, >> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes: >> >> [snip] >> >>>> Trying to lose weight by mostly diet is as much a lazy-assed, >>>> work-avoiding cop-out as trying to lose weight by choking down >>>> ground-up oyster shell pills (Cyto-thingie[tm]). An hour a day >>>> at the gym ain't much better. >>>> >>>> Activity has to be a lifestyle thing, not a scheduled or >>>> programmed thing. Move around a lot[*], and become a >>>> slimm-o like me. >> >> [snip] >> >>> How about this? Every time you get hungry go out and ride or run around >>> the block and you will be thinking water instead of food. >>> Works for me. >> >> Don't need cues or timetables. Just do stuff. >> Take the stairs instead of the elevator. >> Nash suggested gardening and dog walking, those >> are good. They might be problematic for apartment >> dwellers; OTOH perhaps one could get involved in >> a community garden, or borrow friends' dogs for >> walks. Hoof it or ride to the superket (or >> various specialty shops) instead of driving. > > Kind of what I do now. My wife takes the elevator and I run up the > stairs and wait for her. I walk a 1.25 mile each way to Wal-t for > general shopping rather than bother with the car or bike, and if I have > to drive I run to the store from the far parking rather than just walk. > I even use a push powered reel lawn mower and run with it. The neighbors > think I'm nuts but they are the fat ones. I use one of those too. It's always amusing to me when I'm out mowing the lawn as fitness geeks pass by to go the the gym up the street. A lot of folks think a push-mower is hard work. But it's just as easy to push as a gas-powered rotary. Maybe easier -- the wheels are larger-diametered, and it doesn't weigh as much. Anyways the mowing part of lawn care is easy. It's trimming the edges (manually, old-school, with shears instead of a Weed-Whacker) where the real work is. > Build >> a boat. Play tennis or ultimate or hackey-sack. >> If your local community centre has a swimming >> pool or ice rink -- beauty, eh? And if you have >> a nearby velodrome that'll let in folks w/ track >> bikes for a few for-the-heck-of-it laps, wonderful. > > Dear God, I wish! >> There are all kinds of ways to keep active, and to >> integrate activity into one's workaday life. >> >> I'm reminded of those juvenile delinquents, who when >> caught vandalising stuff and asked why they did it, >> whine: "There's nothing (for us) to dooooo." So >> the bleeding hearts decide the gov't should provide >> 'em with drop-in centres with pool tables and the >> electronic version of pinball games, to keep 'em >> out of trouble. Bah! There's always something >> kinetic and constructive to do. >> >> >> cheers, >> Tom > > Hey Tom, > At least there is the WII that requires the game players to move. Whiffing with an imaginary Louisville Slugger, to accomplish what? There ain't nothing like the heft of a real 33-ouncer, pine tar 'n all. > I heard they got recalled because people got too excited and wound up > letting them fly when they lost their grip. IIRC, that was something about the wrist straps breaking off. > Heh, How about a gunfight > and the two players nail each other with the games that slipped out of > their hands??? Nah, I don't wanna nail anybody for "fun". Not in the violent, non-consensual sense, anyways. I'd like to build a pedal-powered clothes washing machine. I'd be happy to power it for all the other occupants of the boarding house here. My price: one box of Kraft Dinner per wash. Or they could do their own for free. Anyways, we've all gotta keep moving. That's what we're naturally built to do. I just don't understand this Old World, automation- obsessed notion that the less exertion one makes, the better off one is. It's stupid and unnatural. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 19 Dec 2006 23:03:46 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Tom Keats wrote: > In article <SEHhh.452$ZT3.382@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, > Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes: >> Tom Keats wrote: >>> In article <Qfrhh.1063$Gw4.246@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, >>> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>>> Trying to lose weight by mostly diet is as much a lazy-assed, >>>>> work-avoiding cop-out as trying to lose weight by choking down >>>>> ground-up oyster shell pills (Cyto-thingie[tm]). An hour a day >>>>> at the gym ain't much better. >>>>> >>>>> Activity has to be a lifestyle thing, not a scheduled or >>>>> programmed thing. Move around a lot[*], and become a >>>>> slimm-o like me. >>> [snip] >>> >>>> How about this? Every time you get hungry go out and ride or run around >>>> the block and you will be thinking water instead of food. >>>> Works for me. >>> Don't need cues or timetables. Just do stuff. >>> Take the stairs instead of the elevator. >>> Nash suggested gardening and dog walking, those >>> are good. They might be problematic for apartment >>> dwellers; OTOH perhaps one could get involved in >>> a community garden, or borrow friends' dogs for >>> walks. Hoof it or ride to the superket (or >>> various specialty shops) instead of driving. >> Kind of what I do now. My wife takes the elevator and I run up the >> stairs and wait for her. I walk a 1.25 mile each way to Wal-t for >> general shopping rather than bother with the car or bike, and if I have >> to drive I run to the store from the far parking rather than just walk. >> I even use a push powered reel lawn mower and run with it. The neighbors >> think I'm nuts but they are the fat ones. > > I use one of those too. It's always amusing to me when I'm > out mowing the lawn as fitness geeks pass by to go the the > gym up the street. A lot of folks think a push-mower is > hard work. But it's just as easy to push as a gas-powered > rotary. Maybe easier -- the wheels are larger-diametered, > and it doesn't weigh as much. Anyways the mowing part of > lawn care is easy. It's trimming the edges (manually, > old-school, with shears instead of a Weed-Whacker) where > the real work is. If you use a push mower like I do try running with it. Once you get those blades spinning you can pretty much hit the thick weeds and the rotary inertia will chew up even the thick and weedy spots. Sometimes it is actually easier than pulling, like, a hundred times on a gas mower that doesn't want to play. For the hedges (mine) I have to use an electric or not get the job done, too tall. > >> Build >>> a boat. Play tennis or ultimate or hackey-sack. >>> If your local community centre has a swimming >>> pool or ice rink -- beauty, eh? And if you have >>> a nearby velodrome that'll let in folks w/ track >>> bikes for a few for-the-heck-of-it laps, wonderful. >> Dear God, I wish! > > >>> There are all kinds of ways to keep active, and to >>> integrate activity into one's workaday life. >>> >>> I'm reminded of those juvenile delinquents, who when >>> caught vandalising stuff and asked why they did it, >>> whine: "There's nothing (for us) to dooooo." So >>> the bleeding hearts decide the gov't should provide >>> 'em with drop-in centres with pool tables and the >>> electronic version of pinball games, to keep 'em >>> out of trouble. Bah! There's always something >>> kinetic and constructive to do. >>> >>> >>> cheers, >>> Tom >> Hey Tom, >> At least there is the WII that requires the game players to move. > > Whiffing with an imaginary Louisville Slugger, to accomplish > what? There ain't nothing like the heft of a real 33-ouncer, > pine tar 'n all. Yeah, I would love to get a real baseball game going, but I can't even get enough teenagers together since they would rather play video games. As for the adults, forget it, they come home and drink beer in front of the tube. We have 2 new baseball fields and nobody uses them. Totally frustrating. > >> I heard they got recalled because people got too excited and wound up >> letting them fly when they lost their grip. > > IIRC, that was something about the wrist straps breaking off. It was. > >> Heh, How about a gunfight >> and the two players nail each other with the games that slipped out of >> their hands??? > > Nah, I don't wanna nail anybody for "fun". > Not in the violent, non-consensual sense, anyways. It would be an accident, but still kind of funny as long as nobody got hurt. > > I'd like to build a pedal-powered clothes washing machine. I'd > be happy to power it for all the other occupants of the boarding > house here. My price: one box of Kraft Dinner per wash. Or they > could do their own for free. > > Anyways, we've all gotta keep moving. That's what we're naturally > built to do. I just don't understand this Old World, automation- > obsessed notion that the less exertion one makes, the better off > one is. It's stupid and unnatural. So is this newsgroup stuff, but here we are. It's too damn cold for me to do any serious riding right now. Bill Baka > > > cheers, > Tom > >       Date: 20 Dec 2006 00:27:10 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Where is the baseball field? Bill         Date: 20 Dec 2006 01:33:06 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? nash wrote: > Where is the baseball field? Bill > > The 2 fields went in as part of a housing project in my area, which is California about 40 miles north of Sacramento. Up until I was about 28 I could get about 40 or 50 people, all friends of mine, together for Sunday beer and baseball. We used to play ball and drink until we were either too drunk to see the ball or it got dark. It was an all day event but as people got older and got ried the numbers went down until it was hard to get 18 people for one team. Up until then it was great since the young ladies played too, and it was a great set up for making dates for the next weekend, not too mention the bliss of laying on the lawn between two sweet young things while the other team had the field. <sigh > Bill Baka     Date: 19 Dec 2006 11:02:54 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:ocm7me.gv9.ln@bud.garden.local... > In article <SEHhh.452$ZT3.382@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, > Anyways, we've all gotta keep moving. That's what we're naturally > built to do. I just don't understand this Old World, automation- > obsessed notion that the less exertion one makes, the better off > one is. It's stupid and unnatural. I will agree that automation is abused and the reason many people are overweight and in general not healthy. When you try to take it back to the old world be it the covered wagon or before, you are leaping off the rational cliff. Yes we were made to move around but it does not mean we were made to move every bloody minute of the day. Just as too little is a problem so is too much. If I happen to have a 5 acre lawn, I'm sure as hell not going to mow it all running with a push mower. Are you going to tell every hard working farmer to give up their tractor and go back to horses? Your pedal washing machine is cute but off the bloody edge. How about a nice cold outhouse in the winter 200 yards from the house to take that crap? If you want to turn every facet of life into exercise be my guest. We get into trouble when we take advantage of every automation tool that comes down the pipe but just like there is good food and bad food, we need to make ster choices. -DF       Date: 19 Dec 2006 15:41:20 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Doug Freese wrote: > "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:ocm7me.gv9.ln@bud.garden.local... >> In article <SEHhh.452$ZT3.382@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, > > >> Anyways, we've all gotta keep moving. That's what we're naturally >> built to do. I just don't understand this Old World, automation- >> obsessed notion that the less exertion one makes, the better off >> one is. It's stupid and unnatural. > > I will agree that automation is abused and the reason many people are > overweight and in general not healthy. When you try to take it back to > the old world be it the covered wagon or before, you are leaping off the > rational cliff. Yes we were made to move around but it does not mean we > were made to move every bloody minute of the day. Just as too little is > a problem so is too much. If I happen to have a 5 acre lawn, I'm sure > as hell not going to mow it all running with a push mower. You would get one hell of a workout but you are right, I wouldn't consider that for more than the half acre I used to own when I was younger. The lot was 272 feet long and 80 feet wide so I could get a really good run on the lengthwise part but even at 38 it was over 2 hours and I was toast for the rest of the day. Are you > going to tell every hard working farmer to give up their tractor and go > back to horses? People would starve with the current population needs, so, no. Your pedal washing machine is cute but off the bloody > edge. If you were on the cycle group more you would hear some really off the wall comments, not really meant to be practical, but definite seeds for word wars. How about a nice cold outhouse in the winter 200 yards from the > house to take that crap? What, and freeze my butt to the seat? > > If you want to turn every facet of life into exercise be my guest. We > get into trouble when we take advantage of every automation tool that > comes down the pipe but just like there is good food and bad food, we > need to make ster choices. Agreed. Everything in moderation. The only excuse I have for remote controls on my television is that there are so damn many channels and the sets force you to use the remotes now to set up the brightness and such. In the old days it was NBC, CBS, or ABC and if you didn't like those, too bad, do something else. Bill Baka > > -DF > >         Date: 20 Dec 2006 05:54:01 From: Dot Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Bill wrote: > Doug Freese wrote: > > > How about a nice cold outhouse in the winter 200 yards from the > >> house to take that crap? > > > What, and freeze my butt to the seat? > Hmmm, this is why they use styrofoam seats up here (Alaska). (honest, at least at the one place I stayed up north, but there are some more local ones where regular seats are used) Dot -- "If we reach all our goals, we are not setting them high enough." - Matt Carpenter           Date: 20 Dec 2006 07:12:22 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Dot wrote: > Bill wrote: >> Doug Freese wrote: >> >> >> How about a nice cold outhouse in the winter 200 yards from the >> >>> house to take that crap? >> >> >> What, and freeze my butt to the seat? >> > Hmmm, this is why they use styrofoam seats up here (Alaska). > (honest, at least at the one place I stayed up north, but there > are some more local ones where regular seats are used) > > Dot > You were right in the previous post. This thread is getting loopy. Bill Baka   Date: 19 Dec 2006 03:27:00 From: Dot Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? wizzywiz wrote: > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by > monitoring my heart rate? > > Thanks.... > It may not be consistent among activities. These are all running, some at same hr. While there's some issues with variability, and it is only n=1, but sometimes useful info (ideas for generating hypotheses) can be generated from such data: http://www.jssm.org/vol5/n4/29/v5n4-29text.php There's lots of issues, but FWIW I log my total volume by time and intensity (hr). I use it as a measure of work, not for any weight stuff. It works for me. I could use the exertion number in the Polar software. or any number of other things. Dot -- "If we reach all our goals, we are not setting them high enough." - Matt Carpenter   Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:27:47 From: Paul Rudin Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > writes: > Paul Rudin wrote on 18/12/2006 08:18 +0100: >> Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> writes: >> >>> nash wrote on 18/12/2006 07:42 +0100: >>> >>>> You attributed the first part to me but mine was the second part. >>>> No wonder I get blamed for everythin' roun' here. : ) >>>> Max HR depends on age. >>>> >>> That's good to know. According to my max heart rate my birth >>> certificate is wrong and I am still a teenager. >>> >> >> >> Max HR varies a lot from person to person. The oft-quoted aged based >> formula is just a guide, and a given individual can be far from that >> figure. >> > > Whoosh!!! Err yes, I should avoid posting before I've had my pot of coffee in the morning :/   Date: 18 Dec 2006 08:18:19 From: Paul Rudin Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com > writes: > nash wrote on 18/12/2006 07:42 +0100: > >> >> You attributed the first part to me but mine was the second part. >> No wonder I get blamed for everythin' roun' here. : ) >> Max HR depends on age. >> > > That's good to know. According to my max heart rate my birth > certificate is wrong and I am still a teenager. > Max HR varies a lot from person to person. The oft-quoted aged based formula is just a guide, and a given individual can be far from that figure. If you really want to know your max HR you have to test it. Running is better than cycling for this. A common test is along the following lines: Jog for 10 mins to warm up, then start increasing your effort so as to get a 5 bpm increase every 15 seconds. Keep going until you really can't increase it any more. Most people will reach max HR in 2-4 mins. If you're doing it right you'll really be suffering towards the end. Shouldn't be tried if you're not already in reasonable shape or if you have any kind of relevant medical condition.     Date: 18 Dec 2006 17:47:16 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Paul Rudin wrote: > Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> writes: > >> nash wrote on 18/12/2006 07:42 +0100: >> >>> You attributed the first part to me but mine was the second part. >>> No wonder I get blamed for everythin' roun' here. : ) >>> Max HR depends on age. >>> >> That's good to know. According to my max heart rate my birth >> certificate is wrong and I am still a teenager. >> > > > Max HR varies a lot from person to person. The oft-quoted aged based > formula is just a guide, and a given individual can be far from that > figure. > > If you really want to know your max HR you have to test it. Running is > better than cycling for this. A common test is along the following > lines: Jog for 10 mins to warm up, then start increasing your effort > so as to get a 5 bpm increase every 15 seconds. Keep going until you > really can't increase it any more. Most people will reach max HR in > 2-4 mins. > > If you're doing it right you'll really be suffering towards the > end. Shouldn't be tried if you're not already in reasonable shape or > if you have any kind of relevant medical condition. > > I like my method better. Walk to the corner, make a left turn and run like a bear is chasing you until you can't stand up much less run anymore. Instant max heart rate, sort of, after about 30 seconds of sprinting. Takes me from a chill to a sweat in under a minute. Bill Baka     Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:13:12 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Paul Rudin wrote on 18/12/2006 08:18 +0100: > Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> writes: > >> nash wrote on 18/12/2006 07:42 +0100: >> >>> You attributed the first part to me but mine was the second part. >>> No wonder I get blamed for everythin' roun' here. : ) >>> Max HR depends on age. >>> >> That's good to know. According to my max heart rate my birth >> certificate is wrong and I am still a teenager. >> > > > Max HR varies a lot from person to person. The oft-quoted aged based > formula is just a guide, and a given individual can be far from that > figure. > Whoosh!!! -- Tony "...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate..." Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy       Date: 18 Dec 2006 23:27:08 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com > wrote in message news:4un7trF18qut9U1@mid.individual.net... > Paul Rudin wrote on 18/12/2006 08:18 +0100: >> Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> writes: >> >>> nash wrote on 18/12/2006 07:42 +0100: >>> >>>> You attributed the first part to me but mine was the second part. >>>> No wonder I get blamed for everythin' roun' here. : ) >>>> Max HR depends on age. >>> That's good to know. According to my max heart rate my birth >>> certificate is wrong and I am still a teenager. >>> >> >> >> Max HR varies a lot from person to person. The oft-quoted aged based >> formula is just a guide, and a given individual can be far from that >> figure. >> > > Whoosh!!! Outside the baseline No points. You have to use something everyone can use. As I said no one has a VO2 Max research station hanging around not being used. 220 - age is acceptable though not accurate. My HR after 15 minutes rest was 197bpm after riding W. Broadway to Surrey on top of the hill. No water and no food. I felt almost paralyzed. Earlier that day it was the reverse but I had water and food. So I was not in disagreement. Just what is the point? Big deal. If your metabolism is higher maybe there is a good level and a not so good level of higher metabolism after which you are off the chart. You can eat more calories because you can burn more. Then I pointed out if you are suppose to be more efficient you should burn less. Which I got an "of course" reply but that does not answer the dilemma. I am just going to agree that calories burned fast or slow does not make lose more or less. The long haul exercise burns the most fat period. Higher BMR just means you are fitter and it will be harder to lose anymore. > > -- > Tony > > "...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least > wildly inaccurate..." > Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy   Date: 17 Dec 2006 23:51:56 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <Qfrhh.1063$Gw4.246@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes: [snip] >> Trying to lose weight by mostly diet is as much a lazy-assed, >> work-avoiding cop-out as trying to lose weight by choking down >> ground-up oyster shell pills (Cyto-thingie[tm]). An hour a day >> at the gym ain't much better. >> >> Activity has to be a lifestyle thing, not a scheduled or >> programmed thing. Move around a lot[*], and become a >> slimm-o like me. [snip] > How about this? Every time you get hungry go out and ride or run around > the block and you will be thinking water instead of food. > Works for me. Don't need cues or timetables. Just do stuff. Take the stairs instead of the elevator. Nash suggested gardening and dog walking, those are good. They might be problematic for apartment dwellers; OTOH perhaps one could get involved in a community garden, or borrow friends' dogs for walks. Hoof it or ride to the superket (or various specialty shops) instead of driving. Build a boat. Play tennis or ultimate or hackey-sack. If your local community centre has a swimming pool or ice rink -- beauty, eh? And if you have a nearby velodrome that'll let in folks w/ track bikes for a few for-the-heck-of-it laps, wonderful. There are all kinds of ways to keep active, and to integrate activity into one's workaday life. I'm reminded of those juvenile delinquents, who when caught vandalising stuff and asked why they did it, whine: "There's nothing (for us) to dooooo." So the bleeding hearts decide the gov't should provide 'em with drop-in centres with pool tables and the electronic version of pinball games, to keep 'em out of trouble. Bah! There's always something kinetic and constructive to do. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 18 Dec 2006 17:55:34 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Tom Keats wrote: > In article <Qfrhh.1063$Gw4.246@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes: > > [snip] > >>> Trying to lose weight by mostly diet is as much a lazy-assed, >>> work-avoiding cop-out as trying to lose weight by choking down >>> ground-up oyster shell pills (Cyto-thingie[tm]). An hour a day >>> at the gym ain't much better. >>> >>> Activity has to be a lifestyle thing, not a scheduled or >>> programmed thing. Move around a lot[*], and become a >>> slimm-o like me. > > [snip] > >> How about this? Every time you get hungry go out and ride or run around >> the block and you will be thinking water instead of food. >> Works for me. > > Don't need cues or timetables. Just do stuff. > Take the stairs instead of the elevator. > Nash suggested gardening and dog walking, those > are good. They might be problematic for apartment > dwellers; OTOH perhaps one could get involved in > a community garden, or borrow friends' dogs for > walks. Hoof it or ride to the superket (or > various specialty shops) instead of driving. Kind of what I do now. My wife takes the elevator and I run up the stairs and wait for her. I walk a 1.25 mile each way to Wal-t for general shopping rather than bother with the car or bike, and if I have to drive I run to the store from the far parking rather than just walk. I even use a push powered reel lawn mower and run with it. The neighbors think I'm nuts but they are the fat ones. Build > a boat. Play tennis or ultimate or hackey-sack. > If your local community centre has a swimming > pool or ice rink -- beauty, eh? And if you have > a nearby velodrome that'll let in folks w/ track > bikes for a few for-the-heck-of-it laps, wonderful. Dear God, I wish! > There are all kinds of ways to keep active, and to > integrate activity into one's workaday life. > > I'm reminded of those juvenile delinquents, who when > caught vandalising stuff and asked why they did it, > whine: "There's nothing (for us) to dooooo." So > the bleeding hearts decide the gov't should provide > 'em with drop-in centres with pool tables and the > electronic version of pinball games, to keep 'em > out of trouble. Bah! There's always something > kinetic and constructive to do. > > > cheers, > Tom Hey Tom, At least there is the WII that requires the game players to move. I heard they got recalled because people got too excited and wound up letting them fly when they lost their grip. Heh, How about a gunfight and the two players nail each other with the games that slipped out of their hands??? Bill Baka   Date: 13 Dec 2006 07:32:45 From: Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Chris Malcolm wrote: > In uk.rec.cycling Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote: > > So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that too much of > > it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good area for most > > beginners who are trying to lose weight. > > Much the easiest way of losing weight is to eat less. You have to take > a lot of exercise to burn a small amount of food. That might be the "easiest" (fastest), but it is also the most short-lived. There are so-o many other benefits derived from life-long exercise -- benefits that merely eating less or differently cannot get. The best plan a some of both.     Date: 28 Dec 2006 16:31:50 From: Chris Malcolm Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In uk.rec.cycling joeu2004@hotmail.com wrote: > Chris Malcolm wrote: >> In uk.rec.cycling Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote: >> > So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that too much of >> > it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good area for most >> > beginners who are trying to lose weight. >> >> Much the easiest way of losing weight is to eat less. You have to take >> a lot of exercise to burn a small amount of food. > That might be the "easiest" (fastest), but it is also the most > short-lived. There are so-o many other benefits derived from life-long > exercise -- benefits that merely eating less or differently cannot get. > The best plan a some of both. Except that the fitness and health benefits of exercise can be derived from much more sporadic exercise than is necessary for a weight losing plan, which requires a pretty regular regime of at least a few serious exercise episodes a week. -- Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]       Date: 28 Dec 2006 23:28:38 From: Terry Morse Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <en0rhm$o6v$3@scotsman.ed.ac.uk >, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk > wrote: > Except that the fitness and health benefits of exercise can be derived > from much more sporadic exercise than is necessary for a weight losing > plan, which requires a pretty regular regime of at least a few serious > exercise episodes a week. That depends on your definition of "serious exercise". 10 hours of cycling per week at, say, 600 kcal/hr burns 6000 kcal per week. Not too shabby, and 10 hours per week is pretty painless. The US government recommends a minimum of 7 hours per week for overall health. -- terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com/       Date: 28 Dec 2006 19:48:08 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-28, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk > wrote: > Except that the fitness and health benefits of exercise can be derived > from much more sporadic exercise than is necessary for a weight losing > plan, which requires a pretty regular regime of at least a few serious > exercise episodes a week. One can lose weight just fine off about 20 miles a week running -- but you're not going to be nearly as fit as a serious runner of such a low volume program. Health like weight loss is a complex interaction of diet and exercise. Chances are if you're overweight and maintaining that overweight state, something's not quite right. Cheers, -- Elflord     Date: 13 Dec 2006 17:52:44 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Metabolically impossible BTW. read wikipedia       Date: 13 Dec 2006 19:48:39 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote: >Metabolically impossible BTW. What is? >read wikipedia Oh yeah, THAT'S the ultimate source of reliable information... (not) k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame         Date: 14 Dec 2006 02:54:13 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com > wrote in message news:ie91o2lnelrmu2ah17innjeppuvoe4toru@4ax.com... > "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote: > >>Metabolically impossible BTW. > > What is? > >>read wikipedia > > Oh yeah, THAT'S the ultimate source of reliable information... (not) > Oh, well that's real enlightening... (not)           Date: 14 Dec 2006 05:39:32 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote: >"k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message >news:ie91o2lnelrmu2ah17innjeppuvoe4toru@4ax.com... >> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote: >> >>>Metabolically impossible BTW. >> >> What is? >> >>>read wikipedia >> >> Oh yeah, THAT'S the ultimate source of reliable information... (not) > >Oh, well that's real enlightening... (not) If it keeps someone from being so naive as to believe a "encyclopedia" made up of random contributions by unknown authors is an authoritative sorce on anything, it IS enlightening. But only to those who want to be enlightened, of course. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame             Date: 14 Dec 2006 17:05:51 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com > wrote in message news:hch2o2tn20cgvohkh6djuq54d41mhsb02u@4ax.com... > "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote: > >>"k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message >>news:ie91o2lnelrmu2ah17innjeppuvoe4toru@4ax.com... >>> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote: >>> >>>>Metabolically impossible BTW. >>> >>> What is? >>> >>>>read wikipedia >>> >>> Oh yeah, THAT'S the ultimate source of reliable information... (not) >> >>Oh, well that's real enlightening... (not) > > If it keeps someone from being so naive as to believe a "encyclopedia" > made up of random contributions by unknown authors is an authoritative > sorce on anything, it IS enlightening. But only to those who want to > be enlightened, of course. > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame You obviously did not even read the bookks I made for BMR, Metabolism, or even the calculator. No one here seems to follow up on their requests for citations. That is arrogant to the tenth degree. It would take a university degree for that or a science enthusiast. I Doubt you are either.   Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:49:59 From: Mrs. Tberry Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? I'm afraid your question might have been lost in all the snipping. > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by > monitoring my heart rate? Yes and no. Heart rate matters because it is related to what your body uses as a source of energy. A lower HR (in the aerobic zone, everyone's zones are different, see the earlier answer regarding VO2 max) will allow your body time to utilize the stored fat on your body, that is why you will see it referred to as the 'fat burning zone'. For anyone wanting to loose weight this is the only zone you ever need to be in. To burn fat you need to utilize all of the oxygen you can, and operating above this threshold does limits the oxygen you have to burn fat. If you can get to this zone by walking alone then that's all you would need to start out with, by saying that I mean anything that gets your heart into your aerobic zone is great exercise for weightloss. Eventually your endurance will improve and your zone will change enabling you to increase the intensity of your activities. Another zone is the anaerobic zone, in which there is less oxygen available for you to use the stored glycogen on your body - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_exercise. Most people only stay in this zone for a little bit during speed workouts or the actual races they train for. For normal health maintenance or endurance training you don't want to be in this zone for very long. That being said, it is also essential to eat the right kind of things to fuel your body. Diet is also key in weightloss, it takes both. Does that clarify things a little bit?   Date: 11 Dec 2006 22:53:19 From: steve common Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote: >So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by >monitoring my heart rate? Yes.   Date: 11 Dec 2006 12:17:52 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <J8gfh.461622$1T2.447168@pd7urf2no >, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > writes: >>>>I recommend building a rockery garden, for starters > > Yes, great recommendation. Changing attitudes may be no.1 priority. Do the > little things right and the large ones will fall in place. We live in a highly automated culture. Automation was supposed to spare us a bunch of labour, and that's supposed to be a good thing while we evolve into rolly-pollys, helplessly rolling around on our rotund asses while our stunted arms & legs can't reach stuff or get us up off the kitchen floor. But that doesn't matter, because all we need is enough nutrients (no trans-fats/hydrogenated oils anymore) to keep us alive, and Information. And a robot arm that stuffs nutrients into our pie-holes while we helplessly roll around on the kitchen floor, on our rotund asses. But, yeah -- Information. Lots 'n lots of useless Information to be filed away and archived and forgotten. Especially blogs. It's the Information Age, after all. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:46:20 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <_cqdnc32R-f76-DYnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@comcast.com >, "Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com > writes: > Lest you repeat a fallacy I didn't state, I'm sorry and I apologize if I did. I endeavoured to not expresss or imply statements that you did not make; I may have failed or miscommunicated. I bear the responsibility for having done so. > exercise is necessary and critical > for weight maintenance. That's where we agree. > Controlling your eating however, is even more > important. And that's where we differ. Because no matter what one eats, some of it will be physiologically stored. As others in this thread have said: weight loss ~= calories in / calories out. To get those calories out and burn 'em off, whether they come from cheeseburgers or soft-toasted reubens or rice cakes or baked macaroni & cheese with hot Italian sausage in it, we've gotta move around and /do/ stuff. And that means doing more stuff than setting aside an hour a day for more activity than pushing remote-control buttons to change TV channels. Trying to lose weight by mostly diet is as much a lazy-assed, work-avoiding cop-out as trying to lose weight by choking down ground-up oyster shell pills (Cyto-thingie[tm]). An hour a day at the gym ain't much better. Activity has to be a lifestyle thing, not a scheduled or programmed thing. Move around a lot[*], and become a slimm-o like me. cheers, & more cheers, Tom [*] ain't that a Talking Heads lyric? -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 17 Dec 2006 23:17:10 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Tom Keats wrote: > In article <_cqdnc32R-f76-DYnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@comcast.com>, > "Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com> writes: > >> Lest you repeat a fallacy I didn't state, > > I'm sorry and I apologize if I did. I endeavoured to > not expresss or imply statements that you did not make; > I may have failed or miscommunicated. I bear the > responsibility for having done so. > >> exercise is necessary and critical >> for weight maintenance. > > That's where we agree. > >> Controlling your eating however, is even more >> important. > > And that's where we differ. Because no matter what > one eats, some of it will be physiologically stored. > As others in this thread have said: > weight loss ~= calories in / calories out. > > To get those calories out and burn 'em off, whether > they come from cheeseburgers or soft-toasted reubens > or rice cakes or baked macaroni & cheese with hot Italian > sausage in it, we've gotta move around and /do/ stuff. > And that means doing more stuff than setting aside an > hour a day for more activity than pushing remote-control > buttons to change TV channels. > > Trying to lose weight by mostly diet is as much a lazy-assed, > work-avoiding cop-out as trying to lose weight by choking down > ground-up oyster shell pills (Cyto-thingie[tm]). An hour a day > at the gym ain't much better. > > Activity has to be a lifestyle thing, not a scheduled or > programmed thing. Move around a lot[*], and become a > slimm-o like me. > > > cheers, & more cheers, > Tom > > [*] ain't that a Talking Heads lyric? > How about this? Every time you get hungry go out and ride or run around the block and you will be thinking water instead of food. Works for me. Bill Baka     Date: 11 Dec 2006 18:51:52 From: Todd Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:cickle.pio.ln@bud.garden.local... > In article <_cqdnc32R-f76-DYnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@comcast.com>, > "Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com> writes: > >> Lest you repeat a fallacy I didn't state, > > Trying to lose weight by mostly diet is as much a lazy-assed, > work-avoiding cop-out as trying to lose weight by choking down > ground-up oyster shell pills (Cyto-thingie[tm]). An hour a day > at the gym ain't much better. No, you still missunderstand. I am saying that one could lower their calorie intake from 5000 calories a day to 3500 calories a day and exercise for an hour (and do a lot of other activity) and the reduction in eating would help lose the weight faster than the exercise though both are necessary and critical. > > Activity has to be a lifestyle thing, not a scheduled or > programmed thing. Move around a lot[*], and become a > slimm-o like me. Or eat less than 5000 calories a day and exercise and be slimmer and faster like me. ;-) > > > cheers, & more cheers, > Tom > > [*] ain't that a Talking Heads lyric? > > -- > Nothing is safe from me. > Above address is just a spam midden. > I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 11 Dec 2006 21:03:55 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? >>>>Trying to lose weight by mostly diet is as much a lazy-assed, work-avoiding cop-out as trying to lose weight by choking down ground-up oyster shell pills (Cyto-thingie[tm]). An hour a day at the gym ain't much better. The BMR goes lower so you cannot lose more weight. The BMR calculator explains that. http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/       Date: 11 Dec 2006 21:55:15 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? I have not heard the radio show but Dr. Kenneth Cooper is reknowned in Physical Education courses at University. http://www.cooperaerobics.com/radio/StationListing.aspx will not kill you to listen. He wrote many books. You do not have to subscribe to his nutritional supplements. The health tips page looks worthwhile. Ciau   Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:08:14 From: Black Metal Martha Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? nash wrote: > >>>But > nobody's - not even your genes are - forcing you to eat those last few > bites, or this or that fatty, sugary food. > > Fact, If it were genes everyone in my family would be fit except my Mom. In > fact, the males are the most athletic plus me, the other females are not > even close. Patient: But doctor, slow metabolism runs in my family. Doctor: The problem is nobody runs in your family!   Date: 11 Dec 2006 08:28:07 From: Black Metal Martha Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Charlie Pendejo wrote: > Todd wrote: > > And yet I know 50 runners that have to watch their calorie intake or > > they will gain weight on 50-60 mile weeks > > Get up at least into the 80's, though, and develop a taste for mostly > healthy food, and I bet it'd be a significant challenge to get (or > stay) very fat. :-) > > > > Lest you repeat a fallacy I didn't state, exercise is necessary and > > critical for weight maintenance. > > Now that I've lived it for a while, I'd go further and say exercise - > and more than 20 minutes three times weekly or whatever dumbed-down > figure "they" feed to us lazy Americans - is necessary and critical for > some baseline decent level of human functioning on several levels: > physical, mental, emotional... We're simply not built to thrive on the > occasional two minute walk from the parking lot to the store, and even > if we restrict calories to the meager demands of a sedentary lifestyle > and manage to keep our waistlines from bulging, we won't really be > functioning anywhere near 100%. > > OP: of course you have control over what you eat. If you have an > emotional, addictive eating disorder, you might need some help: look > into Overeaters Anonymous or individual therapy or whatever. But > nobody's - not even your genes are - forcing you to eat those last few > bites, or this or that fatty, sugary food. > > Don't drink soda. Avoid restaurants, for both the ridiculous portion > sizes they offer (and brainwash you into thinking are "normal") and for > the nutritional content. Eat lots (lots! - like three times what > you're thinking!) of vegetables, a reasonable portion (smaller than > typical American size) of animal carcass or other protein source, and > probably less starches and sweets than you're accustomed to. Make one > meal a day a big ol' salad with good mesclun greens, five or six of > your favorite veggies, and a protein source sliced up like grilled > chicken or some tuna or my favorite, a hangar steak cooked medium rare > - and don't drown it in a fatty dressing. And an apple a day. And > enjoy it all - find healthy foods you like, and think of it > (truthfully, because it really is) as food you enjoy and will make you > feel and look and perform better, not as deprivation. If you really > need ice cream to feel happy, schedule it for once every week or two, > not "whenever you really want/need it". Great tips!!! What I do too is log everything I eat, because our conception of serving size, if we go by site alone, we usually get it wrong. I use www.fitday.com for logging everything. It's great as far as journaling and figuring out nutritional content and exercise. The biggest problem with it is the basal metatarsal rate is waaaay too high. Other than that, it's a great free site I've used for a while. (I have no affiliation with site.) I try to plan every meal, every snack. I try to make most things form scratch and I will buy local, organic items whenever possible. Another thing to remember for me, anyway, is to eat to live, not live to eat. I lose weight fast, but I gain it fast, too. Before I eat I try to decide whether this is somtehing that iwll help me or hurt me. Food is fuel, after all. And the most important thing is, it's ok to splurge once in a while, or even have a big eating day as long as I remember to go back to my Way of Eating (WOE) the very next day. No giving up because I over did it the day before.   Date: 11 Dec 2006 16:27:40 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? " "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote in message news:1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by > monitoring my heart rate? > > Thanks.... No, fat is only burned during endurance exercises like long swims, cycles, jogs. Increase intensity and time to get in better shape. Be gradual and consistent. Heart rate shows you your progress. 3/4 of your max heart rate, after a 30 minute warm-up to prevent injuries, for 5 minutes will improve your heart and lungs for a start. The more you feel comfortable with the better. Take HR before exercise and after for 10 seconds on the wrist or where ever you do it. Target charts for HR after exercise can tell you if you are below average, gaining, or maintaining your fitness. Find them in any fitness book. Now here is the most important part. Fitness is also measured by how fast your body recovers from your workout. Means you are getting stronger if your heartrate is decreasing after doing the workout regularly for a week or two weeks. Then you can increase work load. Reps and/or length of time, or intesity (speed and up hill grades) No need for special equipment unless you compete. As an aside calorie burning is more efficient in fitter people with lower HR. The lungs work at greater capacity as does the heart in churning the O2 around to you muscles. You could walk a mile or jog a mile and you would burn the same amount. It is physics. Another person being heavier will have carried extra weight and worked harder, then burned more calories, and have a higher HR but that is because they are not fit. If they get in shape you can tell because the same amount of workout will have them pumping more efficiently and so less reps of the heart. As you get fitter the calories burned goes up because you are doing more work but it is easier to do so the HR is lower. I think that about answers it. Counting calories is really not the way to go. Muscles weigh more so weight is not the one measurement either that proves you are more fit. Different for everyone and changes over time in short term and long term. Older people have a slower metabolism but it can be increased with regular exercise. That is a good thing because healing takes place faster with a higher metabolism. References on this advice can be drawn from any Physical Education or Kinesiology section of the library. It is all there in black and white and read. Don't forget to make the workout fun so you will continue the pursuit of well being. Take care of each other.     Date: 11 Dec 2006 17:21:00 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? I forgot to say the recovery HR is taken 10 minutes after you end exercise workout.   Date: 11 Dec 2006 08:07:38 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Todd wrote: > And yet I know 50 runners that have to watch their calorie intake or > they will gain weight on 50-60 mile weeks Get up at least into the 80's, though, and develop a taste for mostly healthy food, and I bet it'd be a significant challenge to get (or stay) very fat. :-) > Lest you repeat a fallacy I didn't state, exercise is necessary and > critical for weight maintenance. Now that I've lived it for a while, I'd go further and say exercise - and more than 20 minutes three times weekly or whatever dumbed-down figure "they" feed to us lazy Americans - is necessary and critical for some baseline decent level of human functioning on several levels: physical, mental, emotional... We're simply not built to thrive on the occasional two minute walk from the parking lot to the store, and even if we restrict calories to the meager demands of a sedentary lifestyle and manage to keep our waistlines from bulging, we won't really be functioning anywhere near 100%. OP: of course you have control over what you eat. If you have an emotional, addictive eating disorder, you might need some help: look into Overeaters Anonymous or individual therapy or whatever. But nobody's - not even your genes are - forcing you to eat those last few bites, or this or that fatty, sugary food. Don't drink soda. Avoid restaurants, for both the ridiculous portion sizes they offer (and brainwash you into thinking are "normal") and for the nutritional content. Eat lots (lots! - like three times what you're thinking!) of vegetables, a reasonable portion (smaller than typical American size) of animal carcass or other protein source, and probably less starches and sweets than you're accustomed to. Make one meal a day a big ol' salad with good mesclun greens, five or six of your favorite veggies, and a protein source sliced up like grilled chicken or some tuna or my favorite, a hangar steak cooked medium rare - and don't drown it in a fatty dressing. And an apple a day. And enjoy it all - find healthy foods you like, and think of it (truthfully, because it really is) as food you enjoy and will make you feel and look and perform better, not as deprivation. If you really need ice cream to feel happy, schedule it for once every week or two, not "whenever you really want/need it".     Date: 11 Dec 2006 17:06:24 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? >>>But nobody's - not even your genes are - forcing you to eat those last few bites, or this or that fatty, sugary food. Fact, If it were genes everyone in my family would be fit except my Mom. In fact, the males are the most athletic plus me, the other females are not even close.       Date: 13 Dec 2006 12:19:58 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message news:kegfh.461628$1T2.12940@pd7urf2no... >>>>But > nobody's - not even your genes are - forcing you to eat those last few > bites, or this or that fatty, sugary food. > > Fact, If it were genes everyone in my family would be fit except my > Mom. In fact, the males are the most athletic plus me, the other > females are not even close. Same two parents? :) -DF         Date: 13 Dec 2006 21:04:12 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote in message news:OdSfh.31176$tb6.30775@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com... > > "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message > news:kegfh.461628$1T2.12940@pd7urf2no... >>>>>But >> nobody's - not even your genes are - forcing you to eat those last few >> bites, or this or that fatty, sugary food. >> >> Fact, If it were genes everyone in my family would be fit except my Mom. >> In fact, the males are the most athletic plus me, the other females are >> not even close. > > > Same two parents? :) > > -DF Oh thanks for pointing that out. No. Half and half is perfect then.         Date: 13 Dec 2006 23:49:28 From: Aeek Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Heart rate of zero, you're burning no fat, unless you're being cremated.   Date: 11 Dec 2006 07:57:36 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? >>>> I agree. I think the main problem with these people at the gym who seem > to never make progress, is they have too high an intensity level. Sure > this burns lots of fat, but it also leaves them ravenous, and drives > them to eat. And as they already have a demonstrable difficulty in > judging when enough is enough food-wise, they over do it and end up > back where they started, just a whole lot sweatier. Soup is more filling. We are told to drink more water. Fine now we drink too much. Drink before you are thirsty. good enough. If you try to lose weight by drinking more water with your meal for a feeling of fullness, it has also been proven that it does not work. Soup rather than say stew or sandwich with glasses of water does the trick. I do not know the scientific explanation but that is the view today. AS always 17 or so small snacks are better than 3 meals a day. Eat when your stomach says you are hungry not your mouth. Intensity of exercise may be at a level where you can still carry on a normal conversation with someone. High intensity will only burn muscle stores of energy. Think endurance training.   Date: 11 Dec 2006 07:15:39 From: shinypenny Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Doug Freese wrote: > You only have two variables to play with - caloric input or cloric > output. If you can't eat less then you need to exercise more. If you > tossing down a pint if Hagen Daz after every meal then you will need to > exercise most of the day. There's a third variable: increase your amount of muscle mass, which means that you'll burn calories at a higher rate. jen     Date: 12 Dec 2006 12:12:05 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1165850139.122613.120550@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Doug Freese wrote: > >> You only have two variables to play with - caloric input or cloric >> output. If you can't eat less then you need to exercise more. If you >> tossing down a pint if Hagen Daz after every meal then you will need >> to >> exercise most of the day. > > There's a third variable: increase your amount of muscle mass, which > means that you'll burn calories at a higher rate. You do that, I don't want to haul that extra weight around in a race. -Doug       Date: 12 Dec 2006 09:42:47 From: Steve Freides Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote in message news:p0xfh.49254$dN4.1643@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com... > > "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1165850139.122613.120550@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> Doug Freese wrote: >> >>> You only have two variables to play with - caloric input or cloric >>> output. If you can't eat less then you need to exercise more. If >>> you >>> tossing down a pint if Hagen Daz after every meal then you will need >>> to >>> exercise most of the day. >> >> There's a third variable: increase your amount of muscle mass, which >> means that you'll burn calories at a higher rate. > > You do that, I don't want to haul that extra weight around in a race. I have been lifting for the last five years or so, doing almost no running or other aerobic exercise, and everyone who meets me thinks I still look like a runner, and they're right, I do. It's important to realize that we all tend to lose muscle mass as we go through middle and old age, and some resistance training can help preserve muscle or build a very little bit without giving one so much weight that it becomes an issue. I weigh exactly what I've always weighed, which is 152 lbs. at 5' 8". I manage my weight the old-fashioned way, by getting on the scale every morning. Perhaps the most important piece of information to disseminate is that _how_ one weight trains has tremendous bearing on whether or not one gains muscle. I follow the advice given in Pavel's book, "Power To The People!", http://www.kbnj.com/ptp.htm , which explains that if you lift only a few repetitions at a time (5 or fewer) and take long rests (3 minutes or longer) between sets, and train frequently (every day or almost every day), you are very unlikely to add muscle mass - and that's how it worked out for me. If you use those few reps to lift heavy weights, you will get stronger in the process. Granted, my body composition isn't exactly what it was when I ran - I'm a bit more muscular and a bit less fat. Nothing remains unchanged forever, and my needs for health and fitness have changed over the years. I am very glad I changed my training to better accommodate those changing needs. -S- http://www.kbnj.com         Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:41:53 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-12, Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com > wrote: > I have been lifting for the last five years or so, doing almost no > running or other aerobic exercise, and everyone who meets me thinks I > still look like a runner, and they're right, I do. It's important to > realize that we all tend to lose muscle mass as we go through middle and > old age, and some resistance training can help preserve muscle or build > a very little bit without giving one so much weight that it becomes an > issue. I weigh exactly what I've always weighed, which is 152 lbs. at > 5' 8". That's a perfectly good weight for that height, but I bet you'd run faster at about 140lb. Cheers, -- Elflord           Date: 12 Dec 2006 21:38:06 From: Steve Freides Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message news:slrnentje1.jji.abuse@panix2.panix.com... > On 2006-12-12, Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote: > >> I have been lifting for the last five years or so, doing almost no >> running or other aerobic exercise, and everyone who meets me thinks I >> still look like a runner, and they're right, I do. It's important to >> realize that we all tend to lose muscle mass as we go through middle >> and >> old age, and some resistance training can help preserve muscle or >> build >> a very little bit without giving one so much weight that it becomes >> an >> issue. I weigh exactly what I've always weighed, which is 152 lbs. >> at >> 5' 8". > > That's a perfectly good weight for that height, but I bet you'd run > faster > at about 140lb. I'd be dead at 140 lbs. I'm not a particularly small frame, and I dropped to 142 when I had pneumonia a few years ago, and it was not a pretty thing. I do OK a few pounds light, maybe 148 or so, but I am already pretty lean. But if I wasn't dead, I'd no doubt no run faster at 140. -S- http://www.kbnj.com > > Cheers, > -- > Elflord             Date: 13 Dec 2006 14:28:40 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-13, Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com > wrote: > "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message > news:slrnentje1.jji.abuse@panix2.panix.com... >> On 2006-12-12, Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote: >> >>> I have been lifting for the last five years or so, doing almost no >>> running or other aerobic exercise, and everyone who meets me thinks I >>> still look like a runner, and they're right, I do. It's important to >>> realize that we all tend to lose muscle mass as we go through middle >>> and >>> old age, and some resistance training can help preserve muscle or >>> build >>> a very little bit without giving one so much weight that it becomes >>> an >>> issue. I weigh exactly what I've always weighed, which is 152 lbs. >>> at >>> 5' 8". >> >> That's a perfectly good weight for that height, but I bet you'd run >> faster >> at about 140lb. > > I'd be dead at 140 lbs. I'm not a particularly small frame, and I > dropped to 142 when I had pneumonia a few years ago, and it was not a > pretty thing. I do OK a few pounds light, maybe 148 or so, but I am > already pretty lean. Two things happen when you do big mileage. One is that you go from "pretty lean" to really, really lean. The other is that you lose any excess bulk (which you have if you've been lifting weights, even the weird stuff you do will move you up a few pounds...) Cheers, -- Elflord               Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:49:18 From: Steve Freides Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message news:slrneo03go.rt1.abuse@panix3.panix.com... > On 2006-12-13, Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote: >> "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:slrnentje1.jji.abuse@panix2.panix.com... >>> On 2006-12-12, Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I have been lifting for the last five years or so, doing almost no >>>> running or other aerobic exercise, and everyone who meets me thinks >>>> I >>>> still look like a runner, and they're right, I do. It's important >>>> to >>>> realize that we all tend to lose muscle mass as we go through >>>> middle >>>> and >>>> old age, and some resistance training can help preserve muscle or >>>> build >>>> a very little bit without giving one so much weight that it becomes >>>> an >>>> issue. I weigh exactly what I've always weighed, which is 152 lbs. >>>> at >>>> 5' 8". >>> >>> That's a perfectly good weight for that height, but I bet you'd run >>> faster >>> at about 140lb. >> >> I'd be dead at 140 lbs. I'm not a particularly small frame, and I >> dropped to 142 when I had pneumonia a few years ago, and it was not a >> pretty thing. I do OK a few pounds light, maybe 148 or so, but I am >> already pretty lean. > > Two things happen when you do big mileage. One is that you go from > "pretty > lean" to really, really lean. The other is that you lose any excess > bulk > (which you have if you've been lifting weights, even the weird stuff > you > do will move you up a few pounds...) Ah, diagnosis by Internet. We are all different, and the right program for one person is not necessarily the right program for another. I have a history of back problems - feel free to read about them on my site, link below. I need to be strong, and I feel better now than at any point in my life thus far, and I'm 51 years old. I do have a few pounds more muscle than I used to but, given that I was always skinny and I still weigh the same, I think it's safe to assume I'm no body builder. I have never been able to do "big mileage" without breaking down in some form. I managed to get over 40 miles in a single week exactly once, while on vacation with no other obligations in my life. Typical for me as a runner was about 20-25 miles a week. Last but not least, I am a faster sprinter now than I ever used to be, not a bad thing, either. If I did what you're suggesting, I suspect the results would be "the operation was a success but the patient died." I have no interest in returning to regular running nor any priily aerobic activity on a regular basis. I enjoy running once in a while, and I seem to run the local 5k each year to keep one or the other of my kids company along the way, but I don't train for it, I just do it. Thanks to the strength/endurance hybrid work I practice as part of my strength training - that strength/endurnace work is priily swinging a 24 kg kettlebell non-stop for a minute or two every day - my resting pulse is about 40. My doctors are not only happy with me, they're all jealous of the shape I'm in, and who can complain about being lean and strong (well, who except a bodybuilder)? I will applaud your fast distance running from the sidelines, thank you very much, and enjoy the fact that I might be carrying around a few pounds more muscle than is ideal for a distance runner. As long as I continue to make the 148 lb. weight class limit at the one or two powerlifting meets I attend each year, I'll consider myself lean enough. -S- http://www.kbnj.com > Cheers, > -- > Elflord                 Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:09:16 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-13, Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com > wrote: > Ah, diagnosis by Internet. We are all different, and the right program > for one person is not necessarily the right program for another. > > I have a history of back problems - feel free to read about them on my > site, link below. I need to be strong, and I feel better now than at I wasn't priily interested in discussing the finer points of your individual "big picture" concerns. The issue is whether nudging your lean body mass upwards by doing weight training is going to help your running performance. For most people, it probably isn't. Most people are better off running a lot of miles, and getting somewhat scrawny and very lean. [snip] > If I did what you're suggesting, I suspect the results would be "the If I seriously intended to coach you, I would supervise you more closely so that I could address such problems as they arise. But I'm not doing this, I'm simply presenting generic information about the relationship between running performance, body weight and mileage. Cheers, -- Elflord                   Date: 13 Dec 2006 10:57:47 From: Steve Freides Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message news:slrneo05ss.joj.abuse@panix3.panix.com... > On 2006-12-13, Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote: > >> Ah, diagnosis by Internet. We are all different, and the right >> program >> for one person is not necessarily the right program for another. >> >> I have a history of back problems - feel free to read about them on >> my >> site, link below. I need to be strong, and I feel better now than at > > I wasn't priily interested in discussing the finer points of your > individual "big picture" concerns. The issue is whether nudging your > lean body > mass upwards by doing weight training is going to help your running > performance. For most people, it probably isn't. Most people are > better > off running a lot of miles, and getting somewhat scrawny and very > lean. I don't know about most people, but I prefer to say that each person requires a different solution. For someone like me, and I really don't imagine I'm the only one, I do better carrying around a bit more muscle because it, and the strength training I do, seems to make me more resistant to injury. For those whose genetics and predispositions don't tend towards overuse injuries, I agree with you, but my personal theory is that most such people are already merrily running lots of miles and probably not looking in on a newsgroup, while those whose goals are more oriented towards general fitness and health and who run to stay healthy are our more likely readers here. Who knows for sure? No one, I suspect. > [snip] >> If I did what you're suggesting, I suspect the results would be "the > > If I seriously intended to coach you, I would supervise you more > closely so > that I could address such problems as they arise. But I'm not doing > this, I'm > simply presenting generic information about the relationship between > running > performance, body weight and mileage. As far as that goes, I am happy to agree - it's simply physics that for an endurance activity, one wants to have to move as little mass as possible, and that most people's bodies will adapt to high mileage as you've suggested. -S- http://www.kbnj.com > Cheers, > -- > Elflord                     Date: 13 Dec 2006 19:35:27 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-13, Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com > wrote: > I don't know about most people, but I prefer to say that each person > requires a different solution. Depends on whether you're dealing with "big picture issues", or the much narrower scope of optimising running performance. Even with your issues, the best solution (as far as performance running is concerned) would involve running as many miles as is sustainable *for you*. Now it's true, that you are happier simply not running, which is fine, but given a goal of optimising running performance, that's not an answer. > For someone like me, and I really don't > imagine I'm the only one, I do better carrying around a bit more muscle > because it, and the strength training I do, seems to make me more > resistant to injury. People who are injury prone usually do well by using *endurance* cross training to maintain very high training volume. Some weight training is fine, but very low priority as far as endurance work is concerned. > For those whose genetics and predispositions don't > tend towards overuse injuries, I agree with you, but my personal theory > is that most such people are already merrily running lots of miles and > probably not looking in on a newsgroup, while those whose goals are more > oriented towards general fitness and health and who run to stay healthy > are our more likely readers here. Who knows for sure? No one, I > suspect. Well, one could make educated guesses by looking at the training week thread. Who runs athons "for health reasons" ? Cheers, -- Elflord                       Date: 13 Dec 2006 14:52:50 From: Steve Freides Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message news:slrneo0lfv.ok6.abuse@panix2.panix.com... > On 2006-12-13, Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote: > >> I don't know about most people, but I prefer to say that each person >> requires a different solution. > > Depends on whether you're dealing with "big picture issues", or the > much > narrower scope of optimising running performance. Even with your > issues, > the best solution (as far as performance running is concerned) would > involve > running as many miles as is sustainable *for you*. > > Now it's true, that you are happier simply not running, which is fine, > but > given a goal of optimising running performance, that's not an answer. > >> For someone like me, and I really don't >> imagine I'm the only one, I do better carrying around a bit more >> muscle >> because it, and the strength training I do, seems to make me more >> resistant to injury. > > People who are injury prone usually do well by using *endurance* cross > training to maintain very high training volume. Some weight training > is > fine, but very low priority as far as endurance work is concerned. > >> For those whose genetics and predispositions don't >> tend towards overuse injuries, I agree with you, but my personal >> theory >> is that most such people are already merrily running lots of miles >> and >> probably not looking in on a newsgroup, while those whose goals are >> more >> oriented towards general fitness and health and who run to stay >> healthy >> are our more likely readers here. Who knows for sure? No one, I >> suspect. > > Well, one could make educated guesses by looking at the training week > thread. > Who runs athons "for health reasons" ? This thread is on multiple newsgroups, including an aerobics groups, a triathlon group, and a two cycling groups. Some people actually do set themselves a goal of running a athon for health reasons, but you seem to assume that everyone reading is interested in better endurance running performance, and am I trying to advocate the point of view that, for most health purposes, pursuit of an endurance sport like distance running may not be the best choice. I was a merry runner, cyclist, and swimmer until my early 40's, at which point I found my body composition less than to my liking - I seemed to get a little thinner and also a little fatter each year, no matter how I trained, and I felt like my overall health wasn't improving but rather slowly getting worse. It's just a point to ponder. When my wife started telling me I was too thin, I decided that it was time to do something about that and, as I said, I still look like a runner for all intents and purposes, I just don't train like one anymore. -S- http://www.kbnj.com > Cheers, > -- > Elflord         Date: 12 Dec 2006 10:14:08 From: Set Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:42:47 -0500, "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com > wrote: >"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message >news:p0xfh.49254$dN4.1643@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com... >> >> "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1165850139.122613.120550@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> Doug Freese wrote: >>> >>>> You only have two variables to play with - caloric input or cloric >>>> output. If you can't eat less then you need to exercise more. If >>>> you >>>> tossing down a pint if Hagen Daz after every meal then you will need >>>> to >>>> exercise most of the day. >>> >>> There's a third variable: increase your amount of muscle mass, which >>> means that you'll burn calories at a higher rate. >> >> You do that, I don't want to haul that extra weight around in a race. > >I have been lifting for the last five years or so, doing almost no >running or other aerobic exercise, and everyone who meets me thinks I >still look like a runner, and they're right, I do. It's important to >realize that we all tend to lose muscle mass as we go through middle and >old age, and some resistance training can help preserve muscle or build >a very little bit without giving one so much weight that it becomes an >issue. I weigh exactly what I've always weighed, which is 152 lbs. at >5' 8". I manage my weight the old-fashioned way, by getting on the >scale every morning. > >Perhaps the most important piece of information to disseminate is that >_how_ one weight trains has tremendous bearing on whether or not one >gains muscle. I follow the advice given in Pavel's book, "Power To The >People!", http://www.kbnj.com/ptp.htm , which explains that if you lift >only a few repetitions at a time (5 or fewer) and take long rests (3 >minutes or longer) between sets, and train frequently (every day or >almost every day), you are very unlikely to add muscle mass - and that's >how it worked out for me. If you use those few reps to lift heavy >weights, you will get stronger in the process. Granted, my body >composition isn't exactly what it was when I ran - I'm a bit more >muscular and a bit less fat. > >Nothing remains unchanged forever, and my needs for health and fitness >have changed over the years. I am very glad I changed my training to >better accommodate those changing needs. > >-S- >http://www.kbnj.com Speaking of needs changing over the years, I'm becoming of the opinion that as you get older it's better to be lighter and stronger, not bigger and stronger. Carrying extra bodyweight, even muscle doesn't seem to be particularly advantageous past the mid 40s.   Date: 10 Dec 2006 22:00:58 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <fISdnRrj4tXUQuHYnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@comcast.com >, "Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com > writes: > > "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:lpkile.arm.ln@bud.garden.local... >> In article <4u42qbF16hf1kU1@mid.individual.net>, >> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> writes: >> >>> You have misrepresented my position. Everyone should exercise, diet and >>> exercise do go hand in hand, and I have never suggested anyone only >>> diet. But there is a popular misconception that losing weight and >>> changing body composition is mostly about exercise and this is, IMHO, >>> wrong. It is mostly about diet. >> >> I respectfully differ, and I further contend it is mostly about >> lifestyle activity (whether-or-not you call it "exercise".) >> > > I agree with Steve. I can gain weight running 45 miles a week and easily > lose it on 20 miles of running a week if I control my diet. My own personal > guess (for me) is that my weight is a function of 75% diet and 25% exercise > and controlling both is critical. I can work an 8-hour shift of unloading and crossdocking truck trailers & containers, and I'll have to tighten my belt one or two notches before the shift is over, or else my pants will slide right down to my ankles. You're talking about /weeks/? My body likes it, but I don't pig-out on entire take-out lasagnas or donuts after my shifts. (A reasonable amount of lasagna is pretty good, though :-) ) My point is just that the human body needs to be put to work in order to self-regenerate -- not be starved. And it needs to self-regenerate in order to go from overweight to svelte. Or at least, to "not overweight". You can't get there by deprivation and starvation. Fortunately, the work needed by the human body doesn't necessarily have to be onerous, or even terribly anaerobic. I still contend diet is secondary to, and functionally dependent on "exercise". cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:35:24 From: Set Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:00:58 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >I still contend diet is secondary to, and functionally dependent >on "exercise". > > >cheers, > Tom I lost >50lbs the first time I used the LC diet. Didn't exercise at all due to an injury. YMMV, though this seems fairly typical among LC dieters. ;-)     Date: 11 Dec 2006 08:16:54 From: Todd Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:q6sile.sfn.ln@bud.garden.local... > In article <fISdnRrj4tXUQuHYnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@comcast.com>, > "Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com> writes: > My point is just that the human body needs to be put to work > in order to self-regenerate -- not be starved. And it needs > to self-regenerate in order to go from overweight to svelte. > Or at least, to "not overweight". You can't get there by > deprivation and starvation. Fortunately, the work needed by > the human body doesn't necessarily have to be onerous, or even > terribly anaerobic. And yet I know 50 runners that have to watch their calorie intake or they will gain weight on 50-60 mile weeks and every one of them knows that as they age, they get more efficient at running and their metabolism is slower. Thus, they have to watch the intake carefully even as they do substantial exercise. Initial running often leads to large weight loss but then the body gets efficient and many of us must carefully watch it. Lest you repeat a fallacy I didn't state, exercise is necessary and critical for weight maintenance. Controlling your eating however, is even more important. > > I still contend diet is secondary to, and functionally dependent > on "exercise". > > > cheers, > Tom > > -- > Nothing is safe from me. > Above address is just a spam midden. > I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca >   Date: 10 Dec 2006 19:54:29 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <4u42qbF16hf1kU1@mid.individual.net >, "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com > writes: > You have misrepresented my position. Everyone should exercise, diet and > exercise do go hand in hand, and I have never suggested anyone only > diet. But there is a popular misconception that losing weight and > changing body composition is mostly about exercise and this is, IMHO, > wrong. It is mostly about diet. I respectfully differ, and I further contend it is mostly about lifestyle activity (whether-or-not you call it "exercise".) cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 10 Dec 2006 21:32:09 From: Todd Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:lpkile.arm.ln@bud.garden.local... > In article <4u42qbF16hf1kU1@mid.individual.net>, > "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> writes: > >> You have misrepresented my position. Everyone should exercise, diet and >> exercise do go hand in hand, and I have never suggested anyone only >> diet. But there is a popular misconception that losing weight and >> changing body composition is mostly about exercise and this is, IMHO, >> wrong. It is mostly about diet. > > I respectfully differ, and I further contend it is mostly about > lifestyle activity (whether-or-not you call it "exercise".) > I agree with Steve. I can gain weight running 45 miles a week and easily lose it on 20 miles of running a week if I control my diet. My own personal guess (for me) is that my weight is a function of 75% diet and 25% exercise and controlling both is critical. > > cheers, > Tom > > -- > Nothing is safe from me. > Above address is just a spam midden. > I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 11 Dec 2006 03:40:05 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote in message news:1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by > monitoring my heart rate? > > Thanks.... No, fat is only burned during endurance exercises like long swims, cycles, jogs. Increase intensity and time to get in better shape. Be gradual and consistent. Heart rate shows you your progress. 3/4 of your max heart rate, after a 30 minute warm-up to prevent injuries, for 5 minutes will improve your heart and lungs for a start. The more you feel comfortable with the better. Take HR before exercise and after for 10 seconds on the wrist or where ever you do it. Target charts for HR after exercise can tell you if you are below average, gaining, or maintaining your fitness. Find them in any fitness book. Now here is the most important part. Fitness is also measured by how fast your body recovers from your workout. Means you are getting stronger if your heartrate is decreasing after doing the workout regularly for a week or two weeks. Then you can increase work load. Reps and/or length of time, or intesity (speed and up hill grades) No need for special equipment unless you compete. As an aside calorie burning is more efficient in fitter people with lower HR. The lungs work at greater capacity as does the heart in churning the O2 around to you muscles. You could walk a mile or jog a mile and you would burn the same amount. It is physics. Another person being heavier will have carried extra weight and worked harder, then burned more calories, and have a higher HR but that is because they are not fit. If they get in shape you can tell because the same amount of workout will have them pumping more efficiently and so less reps of the heart. As you get fitter the calories burned goes up because you are doing more work but it is easier to do so the HR is lower. I think that about answers it. Counting calories is really not the way to go. Muscles weigh more so weight is not the one measurement either that proves you are more fit. Different for everyone and changes over time in short term and long term. Older people have a slower metabolism but it can be increased with regular exercise. That is a good thing because healing takes place faster with a higher metabolism. References on this advice can be drawn from any Physical Education or Kinesiology section of the library. It is all there in black and white and read. Don't forget to make the workout fun so will continue the pursuit of well being. Take care of each other.   Date: 10 Dec 2006 19:30:53 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <4u402mF1629atU1@mid.individual.net >, "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com > writes: > The number of people who can exercise themselves out of obesity is quite > small and they can thank their parents for their good genes. No. Diet & exercise go hand-in-hand. An overweight person can't just starve him/herself out of overweightness. All they'd get out of that is malnutrition, or at least a bunch of folded skin on a bone-rack body. > it simply doesn't work. I am sorry to be blunt but if you are not > willing to deal somehow with the need to take in less food or at the > very least, much different kinds of food, your efforts to lose weight > are doomed to failure, regardless of the method you choose for passing > your hour a day in exercise. I'm sorry to be blunt, but the human body needs to /work/ in order to regenerate. To be sure, that work needs its proper fuel, but you might be surpised how little fuel it takes. But hey -- I guess just sitting in a Laz-E-Boy and starving to death is easier and more appealing to the sedentary folks, than actually getting up and doing something more than leaving a film of sweat on the seat of some go-nowhere gym exercise equipment. I recommend building a rockery garden, for starters. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 11 Dec 2006 17:00:25 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? >>>I recommend building a rockery garden, for starters Yes, great recommendation. Changing attitudes may be no.1 priority. Do the little things right and the large ones will fall in place.     Date: 10 Dec 2006 22:49:29 From: Steve Freides Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:ddjile.hpm.ln@bud.garden.local... > In article <4u402mF1629atU1@mid.individual.net>, > "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> writes: > >> The number of people who can exercise themselves out of obesity is >> quite >> small and they can thank their parents for their good genes. > > No. > > Diet & exercise go hand-in-hand. > > An overweight person can't just starve him/herself out of > overweightness. All they'd get out of that is malnutrition, > or at least a bunch of folded skin on a bone-rack body. > >> it simply doesn't work. I am sorry to be blunt but if you are not >> willing to deal somehow with the need to take in less food or at the >> very least, much different kinds of food, your efforts to lose weight >> are doomed to failure, regardless of the method you choose for >> passing >> your hour a day in exercise. > > I'm sorry to be blunt, but the human body needs to /work/ > in order to regenerate. To be sure, that work needs its > proper fuel, but you might be surpised how little fuel > it takes. > > But hey -- I guess just sitting in a Laz-E-Boy and starving to > death is easier and more appealing to the sedentary folks, than > actually getting up and doing something more than leaving a film > of sweat on the seat of some go-nowhere gym exercise equipment. > > I recommend building a rockery garden, for starters. You have misrepresented my position. Everyone should exercise, diet and exercise do go hand in hand, and I have never suggested anyone only diet. But there is a popular misconception that losing weight and changing body composition is mostly about exercise and this is, IMHO, wrong. It is mostly about diet. -S- http://www.kbnj.com       Date: 11 Dec 2006 13:27:28 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com > wrote in message news:4u42qbF16hf1kU1@mid.individual.net... > You have misrepresented my position. Everyone should exercise, diet > and exercise do go hand in hand, and I have never suggested anyone > only diet. But there is a popular misconception that losing weight > and changing body composition is mostly about exercise and this is, > IMHO, wrong. It is mostly about diet. I think you are biased towards exercise and that does make you correct. Even the Harvard School of Public health has exercise at the base. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html This kind of suggests a leaning toward exercise. If nothing else we all agree that it takes both and we only disagree in proportion. I would say the proportion is individual based. It could be that an overweight person needs to eliminate the 12 Snickers bars a day and add just a little exercise. -DF   Date: 10 Dec 2006 16:58:50 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <1165796901.053880.248680@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com >, "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > writes: > You're assuming that people can just eat less. For most people who are > overweight, that is not the case. Sure it is. There really /is/ hope. It's a cop-out to rationalize you're some kind of hopelessly genetically- predilected eating machine. I know a number of diabetic folks who've not only reduced their intake of "bad" foods and lost weight in the process, but have derived additional fitness benefits in doing so. Some of 'em might even be able to kick /my/ ass around the block, and celebrate their accomplishment with a reasonably sized slab of cherry pie a la mode (sugarless ice [cream/milk/soy/rice].) cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 10 Dec 2006 16:49:00 From: wizzywiz Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? vernon wrote: > "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> wrote in message > news:1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how > > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by > > monitoring my heart rate? > > > > Thanks.... > > And what makes you think that asking in a range of unrelated forums will > result in a consensus? Which forum is unrelated to whether aerobic exercise on a bike, stationary bike, or running, are equally effective to lose weight? Why do you think that people who frequent some or all of these forums would be unable to reach a consensus? Why do you think that individual discussion forums are like clubs whose members don't want to associate with other forums, even if the issue is specifically contrasts the topics of the different forums? Why do you think Google allows posting in up to five forums? Why am I asking these questions? How many Google posters does it take to change a light bulb?     Date: 11 Dec 2006 02:34:30 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-11, wizzywiz <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote: > > vernon wrote: >> "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> wrote in message >> news:1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >> > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how >> > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by >> > monitoring my heart rate? >> > >> > Thanks.... >> >> And what makes you think that asking in a range of unrelated forums will >> result in a consensus? > > > Which forum is unrelated to whether aerobic exercise on a bike, > stationary bike, or running, are equally effective to lose weight? That wasn't the question you asked. To answer your question in this context -- no, you can't just compare heart rates for different exercises and conclude that the higher one is burning more calories. Running will usually burn more calories per unit time, but you need to weigh that against injury risks -- 20 minutes running probably carries more injury risk than 2hrs cycling. A suggestion: just choose whichever one you like doing. Either will enable you to lose weight if you stick with it. But if it's not fun, you probably won't stick with it. [snip] > Why do you think Google allows posting in up to five forums? They cater to idiots. > Why am I asking these questions? Hmmmmmm ... > How many Google posters does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, because a single google poster can post "how do I change a light bulb" to 100 different forums. Cheers, -- Elflord       Date: 11 Dec 2006 22:51:20 From: steve common Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote: >> How many Google posters does it take to change a light bulb? > >Only one, because a single google poster can post "how do I change a light bulb" to >100 different forums. Bet you found that one on Google ;- >   Date: 10 Dec 2006 16:39:49 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <4u3ltsF16csn0U1@mid.individual.net >, "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com > writes: > The people who can "eat whatever they like and never gain > weight" are few and far between, and many of them are blessed with the > right genes. That's me, but I opine that at least some of it is a matter of habituation, rather than genetics. While I do frequently indulge in stuff that other folks claim causes them to gain weight just by looking at it, I also enjoy many healthy foods. And I no longer "eat big" like I did in my youth. I think a lot of people can eat whatever they like, in reasonable portions. But I also maintain an active lifestyle (including work that involves much physical labour,) avoid lolling in soft furniture, and limit my snacking. Setting aside/programming/scheduling an hour a day in which to lose weight & waist is as ridiculous as doing the same in order to interface with one's children before getting some shuteye and going back to the dehumanizing cubicle job. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 10 Dec 2006 16:28:21 From: wizzywiz Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Steve Freides wrote: > "David tin" <tin-family@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:1165789693.465520.245410@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > > > Steve Freides wrote: > >> "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> wrote in message > >> news:1165783505.920963.253020@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > >> > Sorry, I wasn't very clear. > >> > > >> > My goal is maximum weight loss in an hour of exercise per day. I > >> > really > >> > want to know how many calories I burn if I do that hour on my bike, > >> > on > >> > my statinary bike, or running. I've seen lots of different numbers, > >> > so > >> > I am just wondering if I can assume that 1 hour at 135 beats/min > >> > burns > >> > the same number of calories regardless of which activity I'm doing. > >> > > >> > Thanks very much for any advice. > >> > >> I will restate a point I made earlier. If weight loss is your goal, > >> focus on eating better, cleaner, and most of all, less - eat less > >> food, > >> and figure out how to eat wholesome, healthy food that leaves you > >> satisfied without requiring you consume more of it than you need. > >> > >> The gym I go to is full of people who spend countless hours there, > >> some > >> of them 3 hours or more every day, and they are overwhelming > >> overweight. > >> Exercising to lose weight is not a sound strategy by itself, nor is > >> it a > >> sound priy plan of attack. You need to clean up your eating first > >> and foremost. Try exercising for 20 minutes instead of one hour, and > >> eating fewer calories for the remainder. The usual guideline for > >> slow > >> weight loss is eating 250-500 calories per day fewer than you need to > >> maintain your current bodyweight. You can achieve that 250-500 > >> calorie > >> deficit through diet, exercise, or both, and it's my opinion that > >> people > >> who do both tend to have the most success. It will not take you an > >> hour > >> to burn off 250 calories, and you don't need to exercise for an hour > >> a > >> day. If you insist on spending that much time exercising, then mix > >> it > >> up between aerobic activities like cycling and lifting weights - the > >> older you are, the more important some sort of resistance training is > >> to > >> achieving and maintaining a good body composition. > > > > Interesting hypothesis.. Though the experts would suggest that > > exercise > > is more successful in reducing harmful fat. > > Reistance training isn't exercise? > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6220596.stm > > Exercise is necessary for health; minding what you eat is necessary for > weight loss; weight loss is the first, most important thing for people > who are significantly overweight. Body composition, reducing visceral > fat, etc. - those are relatively minor points when we're talking about > the average American. Let them exercise 20 minutes a day, or even 20 > minutes every other day, and eat less. That will help them get rid of > those 10, 20, 30 or more extra pounds they're carrying around, at which > they'll be ready to discuss the relatively finer points of this subject > like adding muscle mass, improving endurance, and reducing visceral fat. > > That article, by the way, states nothing that hasn't been common > knowledge 10 years or more. > > Just to put my point of view into some perspective, I am an avid > exerciser. I'll spare you the details but you can read them on my web > site if you wish. And when it's time for me to lose weight, I keep > right on exercising, I cut down on the food I eat, and I try to keep the > best parts of my diet while eliminating the junk. That's just what one > has to do. The people who can "eat whatever they like and never gain > weight" are few and far between, and many of them are blessed with the > right genes. What works for sedentary, overweight people is the > addition of some exercise but a main focus on diet. > > -S- > http://www.kbnj.com > > > > ..d > > You're assuming that people can just eat less. For most people who are overweight, that is not the case. ww     Date: 11 Dec 2006 13:18:36 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote in message news:1165796901.053880.248680@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > > Steve Freides wrote: >> "David tin" <tin-family@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:1165789693.465520.245410@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > You're assuming that people can just eat less. For most people who are > overweight, that is not the case. You only have two variables to play with - caloric input or cloric output. If you can't eat less then you need to exercise more. If you tossing down a pint if Hagen Daz after every meal then you will need to exercise most of the day. I think a better statement rather than eat less is to eat ster. I be willing to bet big dollars that many meals are very calorie dense. Bottom line, you have to really want to lose weight and it means exercise and eating ster. Anyone that doesn't not understand nutrition may want to seek a nutritionist. And by all means don't go to sci.med.nutrition, it is loaded with agenda based whackos. -DF       Date: 12 Dec 2006 02:20:44 From: Jan Brittenson Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Doug Freese wrote: > You only have two variables to play with - caloric input or cloric > output. Somewhat simplistically, yes. However, if you do a significant amount of weight bearing exercise or strength training with weights, then some nontrivial portion of the protein you consume will be used to build or maintain lean tissue. If you do less weight bearing work, you will need less protein and it will be deaminated into fuel by the liver. This is part of why running and weights have greater impact on weight loss than purely looking at their energy needs would suggest. And at 9kcal/g, protein that's used for lean tissue can quickly reduce the 'calories in' part of the equation.     Date: 10 Dec 2006 22:02:44 From: Steve Freides Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote in message news:1165796901.053880.248680@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > > Steve Freides wrote: >> "David tin" <tin-family@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:1165789693.465520.245410@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Steve Freides wrote: >> >> "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> wrote in message >> >> news:1165783505.920963.253020@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Sorry, I wasn't very clear. >> >> > >> >> > My goal is maximum weight loss in an hour of exercise per day. I >> >> > really >> >> > want to know how many calories I burn if I do that hour on my >> >> > bike, >> >> > on >> >> > my statinary bike, or running. I've seen lots of different >> >> > numbers, >> >> > so >> >> > I am just wondering if I can assume that 1 hour at 135 beats/min >> >> > burns >> >> > the same number of calories regardless of which activity I'm >> >> > doing. >> >> > >> >> > Thanks very much for any advice. >> >> >> >> I will restate a point I made earlier. If weight loss is your >> >> goal, >> >> focus on eating better, cleaner, and most of all, less - eat less >> >> food, >> >> and figure out how to eat wholesome, healthy food that leaves you >> >> satisfied without requiring you consume more of it than you need. >> >> >> >> The gym I go to is full of people who spend countless hours there, >> >> some >> >> of them 3 hours or more every day, and they are overwhelming >> >> overweight. >> >> Exercising to lose weight is not a sound strategy by itself, nor >> >> is >> >> it a >> >> sound priy plan of attack. You need to clean up your eating >> >> first >> >> and foremost. Try exercising for 20 minutes instead of one hour, >> >> and >> >> eating fewer calories for the remainder. The usual guideline for >> >> slow >> >> weight loss is eating 250-500 calories per day fewer than you need >> >> to >> >> maintain your current bodyweight. You can achieve that 250-500 >> >> calorie >> >> deficit through diet, exercise, or both, and it's my opinion that >> >> people >> >> who do both tend to have the most success. It will not take you >> >> an >> >> hour >> >> to burn off 250 calories, and you don't need to exercise for an >> >> hour >> >> a >> >> day. If you insist on spending that much time exercising, then >> >> mix >> >> it >> >> up between aerobic activities like cycling and lifting weights - >> >> the >> >> older you are, the more important some sort of resistance training >> >> is >> >> to >> >> achieving and maintaining a good body composition. >> > >> > Interesting hypothesis.. Though the experts would suggest that >> > exercise >> > is more successful in reducing harmful fat. >> >> Reistance training isn't exercise? >> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6220596.stm >> >> Exercise is necessary for health; minding what you eat is necessary >> for >> weight loss; weight loss is the first, most important thing for >> people >> who are significantly overweight. Body composition, reducing >> visceral >> fat, etc. - those are relatively minor points when we're talking >> about >> the average American. Let them exercise 20 minutes a day, or even 20 >> minutes every other day, and eat less. That will help them get rid >> of >> those 10, 20, 30 or more extra pounds they're carrying around, at >> which >> they'll be ready to discuss the relatively finer points of this >> subject >> like adding muscle mass, improving endurance, and reducing visceral >> fat. >> >> That article, by the way, states nothing that hasn't been common >> knowledge 10 years or more. >> >> Just to put my point of view into some perspective, I am an avid >> exerciser. I'll spare you the details but you can read them on my >> web >> site if you wish. And when it's time for me to lose weight, I keep >> right on exercising, I cut down on the food I eat, and I try to keep >> the >> best parts of my diet while eliminating the junk. That's just what >> one >> has to do. The people who can "eat whatever they like and never gain >> weight" are few and far between, and many of them are blessed with >> the >> right genes. What works for sedentary, overweight people is the >> addition of some exercise but a main focus on diet. >> >> -S- >> http://www.kbnj.com >> >> >> > ..d >> > > > > You're assuming that people can just eat less. For most people who are > overweight, that is not the case. Honest to goodness, listen to yourself! People die from lack of food all over the world every day. Think of that, and think of the millions of children going to bed hungry and malnourished the next time you find yourself saying you just can't resist having one more piece of cake. Then go figure out a strategy for yourself that you can live with. Atkins, South Beach, Weight Watchers, and a million other approaches are out there for you to try - pick one and stick with it. The one I use is here - http://www.kbnj.com/wd.htm and it's called the Warrior Diet. The number of people who can exercise themselves out of obesity is quite small and they can thank their parents for their good genes. For most it simply doesn't work. I am sorry to be blunt but if you are not willing to deal somehow with the need to take in less food or at the very least, much different kinds of food, your efforts to lose weight are doomed to failure, regardless of the method you choose for passing your hour a day in exercise. -S- http://www.kbnj.com   Date: 10 Dec 2006 16:24:55 From: wizzywiz Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Beginning runner wrote: > In article <1165783505.920963.253020@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> wrote: > > > My goal is maximum weight loss in an hour of exercise per day. I > > really want to know how many calories I burn if I do that hour on my > > bike, on my statinary bike, or running. I've seen lots of different > > numbers, so I am just wondering if I can assume that 1 hour at 135 > > beats/min burns the same number of calories regardless of which > > activity I'm doing. > > No. > > For example, a trained runner who can maintain a (for example) 8 minute > mile at 135 BPM for an hour will burn more calories than a walker at a > 15 minute mile at 135 BMP for an hour. Thanks, that's sort of getting at it, but I think it would be more correct to say, take either of those people. Put them on a bike for an hour at 135 bpm, on a stationary bike for an hour at 135 bpm, and running for an hour at 135 bpm. Will they burn the same calories? The same fat? This eliminates fitness and training as a factor, so we can ask just whether 135 bpm produces a given amount of calorie/fat burning regardless of method. Thanks for replying....     Date: 11 Dec 2006 16:36:03 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote in message news:1165796695.820925.241110@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > > Beginning runner wrote: >> In article <1165783505.920963.253020@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, >> "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> wrote: >> >> > My goal is maximum weight loss in an hour of exercise per day. I >> > really want to know how many calories I burn if I do that hour on my >> > bike, on my statinary bike, or running. I've seen lots of different >> > numbers, so I am just wondering if I can assume that 1 hour at 135 >> > beats/min burns the same number of calories regardless of which >> > activity I'm doing. >> >> No. >> >> For example, a trained runner who can maintain a (for example) 8 minute >> mile at 135 BPM for an hour will burn more calories than a walker at a >> 15 minute mile at 135 BMP for an hour. > > Thanks, that's sort of getting at it, but I think it would be more > correct to say, take either of those people. Put them on a bike for an > hour at 135 bpm, on a stationary bike for an hour at 135 bpm, and > running for an hour at 135 bpm. Will they burn the same calories? The > same fat? > > This eliminates fitness and training as a factor, so we can ask just > whether 135 bpm produces a given amount of calorie/fat burning > regardless of method. > > Thanks for replying.... I disagree, a more fit individual burns more calories/135bpm because they have a higher metabolism. They will be riding etc at a lot higher speed when at 135 than the unfit person. More work load equals more calories. It is win/win when you fit. If people understood that before they tried getting fit for the first time in their life they would realize how much there is to gain. Dear me, less is more. How many times can we say it.       Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:00:50 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-11, nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote: > I disagree, a more fit individual burns more calories/135bpm because they > have a higher metabolism. Almost. It's because they have a higher VO2 max. Their resting metabolism will be about the same, but the fit person (all other things being equal) will have a lower heart rate at rest. > They will be riding etc at a lot higher speed > when at 135 than the unfit person. More work load equals more calories. It > is win/win when you fit. yep, when your conditioning improves, you get better at burning calories, which leads to being able to lose weight. So beginners shouldn't worry too much if they don't lose much in the first couple of weeks. Better to focus on steady improvement in fitness. Cheers, -- Elflord         Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:23:51 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message news:slrnenran3.peg.abuse@panix2.panix.com... > On 2006-12-11, nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote: > >> I disagree, a more fit individual burns more calories/135bpm because they >> have a higher metabolism. > > Almost. It's because they have a higher VO2 max. Their resting metabolism > will > be about the same, but the fit person (all other things being equal) will > have > a lower heart rate at rest. > >> They will be riding etc at a lot higher speed >> when at 135 than the unfit person. More work load equals more calories. >> It >> is win/win when you fit. > >> leads to being able to lose weight. So beginners shouldn't worry too much >> if > they don't lose much in the first couple of weeks. Better to focus on > steady > improvement in fitness. > > Cheers, > -- > Elflord yep, when your conditioning improves, you get better at burning > calories, which That is what I just said. reminder "a more fit individual burns more calories/135bpm " They have a higher metabolism whether doing a 4 minute mile or resting. Fit people have a higher metabolism or burn rate. VO2 max is a term I had long forgotten but you do not have one without the other. Unfit people are restricted by muscle condition, lung capacity, and heart muscle. A st diet helps too. Iron in red bloodcells carries the O2. Hemoglobin should not be low otherwise forget about it.           Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:55:59 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-11, nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote: > That is what I just said. reminder "a more fit individual burns more > calories/135bpm " > They have a higher metabolism whether doing a 4 minute mile or resting. > Fit people have a higher metabolism or burn rate. VO2 max is a term I had > long forgotten but you do not have one without the other. Unfit people are No, VO2 max and resting metabolic rate are different things. The fit person can burn more calories at a heart rate of 135bpm, because it's 70% (for example) of their max, and their max is higher. This has nothing to do with resting metabolism. At rest, both burn about the same # calories, but the fit person has the lower resting heart rate (so for a fit person , "doing nothing" is a lower percentage of max effort) A 100lb female distance runner has a high VO2 max, but their resting metabolism isn't all that high. "Afterburn" is largely a myth (it's not that many calories). Cheers, -- Elflord             Date: 11 Dec 2006 20:47:42 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? >>>>The fit person can burn more calories at a heart rate of 135bpm, because it's 70% (for example) of their max, and their max is higher. So wrong               Date: 17 Dec 2006 23:15:39 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? nash wrote: >>>>> The fit person can burn more calories at a heart rate of 135bpm, because > it's 70% (for example) of their max, and their max is higher. > > > > So wrong > > It all depends on the heart size versus the individuals size and how fit the heart is and how well it contracts. A big, fit heart can do more work at 100BPM than a small, unfit heart at 150BPM. Then factor in a 100 pound female versus a 200 pound male or 6 feet something and the rules go out the window. Bill Baka                 Date: 18 Dec 2006 07:42:28 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:perhh.1062$Gw4.837@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... > nash wrote: >>>>>> The fit person can burn more calories at a heart rate of 135bpm, >>>>>> because >> it's 70% (for example) of their max, and their max is higher. >> >> >> >> So wrong > It all depends on the heart size versus the individuals size and how fit > the heart is and how well it contracts. A big, fit heart can do more work > at 100BPM than a small, unfit heart at 150BPM. Then factor in a 100 pound > female versus a 200 pound male or 6 feet something and the rules go out > the window. > Bill Baka You attributed the first part to me but mine was the second part. No wonder I get blamed for everythin' roun' here. : ) Max HR depends on age.                   Date: 18 Dec 2006 17:43:49 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? nash wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:perhh.1062$Gw4.837@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... >> nash wrote: >>>>>>> The fit person can burn more calories at a heart rate of 135bpm, >>>>>>> because >>> it's 70% (for example) of their max, and their max is higher. >>> >>> >>> >>> So wrong >> It all depends on the heart size versus the individuals size and how fit >> the heart is and how well it contracts. A big, fit heart can do more work >> at 100BPM than a small, unfit heart at 150BPM. Then factor in a 100 pound >> female versus a 200 pound male or 6 feet something and the rules go out >> the window. >> Bill Baka > > You attributed the first part to me but mine was the second part. No wonder > I get blamed for everythin' roun' here. : ) > Max HR depends on age. > > Then why can I hit over 180 at 58??? I can't get it there on the bike but I can by running full tilt sprint until my legs almost fall out from under me. That's about 2 full football fields worth and climbing day by day. This is what I do when it isn't worth it to get the bike out, like in between rain showers. 225-58=167 so the rules don't apply strictly. Thanks to the biking my rest pulse is only about 52, and my wife who does not bike and does smoke idles at about 85-90. Fitness DOES apply. Bill Baka                     Date: 19 Dec 2006 02:56:44 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:PtHhh.450$ZT3.303@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... > nash wrote: >> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:perhh.1062$Gw4.837@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... >>> nash wrote: >>>>>>>> The fit person can burn more calories at a heart rate of 135bpm, >>>>>>>> because >>>> it's 70% (for example) of their max, and their max is higher. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So wrong >>> It all depends on the heart size versus the individuals size and how fit >>> the heart is and how well it contracts. A big, fit heart can do more >>> work at 100BPM than a small, unfit heart at 150BPM. Then factor in a 100 >>> pound female versus a 200 pound male or 6 feet something and the rules >>> go out the window. >>> Bill Baka >> >> You attributed the first part to me but mine was the second part. No >> wonder I get blamed for everythin' roun' here. : ) >> Max HR depends on age. > Then why can I hit over 180 at 58??? > I can't get it there on the bike but I can by running full tilt sprint > until my legs almost fall out from under me. That's about 2 full football > fields worth and climbing day by day. This is what I do when it isn't > worth it to get the bike out, like in between rain showers. > 225-58=167 so the rules don't apply strictly. Thanks to the biking my rest > pulse is only about 52, and my wife who does not bike and does smoke idles > at about 85-90. Fitness DOES apply. > Bill Baka Besides individualness, and thank god we are, it sounds right. Feel sorry for your wife being a smoker and it shows. BTW Zoot is more interesting to watch than me. Agreed?                       Date: 18 Dec 2006 19:19:19 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? nash wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:PtHhh.450$ZT3.303@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... >> nash wrote: >>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:perhh.1062$Gw4.837@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... >>>> nash wrote: >>>>>>>>> The fit person can burn more calories at a heart rate of 135bpm, >>>>>>>>> because >>>>> it's 70% (for example) of their max, and their max is higher. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So wrong >>>> It all depends on the heart size versus the individuals size and how fit >>>> the heart is and how well it contracts. A big, fit heart can do more >>>> work at 100BPM than a small, unfit heart at 150BPM. Then factor in a 100 >>>> pound female versus a 200 pound male or 6 feet something and the rules >>>> go out the window. >>>> Bill Baka >>> You attributed the first part to me but mine was the second part. No >>> wonder I get blamed for everythin' roun' here. : ) >>> Max HR depends on age. >> Then why can I hit over 180 at 58??? >> I can't get it there on the bike but I can by running full tilt sprint >> until my legs almost fall out from under me. That's about 2 full football >> fields worth and climbing day by day. This is what I do when it isn't >> worth it to get the bike out, like in between rain showers. >> 225-58=167 so the rules don't apply strictly. Thanks to the biking my rest >> pulse is only about 52, and my wife who does not bike and does smoke idles >> at about 85-90. Fitness DOES apply. >> Bill Baka > > Besides individualness, and thank god we are, it sounds right. Feel sorry > for your wife being a smoker and it shows. > BTW Zoot is more interesting to watch than me. Agreed? > > Yeah, Zoot's a hoot. Bill Baka                   Date: 18 Dec 2006 07:44:11 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? nash wrote on 18/12/2006 07:42 +0100: > > You attributed the first part to me but mine was the second part. No wonder > I get blamed for everythin' roun' here. : ) > Max HR depends on age. > That's good to know. According to my max heart rate my birth certificate is wrong and I am still a teenager. -- Tony "...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate..." Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy             Date: 11 Dec 2006 20:45:05 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? >>>>A 100lb female distance runner has a high VO2 max, but their resting >>>>metabolism isn't all that high. Sorry, you still do not get it. Their resting metabolism (not heart rate) That is, metabolism is the rate you burn energy. The efficiency in other words. That is also why the older you get the lower your RHR (resting HR) is and also the lower your metabolism is. Lower the metabolism is the longer it takes to recover from illness but in this case an exercise bout. You talk about metabolism as if it changes at rest. Higher efficiency means better use of calories. That does not change day to day. That is an overall ratio for your entire body with organs and muscles, nerves and arteries working together at their highest potential hopefully. VO2 is the best measure of an athletes fitness. That is why I say it is linked to metabolism. If you are in good shape you have a higher BMR (base metabolic rate) I guess if you use calories more efficiently though you would use less to do the work. Then absorption of food and needed minerals is also a factor. Maybe fit people are more efficient at absorbing nutrients too. That also puts them on top. this website explains it beautifully, bmr calculator included, try it out. http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ "If you've noticed that every year, it becomes harder to eat whatever you want and stay slim, you've also learnt that your BMR decreases as you age. Likewise, depriving yourself of food in hopes of losing weight also decreases your BMR, a foil to your intentions. However, a regular routine of cardiovascular exercise can increase your BMR, improving your health and fitness when your body's ability to burn energy gradually slows down." So do not starve yourself either.               Date: 12 Dec 2006 10:35:09 From: Daniel Barlow Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? nash wrote: > I guess if you use calories more efficiently though you would use less > to do the work. That's a pretty fundamental consequence of the definition of "efficiency", yes. -dan -- http://www.coruskate.net/               Date: 12 Dec 2006 00:26:00 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-11, nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote: >>>>>A 100lb female distance runner has a high VO2 max, but their resting >>>>>metabolism > isn't all that high. > > Sorry, you still do not get it. > Their resting metabolism (not heart rate) That is, metabolism is the rate > you burn energy. The efficiency in other words. No. Efficiency is energy output divided by energy expenditure. It has almost nothing to do with resting metabolism. You appear to be confusing different concepts, including: (1) running economy (2) resting metabolic rate (3) VO2 max. > Lower the metabolism is the longer it > takes to recover from illness but in this case an exercise bout. > > You talk about metabolism as if it changes at rest. Higher efficiency means > better use of calories. That does not change day to day. That is an > overall ratio for your entire body with organs and muscles, nerves and > arteries working together at their highest potential hopefully. > VO2 is the best measure of an athletes fitness. That is why I say it is > linked to metabolism. If you are in good shape you have a higher BMR (base > metabolic rate) Could you be more specific about the mechanism by which "being in shape" results in higher BMR ? My understanding was that it was largely a function of lean body mass. > I guess if you use calories more efficiently though you would use less > to do the work. yep. > Then absorption of food and needed minerals is also a factor. Maybe > fit people are more efficient at absorbing nutrients too. That also puts > them on top. Everyone absorbs macronutrients at the same rate. > "If you've noticed that every year, it becomes harder to eat whatever you > want and stay slim, you've also learnt that your BMR decreases as you age. yes, largely because people lose lean body mass with age. Cheers, -- Elflord                 Date: 12 Dec 2006 01:41:04 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Your dead wrong you say Everyone absorbs macronutrients at the same rate read lower metabolism, slower burn rate, slower digestion, that is why you have to eat less when you get older unless you stay as strong as you were decades ago or whatever the case. I could talk endlessly about each and every little circumstance but I really prefer that you understand more of what I already said. You confused VO2 for what I was saying. I have typed a book load today and was as much help as anyone can be. You are the last troll I am going to speak to.                   Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:26:54 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <QMnfh.471975$R63.168768@pd7urf1no >, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote: > You are the last troll I am going to speak to. Disagreeing with you does not make someone a troll.                     Date: 12 Dec 2006 03:43:12 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Beginning runner" <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote in message news:beginning_runner-68BCEA.19265411122006@news.east.cox.net... > In article <QMnfh.471975$R63.168768@pd7urf1no>, > "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote: > >> You are the last troll I am going to speak to. > > Disagreeing with you does not make someone a troll. Then why do I get called a troll when all I do is give an answer. just following the rules you guys set. You do not know what you are disagreeing to BTW It says right on the first page that leaness is not accounted for but they would burn calories faster. Does not take into account if someone is obese either. You have to do the Fat calculator and waist to hip ratio for that and much more. I did not say the things you say I am saying. How is anyone here going to do a VO2 max test anyway unless they pay $25-50 at a spa. Maybe you should try to communicate with us in more tangible ways.                       Date: 12 Dec 2006 05:49:20 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? How is this being abrasive. You do not know what you are disagreeing to BTW It says right on the first page that leaness is not accounted for but they would burn calories faster. Does not take into account if someone is obese either. You have to do the Fat calculator and waist to hip ratio for that and much more. I did not say the things you say I am saying. How is anyone here going to do a VO2 max test anyway unless they pay $25-50 at a spa. Maybe you should try to communicate with us in more tangible ways. I cannot put it nicer than that.                       Date: 11 Dec 2006 21:14:08 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <kzpfh.466766$5R2.402166@pd7urf3no >, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote: > >> You are the last troll I am going to speak to. > > > > Disagreeing with you does not make someone a troll. > > Then why do I get called a troll when all I do is give an answer. I didn't see anyone call you a troll. If someone did, I missed seeing it. But your abrasive attitude and your dogmatically providing answers, without references to back them up, that go contrary to conventional wisdom are hallks of trolldom. > You do not know what you are disagreeing to BTW I neither agreed nor disagreed with you. > It says right on the first page First page of what? I would recommend that you read pages 57 through 67 of _Sports Nutrition for Endurance Athletes_ by Monique Ryan (ISBN 1-931382-15-8, Velo Press, published in 2002) for information on glycogen burning, fat burning, lactate threshold, and VO2 Max. It is quite interesting and informative.                         Date: 12 Dec 2006 05:47:02 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? >>>>>But your abrasive attitude and your dogmatically providing answers, without references to back them up, that go contrary to conventional wisdom are hallks of trolldom. I did not do that All I did today was answer questions. I explained everything. how is that abrasive. What if you do not deserve an answer after I answered with ref. 10 times and you still do not get it. That is what I did and still you abuse me. You are the abuser. Everyone is abrasive before I get a chance to say anything so let it go. Higher metabolism is good. That is my message. Now you can say I am mean and evil Again go ahead. Stupid. I GAVE REFERENCES. YOU ARE LIEING AND GETTING everything screwed up. I cannot answer to something I did not do and say. That is slander BTW. If you saw what I wrote today you could be an Olympic Athlete but nevermind I understand that you have no goals and have to pick on people who are obviously above your understanding. Read a book. I already did. Again you are the troll.                           Date: 11 Dec 2006 23:37:41 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <qnrfh.472622$R63.5117@pd7urf1no >, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote: > >>>>>But your abrasive attitude and your dogmatically providing answers, > without references to back them up, that go contrary to conventional > wisdom are hallks of trolldom. > > I did not do that All I did today was answer questions. > I explained everything. how is that abrasive. What if you do not deserve > an answer after I answered with ref. 10 times and you still do not get it. > That is what I did and still you abuse me. > You are the abuser. Everyone is abrasive before I get a chance to say > anything so let it go. > Higher metabolism is good. That is my message. Now you can say I am mean > and evil Again go ahead. Stupid. > I GAVE REFERENCES. YOU ARE LIEING AND GETTING everything screwed up. I > cannot answer to something I did not do and say. That is slander BTW. If > you saw what I wrote today you could be an Olympic Athlete but nevermind I > understand that you have no goals and have to pick on people who are > obviously above your understanding. Read a book. > I already did. Again you are the troll. Yup, you are abrasive and abusive, and are not worth reading any further.                             Date: 13 Dec 2006 03:25:51 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? fuck you You know nothing cow "Beginning runner" <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote in message news:beginning_runner-4BBFB0.23374111122006@news.east.cox.net... > In article <qnrfh.472622$R63.5117@pd7urf1no>, > "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote: > >> >>>>>But your abrasive attitude and your dogmatically providing answers, >> without references to back them up, that go contrary to conventional >> wisdom are hallks of trolldom. >> >> I did not do that All I did today was answer questions. >> I explained everything. how is that abrasive. What if you do not >> deserve >> an answer after I answered with ref. 10 times and you still do not get >> it. >> That is what I did and still you abuse me. >> You are the abuser. Everyone is abrasive before I get a chance to say >> anything so let it go. >> Higher metabolism is good. That is my message. Now you can say I am >> mean >> and evil Again go ahead. Stupid. >> I GAVE REFERENCES. YOU ARE LIEING AND GETTING everything screwed up. I >> cannot answer to something I did not do and say. That is slander BTW. >> If >> you saw what I wrote today you could be an Olympic Athlete but nevermind >> I >> understand that you have no goals and have to pick on people who are >> obviously above your understanding. Read a book. >> I already did. Again you are the troll. > > Yup, you are abrasive and abusive, and are not worth reading any further.                           Date: 12 Dec 2006 05:54:03 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? But your abrasive attitude and your dogmatically providing answers, without references to back them up, that go contrary to conventional wisdom are hallks of trolldom. U are the troll. That is totally outrageous. I spent hours putting this online. All I get back is negatives, and abuse. You people have no manners and do not care about science and fitness. You are lieing all the time. One post he says this and next post he changes what I say and says I don't know that metabolism is not VO2. I never said it did. ONly you could make such a defenseless comment. Your accusations are pointless that is why you are trolls. come back when you make sense and read my references please.                             Date: 12 Dec 2006 14:40:12 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-12, nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote: [snip] > U are the troll. That is totally outrageous. I spent hours putting this > online. All I get back is negatives, and abuse. > You people have no manners and do not care about science and fitness. You > are lieing all the time. One post he says this and next post he changes > what I say and says I don't know that metabolism is not VO2. I never said Dude, chill out a little bit. I'm not trying to be a sty-pants and pick little holes in your posts. Maybe you know this stuff well, but your posts aren't very clear, and often you seem to get your terms jumbled. As far as the reader is concerned, the fact that you might know this stuff doesn't help you or them very much. Cheers, -- Elflord                 Date: 12 Dec 2006 01:18:46 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? The efficiency in other words. If you are in better shape you are more efficient. DA quit messing around with what I said, you can forget I said those words at all. I am just trying to use more understandable meanings but it is not working with you. you said, A 100lb female distance runner has a high VO2 max, but their resting >>>>>metabolism > isn't all that high. that is wrong go do the BMR calculator thing. Ask me then     Date: 10 Dec 2006 20:51:18 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <1165796695.820925.241110@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com >, "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote: > Thanks, that's sort of getting at it, but I think it would be more > correct to say, take either of those people. Put them on a bike for > an hour at 135 bpm, on a stationary bike for an hour at 135 bpm, and > running for an hour at 135 bpm. Will they burn the same calories? The > same fat? No. > This eliminates fitness and training as a factor, No, it doesn't.   Date: 10 Dec 2006 14:29:32 From: Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Steve Freides wrote: > "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> wrote in message > news:1165783505.920963.253020@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > Sorry, I wasn't very clear. > > > > My goal is maximum weight loss in an hour of exercise per day. I > > really > > want to know how many calories I burn if I do that hour on my bike, on > > my statinary bike, or running. I've seen lots of different numbers, so > > I am just wondering if I can assume that 1 hour at 135 beats/min burns > > the same number of calories regardless of which activity I'm doing. > > > > Thanks very much for any advice. > > I will restate a point I made earlier. If weight loss is your goal, > focus on eating better, cleaner, and most of all, less - eat less food, > and figure out how to eat wholesome, healthy food that leaves you > satisfied without requiring you consume more of it than you need. > > The gym I go to is full of people who spend countless hours there, some > of them 3 hours or more every day, and they are overwhelming overweight. > Exercising to lose weight is not a sound strategy by itself, nor is it a > sound priy plan of attack. You need to clean up your eating first > and foremost. Try exercising for 20 minutes instead of one hour, and > eating fewer calories for the remainder. The usual guideline for slow > weight loss is eating 250-500 calories per day fewer than you need to > maintain your current bodyweight. You can achieve that 250-500 calorie > deficit through diet, exercise, or both, and it's my opinion that people > who do both tend to have the most success. It will not take you an hour > to burn off 250 calories, and you don't need to exercise for an hour a > day. If you insist on spending that much time exercising, then mix it > up between aerobic activities like cycling and lifting weights - the > older you are, the more important some sort of resistance training is to > achieving and maintaining a good body composition. > I agree. I think the main problem with these people at the gym who seem to never make progress, is they have too high an intensity level. Sure this burns lots of fat, but it also leaves them ravenous, and drives them to eat. And as they already have a demonstrable difficulty in judging when enough is enough food-wise, they over do it and end up back where they started, just a whole lot sweatier. As for mixing up the exercise, it may also help to find some hobby like hiking, or cycling to do just for the fun of it (I can't imagine why anyone would run for fun! Just kidding...). Then the focus isn't on weight loss, but on enjoying one's self. That makes the whole thing much easier. Joseph   Date: 10 Dec 2006 14:28:13 From: David Martin Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Steve Freides wrote: > "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> wrote in message > news:1165783505.920963.253020@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > Sorry, I wasn't very clear. > > > > My goal is maximum weight loss in an hour of exercise per day. I > > really > > want to know how many calories I burn if I do that hour on my bike, on > > my statinary bike, or running. I've seen lots of different numbers, so > > I am just wondering if I can assume that 1 hour at 135 beats/min burns > > the same number of calories regardless of which activity I'm doing. > > > > Thanks very much for any advice. > > I will restate a point I made earlier. If weight loss is your goal, > focus on eating better, cleaner, and most of all, less - eat less food, > and figure out how to eat wholesome, healthy food that leaves you > satisfied without requiring you consume more of it than you need. > > The gym I go to is full of people who spend countless hours there, some > of them 3 hours or more every day, and they are overwhelming overweight. > Exercising to lose weight is not a sound strategy by itself, nor is it a > sound priy plan of attack. You need to clean up your eating first > and foremost. Try exercising for 20 minutes instead of one hour, and > eating fewer calories for the remainder. The usual guideline for slow > weight loss is eating 250-500 calories per day fewer than you need to > maintain your current bodyweight. You can achieve that 250-500 calorie > deficit through diet, exercise, or both, and it's my opinion that people > who do both tend to have the most success. It will not take you an hour > to burn off 250 calories, and you don't need to exercise for an hour a > day. If you insist on spending that much time exercising, then mix it > up between aerobic activities like cycling and lifting weights - the > older you are, the more important some sort of resistance training is to > achieving and maintaining a good body composition. Interesting hypothesis.. Though the experts would suggest that exercise is more successful in reducing harmful fat. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6220596.stm ..d     Date: 10 Dec 2006 19:09:30 From: Steve Freides Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "David tin" <tin-family@blueyonder.co.uk > wrote in message news:1165789693.465520.245410@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > Steve Freides wrote: >> "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> wrote in message >> news:1165783505.920963.253020@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >> > Sorry, I wasn't very clear. >> > >> > My goal is maximum weight loss in an hour of exercise per day. I >> > really >> > want to know how many calories I burn if I do that hour on my bike, >> > on >> > my statinary bike, or running. I've seen lots of different numbers, >> > so >> > I am just wondering if I can assume that 1 hour at 135 beats/min >> > burns >> > the same number of calories regardless of which activity I'm doing. >> > >> > Thanks very much for any advice. >> >> I will restate a point I made earlier. If weight loss is your goal, >> focus on eating better, cleaner, and most of all, less - eat less >> food, >> and figure out how to eat wholesome, healthy food that leaves you >> satisfied without requiring you consume more of it than you need. >> >> The gym I go to is full of people who spend countless hours there, >> some >> of them 3 hours or more every day, and they are overwhelming >> overweight. >> Exercising to lose weight is not a sound strategy by itself, nor is >> it a >> sound priy plan of attack. You need to clean up your eating first >> and foremost. Try exercising for 20 minutes instead of one hour, and >> eating fewer calories for the remainder. The usual guideline for >> slow >> weight loss is eating 250-500 calories per day fewer than you need to >> maintain your current bodyweight. You can achieve that 250-500 >> calorie >> deficit through diet, exercise, or both, and it's my opinion that >> people >> who do both tend to have the most success. It will not take you an >> hour >> to burn off 250 calories, and you don't need to exercise for an hour >> a >> day. If you insist on spending that much time exercising, then mix >> it >> up between aerobic activities like cycling and lifting weights - the >> older you are, the more important some sort of resistance training is >> to >> achieving and maintaining a good body composition. > > Interesting hypothesis.. Though the experts would suggest that > exercise > is more successful in reducing harmful fat. Reistance training isn't exercise? > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6220596.stm Exercise is necessary for health; minding what you eat is necessary for weight loss; weight loss is the first, most important thing for people who are significantly overweight. Body composition, reducing visceral fat, etc. - those are relatively minor points when we're talking about the average American. Let them exercise 20 minutes a day, or even 20 minutes every other day, and eat less. That will help them get rid of those 10, 20, 30 or more extra pounds they're carrying around, at which they'll be ready to discuss the relatively finer points of this subject like adding muscle mass, improving endurance, and reducing visceral fat. That article, by the way, states nothing that hasn't been common knowledge 10 years or more. Just to put my point of view into some perspective, I am an avid exerciser. I'll spare you the details but you can read them on my web site if you wish. And when it's time for me to lose weight, I keep right on exercising, I cut down on the food I eat, and I try to keep the best parts of my diet while eliminating the junk. That's just what one has to do. The people who can "eat whatever they like and never gain weight" are few and far between, and many of them are blessed with the right genes. What works for sedentary, overweight people is the addition of some exercise but a main focus on diet. -S- http://www.kbnj.com > ..d >       Date: 11 Dec 2006 13:09:27 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com > wrote in message news:4u3ltsF16csn0U1@mid.individual.net... > Just to put my point of view into some perspective, I am an avid > exerciser. I'll spare you the details but you can read them on my web > site if you wish. And when it's time for me to lose weight, I keep > right on exercising, I cut down on the food I eat, and I try to keep > the best parts of my diet while eliminating the junk. That's just > what one has to do. Doesn't sound like you practice the eating habits you propose for others. If you cut way back on junk daily, whatever you consider junk, then you might just be svelt all the time and be a real poster boy. ;) > The people who can "eat whatever they like and never gain weight" are > few and far between, and many of them are blessed with the right > genes. In general being genetically thin is better than obese but let's not go so far to suggest it's being blessed. Thin people have heart attacks and get cancer, etc just like chubbies. > What works for sedentary, overweight people is the addition of some > exercise but a main focus on diet. It still boils down to calories in calories out. I agree that trying to maintain a healthy weight by controlling only one's diet usually does not work and most studies show it fails. Exercise is a must and not just to help burn calories to get thinner but to maintain a healthy body. Last time I looked the heart, etc are muscles and watching TV and minding ones calories is not the answer. -DF       Date: 10 Dec 2006 20:53:49 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <4u3ltsF16csn0U1@mid.individual.net >, "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com > wrote: > The people who can "eat whatever they like and never gain weight" are > few and far between, and many of them are blessed with the right > genes. Nope; it still boils down to calories expended vs. calories taken in. A friend of mine has been losing weight while eating 3500 calories a day. She runs a hell of a lot.   Date: 10 Dec 2006 14:22:01 From: Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? wizzywiz wrote: > Sorry, I wasn't very clear. > > My goal is maximum weight loss in an hour of exercise per day. I really > want to know how many calories I burn if I do that hour on my bike, on > my statinary bike, or running. I've seen lots of different numbers, so > I am just wondering if I can assume that 1 hour at 135 beats/min burns > the same number of calories regardless of which activity I'm doing. > > Thanks very much for any advice. The amount of work done or calories burned has to some degree to do with the efficiency of the muscles doing the work. So you may be able to do some activity (cycling for example, or rowing, who knows?) more efficently for a given HR, so 135 does not necesarily equal 135. But if the goal is weight loss, I wouldn't worry about that so much. As I stated before I lost 55lbs or so so I speak from my own experience. At first, weight loss seems a daunting task where one has to change diet entirely, start a vigorous exercise program, and find the strength to stay with it forever. These things come easier to some than others and thus some people are not fat. The trick for me was to realize that it is not a huge effort to lose weight. Unless you are grossly overweight (and even then) it is only a small surplus of calories that you consume each day. In reality there is probably only 30 seconds of behavior per day that you need to find and change. Ideally you would change your diet to one that is 100% healthful, but to start just get the calories under control. For me it was upping my protein intake, and reducing my sugar and fat intake. Pretty simple. This was accomplished by switching gradually from strawberry yogurt (which I ate lots of) to plain yogurt (which I eat lots of), dropping butter and mayo and that sort of thing on sandwiches, and increasing the quantity of meat and fish. The increased protein gave me a sense of fullness that lasted longer, and gave me plenty of building blocks to build muscle (which is a win-win as more muscle in turn helps burn more calories). You probably only need to isolate about 200-300 calories per day to eliminate. Don't do any drastic diet changes, as this is probably not sustainable. Find small changes you hardly miss that let you eat as you wish, while eliminating these extra 200-300 calories. As you get thinner and more healthy in general your diet may of its own accord become more healthful to match. But don't try to do it all at once, as you could easily be setting yourself up for disapointment. Once you have the diet down, and have a good handle on your daily calorie intake and are comfortable with what you are eating, add low intensity exercise, while keeping the diet the same. If the intensity is low enough, you will not feel the need to eat more that you have been otherwise. If you go with high intensity you may induce hunger which drives you to change your diet with unpredictable results. As for which exercise, I'd go with the one that I liked best and/or was most practical and sustainable. Good luck! Joseph   Date: 10 Dec 2006 12:45:06 From: wizzywiz Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Sorry, I wasn't very clear. My goal is maximum weight loss in an hour of exercise per day. I really want to know how many calories I burn if I do that hour on my bike, on my statinary bike, or running. I've seen lots of different numbers, so I am just wondering if I can assume that 1 hour at 135 beats/min burns the same number of calories regardless of which activity I'm doing. Thanks very much for any advice.     Date: 27 Dec 2006 01:58:18 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <j42rn2ddqm449ahgsgp9coj6lesen7c9cq@4ax.com >, Set<@setnet.com > writes: > On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:00:58 -0800, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) > wrote: > >>I still contend diet is secondary to, and functionally dependent >>on "exercise". >> >> >>cheers, >> Tom > > I lost >50lbs the first time I used the LC diet. Didn't exercise at all due > to an injury. YMMV, though this seems fairly typical among LC dieters. ;-) You reduced your caloric intake. That works for sedentary overweight people, to go from overweight to somewhat less overweight, and that's what LC diets are for. It's a step. But drastic LC diets aren't supposed to be maintained over a lifetime, and there's still another step to go from there -- to being trim, lithe, low-cholesterol, and not relegated to riding recumbents. And you just can't get there by skarfing down chuck steaks with the fat meticulously trimmed off, while watching TV. Getting rid of excess bulk is one thing. Tightening up what's left is quite another. And fueling what's left is still another thing. Since you're posting in R.B.M I figure you're already enjoying the beneficial effects of physical activity. I congratulate and applaud you on your impressive weight loss. Ya done good. I guess you've already found being active in ways other than or additional to cycling makes you feel, look and be ... good. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 10 Dec 2006 23:08:43 From: Mark Thompson Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? wizzywiz wrote in news:1165783505.920963.253020 @l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com: > My goal is maximum weight loss in an hour of exercise per day I'd change the goal. The problem with exercise is that it builds muscle, which is heavier than fat. Weight is not the best measure of how you're doing. Waist size and general body appearance etc is prolly a better way of doing it. As for how hard you exercise, exercise as hard as you can while still enjoying it. Bursts of high intensity followed by a bit of low intensity is normally good in most sports. If you're not enjoying any instensity of exercise then choose a different activity.     Date: 10 Dec 2006 17:13:39 From: Steve Freides Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote in message news:1165783505.920963.253020@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > Sorry, I wasn't very clear. > > My goal is maximum weight loss in an hour of exercise per day. I > really > want to know how many calories I burn if I do that hour on my bike, on > my statinary bike, or running. I've seen lots of different numbers, so > I am just wondering if I can assume that 1 hour at 135 beats/min burns > the same number of calories regardless of which activity I'm doing. > > Thanks very much for any advice. I will restate a point I made earlier. If weight loss is your goal, focus on eating better, cleaner, and most of all, less - eat less food, and figure out how to eat wholesome, healthy food that leaves you satisfied without requiring you consume more of it than you need. The gym I go to is full of people who spend countless hours there, some of them 3 hours or more every day, and they are overwhelming overweight. Exercising to lose weight is not a sound strategy by itself, nor is it a sound priy plan of attack. You need to clean up your eating first and foremost. Try exercising for 20 minutes instead of one hour, and eating fewer calories for the remainder. The usual guideline for slow weight loss is eating 250-500 calories per day fewer than you need to maintain your current bodyweight. You can achieve that 250-500 calorie deficit through diet, exercise, or both, and it's my opinion that people who do both tend to have the most success. It will not take you an hour to burn off 250 calories, and you don't need to exercise for an hour a day. If you insist on spending that much time exercising, then mix it up between aerobic activities like cycling and lifting weights - the older you are, the more important some sort of resistance training is to achieving and maintaining a good body composition. -S- http://www.kbnj.com     Date: 10 Dec 2006 13:57:00 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <1165783505.920963.253020@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com >, "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote: > My goal is maximum weight loss in an hour of exercise per day. I > really want to know how many calories I burn if I do that hour on my > bike, on my statinary bike, or running. I've seen lots of different > numbers, so I am just wondering if I can assume that 1 hour at 135 > beats/min burns the same number of calories regardless of which > activity I'm doing. No. For example, a trained runner who can maintain a (for example) 8 minute mile at 135 BPM for an hour will burn more calories than a walker at a 15 minute mile at 135 BMP for an hour.   Date: 10 Dec 2006 14:33:02 From: Steve Freides Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote in message news:1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning > by > monitoring my heart rate? There is little consensus for good reason. At the very least, people adapt to their training programs, which means that how your body fuels a particular activity will change over time. For most people, it is best to focus on a specific result, such a losing weight or a faster 25 mile bicycle time trial, and direct your efforts towards your goal rather than trying to understand the biochemistry of fat burning. The "intensity of ... calorie burning" isn't a meaningful number. Please state a goal for your exercise program. If your goal is like that of most people, to "lose fat and tone up", you are best off to focus your efforts on your diet first and foremost, and pick a form of exercise or sport you enjoy practicing regularly that does not get you injured. Changes in performance require close attention to the details of training; changes in body composition require close attention to the details of eating. -S- http://www.kbnj.com   Date: 10 Dec 2006 11:31:05 From: Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? wizzywiz wrote: > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by > monitoring my heart rate? > > Thanks.... In terms of cycling, the amount of calories burned is directly related to the amount of work done. In other words power. But this varies greatly depending upon speed, rider weight, climbs, etc. While there is a large gin of error, you can estimate power based on HR if you do some tests first to calibrate yourself. This will be more accurate than some guess made by the HRM program. Once you figure out what your total calorie burn is, you can estimate how much is from fat based on the intensity of your workout, which can be tracked more or less by HR. Fat burns at all levels of intensity, but is a greater percentage of the total at lower intensities (though remember the toal is lower too). If you want maximum fat buring, you want maximum effort. But that is not practical. If you want maximum fat burning for a minimum of discomfort, keep the intensity below 70% max HR. If weight loss is your goal, my personal experience (lost 55lbs) is that low intensity is key as it allows a large amount of exercise to be done without leading to ravenous hunger which in turn leads to overeating and negating all the fat loss that the exercise accomplished. In other words, I'd rather take 2 steps forward and 0 back that 3 forward and 2 back. Joseph   Date: 10 Dec 2006 19:12:39 From: vernon Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote in message news:1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by > monitoring my heart rate? > > Thanks.... And what makes you think that asking in a range of unrelated forums will result in a consensus?   Date: 10 Dec 2006 20:08:28 From: joke Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > schreef in bericht news:1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by > monitoring my heart rate? > > Thanks.... > Intensity and calory burning go together like horse and carriage. The lower the intensity of your activity, the higher the amount of fat that is used as a source of energy. When the intensity increases the amount of carbon hydrates increases as a source of energy. The optimun (in this case your optimum) can't be computed exactly with the use with a hart rate monitor, but it is generally agreed that at 50-60% of Max you can burn a large amount of fat.     Date: 11 Dec 2006 02:42:42 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-10, joke <joke@joke.com > wrote: > > "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> schreef in bericht > news:1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >> Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how >> much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by >> monitoring my heart rate? >> >> Thanks.... >> > > Intensity and calory burning go together like horse and carriage. The lower > the intensity of your activity, the higher the amount of fat that is used as > a source of energy. Right, in fact when you're sleeping, you are getting nearly all your energy from fat. Want to burn "fat calories" ? Go watch TV. Cheers, -- Elflord       Date: 11 Dec 2006 12:50:57 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message news:slrnenphd2.edr.abuse@panix3.panix.com... > On 2006-12-10, joke <joke@joke.com> wrote: >> >> "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> schreef in bericht >> news:1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >>> Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn >>> how >>> much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning >>> by >>> monitoring my heart rate? >>> >>> Thanks.... >>> >> >> Intensity and calory burning go together like horse and carriage. The >> lower >> the intensity of your activity, the higher the amount of fat that is >> used as >> a source of energy. > > Right, in fact when you're sleeping, you are getting nearly all your > energy from > fat. Want to burn "fat calories" ? Go watch TV. Any one show better at calorie burning? Mr. Ed re-runs or one of those, yawn, survivor shows. ; -Doug         Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:41:52 From: LurfysMa Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:50:57 GMT, "Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote: > >"Elflord" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message >news:slrnenphd2.edr.abuse@panix3.panix.com... >> On 2006-12-10, joke <joke@joke.com> wrote: >>> >>> "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> schreef in bericht >>> news:1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >>>> Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn >>>> how >>>> much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning >>>> by >>>> monitoring my heart rate? >>>> >>>> Thanks.... >>>> >>> >>> Intensity and calory burning go together like horse and carriage. The >>> lower >>> the intensity of your activity, the higher the amount of fat that is >>> used as >>> a source of energy. >> >> Right, in fact when you're sleeping, you are getting nearly all your >> energy from >> fat. Want to burn "fat calories" ? Go watch TV. > >Any one show better at calorie burning? Mr. Ed re-runs or one of those, >yawn, survivor shows. ; Anything with talking republicans or democrats usually gets my blood boiling. Does that help? --           Date: 12 Dec 2006 01:14:22 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? And Ellen Degeneres gets her friend to speed towards her in a car while she wears warm up socks and stands in the middle of the road. Stopping of course right in front of her. hahaha         Date: 11 Dec 2006 18:32:33 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-11, Doug Freese <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote: > >> Right, in fact when you're sleeping, you are getting nearly all your >> energy from fat. Want to burn "fat calories" ? Go watch TV. > > Any one show better at calorie burning? Mr. Ed re-runs or one of those, > yawn, survivor shows. ; Porn ? Cheers, -- Elflord           Date: 12 Dec 2006 12:10:25 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message news:slrnenr922.9hk.abuse@panix2.panix.com... > On 2006-12-11, Doug Freese <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote: >> > >>> Right, in fact when you're sleeping, you are getting nearly all your >>> energy from fat. Want to burn "fat calories" ? Go watch TV. >> >> Any one show better at calorie burning? Mr. Ed re-runs or one of >> those, >> yawn, survivor shows. ; > > Porn ? Then it becomes a participation sport - like a sing-a-long. -DF     Date: 10 Dec 2006 14:20:16 From: Steve Freides Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "joke" <joke@joke.com > wrote in message news:457c5b2e$0$338$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl... > > "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> schreef in bericht > news:1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >> Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how >> much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning >> by >> monitoring my heart rate? >> >> Thanks.... >> > > Intensity and calory burning go together like horse and carriage. The > lower the intensity of your activity, the higher the amount of fat > that is used as a source of energy. When the intensity increases the > amount of carbon hydrates increases as a source of energy. The optimun > (in this case your optimum) can't be computed exactly with the use > with a hart rate monitor, but it is generally agreed that at 50-60% of > Max you can burn a large amount of fat. Old wives tale, not universally true although it may be true for some people some of the time. -S- http://www.kbnj.com       Date: 10 Dec 2006 21:54:38 From: Leo Lichtman Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Steve Freides" wrote: Old wives tale, not universally true although it may be true for some > people some of the time. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ People are always looking for the "G-spot" of weight loss--"How can I burn fat without wasting energy on anything else?" Your body burns fat when it is running low on more readily available stored energy. A rule that *may* be true for *some* people *some* of the time is not a rule. My watch that is not running is right twice a day, so the secret is knowing just when to look at it.   Date: 10 Dec 2006 08:57:48 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Pendejo wrote: > 100 calories / mile run, regardless of pace. Of course now that I noticed you crossposted to several groups, I'll point out the obvious which is that this doesn't help for cycling etc. It's probably "close enough" for walking though.   Date: 10 Dec 2006 08:55:13 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? wizzywiz wrote: > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by > monitoring my heart rate? It's easier than that: 100 calories / mile run, regardless of pace. Of course that's a first order approximation, subject to some variation. - it assumes a runner of about 140 or 150 pounds; if you're substantially lighter or heavier, scale this by your weight, e.g. 210 pounds = 1.5 * 140 pounds = 1.5 * 100 calories = 150/mile. That's probably the biggest source of variation and if you take it into account you're "close enough". - calories will vary surprisingly little by pace - if you run slower, you're taking longer to complete the mile and it darn near evens out - but in the interest of scientific exactitude, it does vary a bit - terrain (flat vs. mountainous), wind (calm vs. headwind vs. tailwind), temperature (you'll burn more simply being in the cold), surface (softer = requires slightly more energy) will all make some difference - efficiency: an efficient (several factors here, not necessarily well understood: experience, biomechanics, pace, shoes, ...) runner requires less energy than an inefficient one - as others have noted, you're burning a mix of fat and carbohydrates... but so what, for weight loss purposes it's probably just as well to consider that calories are calories Just figure 100/mile, or 100 * (weight/140 lb), and you won't go too far wrong.   Date: 10 Dec 2006 08:38:31 From: Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? wizzywiz wrote: > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by > monitoring my heart rate? In a word, no. Even if an HR monitor reports a number of calories burned, it is a statistical average with a huge(!) gin of error. In a thread some years ago, one manufacturer offered an estimate of 30-40% gin of error. You cannot use HR itself to determine calories burned. However, there are formulas -- determined by statistical regression (read "for the typical individual") -- that relate percentage max HR and your max VO2 capacity to calories burned. Of course, the big variable is "your max VO2". Most of us do not know that, athough there are web sites and procedures that attempt to help you estimate it. (Again, those estimate are for "the typical individual", which none of is.) But any such statistical formula has a large gin of error for any individual. I also suspect that it has a large gin of error for any specific mode of exercise. I recently reposted a formula that I had derived a few years ago based on other published formulas. It is probably something like what an HRM uses -- although I have no confirmation of that. Here is my reposting, in part. Based on footnote [1]: kCal = V02max * (%MHR - 37) * 0.000075 * time VO2max is in ml/min. Time is in minutes. %MHR is the number of percent, not a fraction. For example, "50" means 50% or 0.50. Ideally, estimate your VO2max and MHR using any of the fitness tests for that purpose [8]. Alternatively (with much less accuracy), estimate your VO2max and MHR with the following formulas. (Note: The VO2max formulas are my own, derived from published formulas. See footnote [4].) male VO2max = (54 - 0.34*age) * weight female VO2max = (42 - 0.28*age) * weight MHR = 220 - age, or any other formula or method Weight is in kg. Weight{kg} = weight{lb} / 2.2. Footnote 4 has a gender-independent formula for VO2max. However, it introduces a 10-20% computational "error". All formulas are based on statistical regressions, so there is an inherent statistical "error" ("+/- X"). I cannot estimate the standard error because I do not know the std err for the underlying data. I suspect that the above is similar to how HRMs compute calories. One HRM vendor indicates that their estimate is +/- 30-40%(!) [5]. I expect that is typical. Example #1: 30-year-old 70-kg male walking 4 MPH at 62% MHR. (54 - 0.34*30 ml/kg/min) * (70 kg) * (62 - 37 %MHR) * (0.000075 kCal/ml) * (30 min) = 172 kCal Example #2: 30-year-old 60-kg female walking 4 MPH at 70% MHR. (42 - 0.28*30 ml/kg/min) * (60 kg) * (70 - 37 %MHR) * (0.000075 kCal/ml) * (30 min) = 150 kCal These example results are similar to results based on the Compendium [9]. ----- Footnotes [1] kCal = VO2{ml/min} * kCal/ml * weight{kg} * time{min} [10] VO2{ml/min} = VO2max{ml/min} * (%V02max / 100) %V02max = (%MHR - 37) / 0.64 [2] kCal/ml = 4.8 kCal / 1000 ml [3] Note that %VO2max and %MHR are the number of percent, not a fraction. For example, "50" means 50% or 0.50. [2] Swain (1994) http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/maxhr.htm [3] http://courses.washington.edu/conj/vo2_2004.htm [4] My own formula, based on regression analysis of modified Leger [6] and ACSM estimate of VO2max for "average" male and female [7]. For age 20-60. For age 60+, compute using 60. Gender-independent formula: VO2max{ml/min} = (47 - 0.28*age) * weight{kg} 10-12% error for male; 14-20% error for female. [5] Posting dated Apr 29, 2004 9:24 AM at http://forums.runnersworld.com/thread.jspa?threadID=175758&tstart=15 [6] Leger (1982) http://www.janatrains.com/default.asp?id=19 http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/beep.htm Original Leger, averaged over all ages and both genders, yields a regression formula similar to Swain, namely: %V02max = (%MHR - 36) / 0.57 Therefore, I arbitrarily modified Leger to fit the Swain regression, namely: %MHR = 45.6 + (0.64 * %VO2max) - 0.41*age + 0.0038*VO2max*age + 1.55*gender where gender is 1 for male and 2 for female. [7] ACSM estimate of VO2max, hardcopy, original source unknown. Provided by the director of a fitness center. [8] http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/vo2max.htm [9] http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/Tools/Compendium_tracking.pdf [defunct] http://www.solutionsinfitness.com/kcalexpenditure.htm http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.html [10] http://www.solutionsinfitness.com/kcalexpenditure.htm   Date: 10 Dec 2006 09:14:02 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com >, "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote: > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning > by monitoring my heart rate? Fat burning and calorie burning are not the same thing. The fat burning zone is 60 to 70 percent of maximum heart rate. That's where the greatest percentage of calories burned comes from burning fat. However, if you're exercising in a higher zone, you'll burn more calories per minute, and even if the fat-burning calories are a lower percentage of the total, the number of calories burned from fat may be higher. There are a number of formulas to get your maximum rate. The simplest is 220 minus your age. A bit more complex, but considered more accurate, is 217 minus (your age multiplied by 0.85) The HR at a given percentage is the maximum times the percentage. However, there is a more accurate method of computing it that involves your resting heart rate. The formula is (maximum HR - resting HR) times the percentage plus the resting HR. For instance, if you're 50 years old, the maximum HR is 217 - (50 * .85) == 217 - (42.5) == 174.5 Assuming a resting HR of 60, 60% would be (174.5 - 60) * .6 + 60 == 114.5 * .6 + 60 == 68.7 + 60 == 128.7 So the 60% point is 129 beats per minute, assuming that I didn't make any arithmetical errors.     Date: 20 Dec 2006 00:41:32 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <Nl5ih.24316$wc5.8529@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes: > Tom Keats wrote: >> But on the uphills, with a light-enough bike, I'm a kite. >> Unfortunately, I'm also a kite on the downhills. > > Like when somebody tells you to "Blow away" you might for real? Yeah. I'm pretty real, alright. Are /you/ real, or are you just a sum of experiences -- a movie playing on your retinas, which could be /anybody's/ retinas? cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 20 Dec 2006 23:10:06 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Tom Keats wrote: > In article <Nl5ih.24316$wc5.8529@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes: >> Tom Keats wrote: > >>> But on the uphills, with a light-enough bike, I'm a kite. >>> Unfortunately, I'm also a kite on the downhills. >> Like when somebody tells you to "Blow away" you might for real? > > Yeah. > > I'm pretty real, alright. > > Are /you/ real, or are you just a sum of experiences -- a > movie playing on your retinas, which could be /anybody's/ > retinas? > > > cheers, > Tom > > > > As you know by now *I* am too real for many on this group 'bicycles.misc' to believe all the stuff I have done in my long and wild life. Except for the tricycle speed overestimate, I have done everything I mentioned, including getting damned close to 200 MPH on a motorcycle. That is totally non-provable, but I did embarrass the CHP that was chasing me. My wife thinks I am totally nuts, as does my almost 28 year old daughter, and my grandkids. I take risks, live through them somehow and have fun and memories of them. If you live your life and don't have any memories of wild times, have you really lived or just existed??? Bill Baka     Date: 20 Dec 2006 07:39:57 From: Paul Rudin Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? k Hickey <k@habcycles.com > writes: > Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net> wrote: > >>In article <87ac1j7sxa.fsf@rudin.co.uk>, >> Paul Rudin <paul.rudin@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> >>> > The average American male is 5'10" and 150 lb. >>> >>> That sounds rekably lean - >> >>I was thinking the same thing. > > I was thinking "dang, that's me"... > >>> FWIW Wikipedia says 5'9" and 190 lb. >> >>That seems closer to reality. > > But it does seem a bit short and a little heavy. I suppose it comes > down to whether they mean "average" or "mean". That is, do they weigh > every US male and divide the sum by the number of males, or is 190 > pounds the point where there are as many males heavier than you as > lighter? The former seems likely, the latter seems unlikely. But I > would take any Wikipedia "fact" with a large grain of salt, too. So would I - but if you follow the external links you find this factoid comes from: "Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index, United States 1960-2002. Advance Data No. 347. October 2004. (PHS 2005-1250)." You can read it if you're really interested in exactly how they arrive at those figures: <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf > Those figures are from 2002 and the trend is towards increasing average weight, so quite probably the true figure today is somewhat higher.     Date: 19 Dec 2006 19:46:04 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <KP1ih.545$ZT3.164@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes: > Tom Keats wrote: >> In article <7u4ho2l6gscn1c8guis3rdv8c7h6ih5or5@4ax.com>, >> k Hickey <k@habcycles.com> writes: >>> Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <87ac1j7sxa.fsf@rudin.co.uk>, >>>> Paul Rudin <paul.rudin@ntlworld.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> The average American male is 5'10" and 150 lb. >>>>> That sounds rekably lean - >>>> I was thinking the same thing. >>> I was thinking "dang, that's me"... >>> >>>>> FWIW Wikipedia says 5'9" and 190 lb. >>>> That seems closer to reality. >>> But it does seem a bit short and a little heavy. I suppose it comes >>> down to whether they mean "average" or "mean". That is, do they weigh >>> every US male and divide the sum by the number of males, or is 190 >>> pounds the point where there are as many males heavier than you as >>> lighter? The former seems likely, the latter seems unlikely. But I >>> would take any Wikipedia "fact" with a large grain of salt, too. >> >> I dunno, I'm 5'11" and weigh-in at 150 lbs or less. >> >> Off-the-rack clothing fits me like made-to-measure. >> Unless it's made in China, which seems to over-size >> their exports (I need a Chinese "Large" to get a >> North American "Medium".) >> >> >> cheers, >> Tom >> > Tom, > I'm 5'7" and 150 is pretty thin for me, and 140 is outright skinny. > Look at the BMI versus health chart and it will say you are too underweight. And yet I continue to not only exist, but to thrive. Fatso :-) Actually, I'm 5' 9" from the waist up, and 6' 1" from the waist down. IOW I've got these disproportionately long gams. Good for dancing, but not so good for lifting stuff. I often get lectured about "proper lifting technique". But I've got my own way, and my back is undamaged, stronger and more resiliant & lithe than my peers at work. So instead of squatting, I do this "giraffe" thing, and use a lot of arm strength. On the bike I need a higher saddle with a shorter cockpit. I guess my saddle @ 6" higher than the handlebar looks gawky. But on the uphills, with a light-enough bike, I'm a kite. Unfortunately, I'm also a kite on the downhills. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 20 Dec 2006 07:10:37 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Tom Keats wrote: > In article <KP1ih.545$ZT3.164@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, > Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes: >> Tom, >> I'm 5'7" and 150 is pretty thin for me, and 140 is outright skinny. >> Look at the BMI versus health chart and it will say you are too underweight. > > And yet I continue to not only exist, but to thrive. Fatso :-) > > Actually, I'm 5' 9" from the waist up, and 6' 1" from the > waist down. IOW I've got these disproportionately long gams. > Good for dancing, but not so good for lifting stuff. I often > get lectured about "proper lifting technique". But I've got > my own way, and my back is undamaged, stronger and more > resiliant & lithe than my peers at work. So instead of squatting, > I do this "giraffe" thing, and use a lot of arm strength. Same thing I do on anything under 100 pounds and no back problems. I'm stubborn and don't follow the rules. Once I bought an automatic transmission at a wrecking yard and the guy with the fork lift said he was too busy to help, so I carried a 250 pound transmission up to the office and plonked it on the owner's desk, nearly breaking it. That should have killed my back but all I got was a cut up stomach from the shift levers. It's another 'go figure'. > > On the bike I need a higher saddle with a shorter cockpit. > I guess my saddle @ 6" higher than the handlebar looks gawky. At least I'll know if I ever see you on a ride. > > But on the uphills, with a light-enough bike, I'm a kite. > Unfortunately, I'm also a kite on the downhills. Like when somebody tells you to "Blow away" you might for real? Bill Baka > > > cheers, > Tom >     Date: 19 Dec 2006 17:52:42 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <7u4ho2l6gscn1c8guis3rdv8c7h6ih5or5@4ax.com >, k Hickey <k@habcycles.com > writes: > Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net> wrote: > >>In article <87ac1j7sxa.fsf@rudin.co.uk>, >> Paul Rudin <paul.rudin@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> >>> > The average American male is 5'10" and 150 lb. >>> >>> That sounds rekably lean - >> >>I was thinking the same thing. > > I was thinking "dang, that's me"... > >>> FWIW Wikipedia says 5'9" and 190 lb. >> >>That seems closer to reality. > > But it does seem a bit short and a little heavy. I suppose it comes > down to whether they mean "average" or "mean". That is, do they weigh > every US male and divide the sum by the number of males, or is 190 > pounds the point where there are as many males heavier than you as > lighter? The former seems likely, the latter seems unlikely. But I > would take any Wikipedia "fact" with a large grain of salt, too. I dunno, I'm 5'11" and weigh-in at 150 lbs or less. Off-the-rack clothing fits me like made-to-measure. Unless it's made in China, which seems to over-size their exports (I need a Chinese "Large" to get a North American "Medium".) cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca       Date: 19 Dec 2006 19:09:21 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Tom Keats wrote: > In article <7u4ho2l6gscn1c8guis3rdv8c7h6ih5or5@4ax.com>, > k Hickey <k@habcycles.com> writes: >> Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net> wrote: >> >>> In article <87ac1j7sxa.fsf@rudin.co.uk>, >>> Paul Rudin <paul.rudin@ntlworld.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> The average American male is 5'10" and 150 lb. >>>> That sounds rekably lean - >>> I was thinking the same thing. >> I was thinking "dang, that's me"... >> >>>> FWIW Wikipedia says 5'9" and 190 lb. >>> That seems closer to reality. >> But it does seem a bit short and a little heavy. I suppose it comes >> down to whether they mean "average" or "mean". That is, do they weigh >> every US male and divide the sum by the number of males, or is 190 >> pounds the point where there are as many males heavier than you as >> lighter? The former seems likely, the latter seems unlikely. But I >> would take any Wikipedia "fact" with a large grain of salt, too. > > I dunno, I'm 5'11" and weigh-in at 150 lbs or less. > > Off-the-rack clothing fits me like made-to-measure. > Unless it's made in China, which seems to over-size > their exports (I need a Chinese "Large" to get a > North American "Medium".) > > > cheers, > Tom > Tom, I'm 5'7" and 150 is pretty thin for me, and 140 is outright skinny. Look at the BMI versus health chart and it will say you are too underweight. The Chinese size thing is right on the money though. I think that's so they can charge more for a larger size, or it could be just a legitimate error. Bill Baka         Date: 20 Dec 2006 11:01:44 From: Mark Thompson Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? > The Chinese size thing is right on the money though. I think that's so > they can charge more for a larger size, or it could be just a legitimate > error. Its more an American size thing - if its a large here in Europe then its a medium in the USA. Not error or charging more, just that USA has bigger poeple, on average, than most other places.         Date: 20 Dec 2006 03:27:36 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Bill, I thought you lived up here. My mistake http://hiking.grousemountain.com/grousegrind/summitseekers Ski in the winter and climb to summit in the spring and summer.           Date: 19 Dec 2006 19:38:02 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? nash wrote: > Bill, > I thought you lived up here. My mistake > http://hiking.grousemountain.com/grousegrind/summitseekers > > Ski in the winter and climb to summit in the spring and summer. > > I only wish I lived up there. I was there in the summer of 1978 and fishing in a 65 degree rainstorm while my friends down here had to put up with an all time heat wave of 121 degrees. That was good for a "Wish you were here, glad I'm not there.". Yet another <sigh > moment. Bill Baka     Date: 11 Dec 2006 02:40:51 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-10, Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote: > In article <1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> wrote: > >> Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how >> much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning >> by monitoring my heart rate? > > Fat burning and calorie burning are not the same thing. The fat burning > zone is 60 to 70 percent of maximum heart rate. That's where the > greatest percentage of calories burned comes from burning fat. > > However, if you're exercising in a higher zone, you'll burn more > calories per minute, and even if the fat-burning calories are a lower > percentage of the total, the number of calories burned from fat may be > higher. just in case anyone's wondering -- shoot for maximising total calories, not percentage or absolute # of fat calories. So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that too much of it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good area for most beginners who are trying to lose weight. Cheers, -- Elflord       Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:15:59 From: Chris Malcolm Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In uk.rec.cycling Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote: > On 2006-12-10, Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net> wrote: >> In article <1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, >> "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> wrote: >> >>> Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how >>> much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning >>> by monitoring my heart rate? >> >> Fat burning and calorie burning are not the same thing. The fat burning >> zone is 60 to 70 percent of maximum heart rate. That's where the >> greatest percentage of calories burned comes from burning fat. >> >> However, if you're exercising in a higher zone, you'll burn more >> calories per minute, and even if the fat-burning calories are a lower >> percentage of the total, the number of calories burned from fat may be >> higher. > just in case anyone's wondering -- shoot for maximising total calories, not > percentage or absolute # of fat calories. > So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that too much of > it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good area for most > beginners who are trying to lose weight. Much the easiest way of losing weight is to eat less. You have to take a lot of exercise to burn a small amount of food. -- Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]       Date: 11 Dec 2006 18:32:41 From: sally Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <slrnenph9j.edr.abuse@panix3.panix.com >, Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote: >just in case anyone's wondering -- shoot for maximising total calories, not >percentage or absolute # of fat calories. > >So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that too much of >it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good area for most >beginners who are trying to lose weight. I agree about max calorie burn, but a high heart rate tires you out much sooner. With a lower HR, you can exercise for a longer period of time, thus buring many more calories. Focus on maximizing your hours of exercise and you'll be fine.         Date: 11 Dec 2006 18:52:43 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-11, sally <caspam@doj.ca.gov > wrote: > In article <slrnenph9j.edr.abuse@panix3.panix.com>, > Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote: >>just in case anyone's wondering -- shoot for maximising total calories, not >>percentage or absolute # of fat calories. >> >>So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that too much of >>it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good area for most >>beginners who are trying to lose weight. > > I agree about max calorie burn, but a high heart rate tires you out much > sooner. As stated above, there's a disadvantage to pushing heart rate too high. However, I don't think getting tired out too soon is really the issue. If you do all your training at half-athon race pace, and run 6 miles each run, that's plen ty of miles, but it's still way too fast and will lead to burn out. It's not just a matter of finding a pace that you can sustain *for that workout*, recovery is the real issue. Cheers, -- Elflord           Date: 18 Dec 2006 07:06:04 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Elflord wrote: > On 2006-12-11, sally <caspam@doj.ca.gov> wrote: >> In article <slrnenph9j.edr.abuse@panix3.panix.com>, >> Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote: >>> just in case anyone's wondering -- shoot for maximising total calories, not >>> percentage or absolute # of fat calories. >>> >>> So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that too much of >>> it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good area for most >>> beginners who are trying to lose weight. >> I agree about max calorie burn, but a high heart rate tires you out much >> sooner. > > As stated above, there's a disadvantage to pushing heart rate too high. > However, I don't think getting tired out too soon is really the issue. If > you do all your training at half-athon race pace, and run 6 miles each > run, that's plen ty of miles, but it's still way too fast and will lead to burn > out. It's not just a matter of finding a pace that you can sustain *for that > workout*, recovery is the real issue. > > Cheers, What disadvantage? If I can't get the bike out for some reason or another I go to the corner stop sign and run at a full sprint until I have to fall back to a fast run, then slow run, then when I am ready to fall on my face I walk and turn back toward home. At that point my heart is pushing 180 or so and I am 58 as most of you know so that is really pushing it. By the time I walk back the 300 meters or so I ran my heart is back down to under 100 so I got my cardio speed burst, no heart attack, and feel 100% better with my metabolism up. I can't even get to 180 on the bike for some reason, but this is a good alternative to doing nothing at all on those busy days. Bill Baka             Date: 18 Dec 2006 21:27:06 From: Steve Freides Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:w5rhh.20547$wc5.4970@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > Elflord wrote: >> On 2006-12-11, sally <caspam@doj.ca.gov> wrote: >>> In article <slrnenph9j.edr.abuse@panix3.panix.com>, >>> Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote: >>>> just in case anyone's wondering -- shoot for maximising total >>>> calories, not percentage or absolute # of fat calories. >>>> >>>> So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that >>>> too much of >>>> it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good >>>> area for most >>>> beginners who are trying to lose weight. >>> I agree about max calorie burn, but a high heart rate tires you out >>> much >>> sooner. >> >> As stated above, there's a disadvantage to pushing heart rate too >> high. However, I don't think getting tired out too soon is really the >> issue. If >> you do all your training at half-athon race pace, and run 6 miles >> each >> run, that's plen ty of miles, but it's still way too fast and will >> lead to burn >> out. It's not just a matter of finding a pace that you can sustain >> *for that >> workout*, recovery is the real issue. >> >> Cheers, > > What disadvantage? If I can't get the bike out for some reason or > another I go to the corner stop sign and run at a full sprint until I > have to fall back to a fast run, then slow run, then when I am ready > to fall on my face I walk and turn back toward home. At that point my > heart is pushing 180 or so and I am 58 as most of you know so that is > really pushing it. By the time I walk back the 300 meters or so I ran > my heart is back down to under 100 so I got my cardio speed burst, no > heart attack, and feel 100% better with my metabolism up. I can't even > get to 180 on the bike for some reason, but this is a good alternative > to doing nothing at all on those busy days. > Bill Baka Your idea of a "full sprint" to the corner stop sign and actually being near your maximum heart rate are, I suspect, two different things. You "have to fall back to a fast run" well before you're near your MHR unless you are making a very, very concerted effort to keep going, something most people won't do except in the heat of competition or with their doctor watching over them on a treadmill during a stress test of some sort. Just my opinion. -S- http://www.kbnj.com               Date: 18 Dec 2006 20:06:00 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <4up164F18vbl5U1@mid.individual.net >, "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com > wrote: > Your idea of a "full sprint" to the corner stop sign and actually > being near your maximum heart rate are, I suspect, two different > things. You "have to fall back to a fast run" well before you're > near your MHR unless you are making a very, very concerted effort to > keep going, something most people won't do except in the heat of > competition or with their doctor watching over them on a treadmill > during a stress test of some sort. OK, this is something I don't really understand. According to the formula 217 - (age *.85), my maximum heart rate is 163. According to the 220 - age formula, it is 156. Yet when I'm running in the neighborhood of 13:40 to 14:30 minute miles, I can go 5K (and probably further, although I haven't tried yet) with my heart rate averaging in the mid 150s (100% of the 200 formula, or 95% of the 217 formula) and maxing out in the mid to high 160s, yet I do not feel the effects that everything I've read says I should feel with heart rates in those ranges. For instance, the Garmin 301 manual says 80% to 90%: Pace fast and a bit uncomfortable; breathing forceful. 90% to 100%: Pace a sprinting effor, unsustainable for a long period of time; labored breathing. It feels more like 70% to 80%: Pace moderate, more difficult to hold conversation. So how come?                 Date: 19 Dec 2006 08:18:16 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Beginning runner wrote on 19/12/2006 03:06 +0100: > > OK, this is something I don't really understand. According to the > formula 217 - (age *.85), my maximum heart rate is 163. According to > the 220 - age formula, it is 156. > > Yet when I'm running in the neighborhood of 13:40 to 14:30 minute miles, > I can go 5K (and probably further, although I haven't tried yet) with my > heart rate averaging in the mid 150s (100% of the 200 formula, or 95% of > the 217 formula) and maxing out in the mid to high 160s, yet I do not > feel the effects that everything I've read says I should feel with heart > rates in those ranges. > Everyone is different. According to the formulae my MHR should be around 170. I can cycle all day at around 160 and at 170 I am just starting to breathe heavier. My max on the hills is around 195-200. My resting heart rate is a shade under 60. As I posted ^ either the formulae are misleading for an individual, as opposed to a population, or my birth certificate is wrong. -- Tony "...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate..." Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy                   Date: 19 Dec 2006 11:10:46 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com > wrote in message news:4uplibF193k99U1@mid.individual.net... > Everyone is different. According to the formulae my MHR should be > around 170. I can cycle all day at around 160 and at 170 I am just > starting to breathe heavier. My max on the hills is around 195-200. > My resting heart rate is a shade under 60. As I posted ^ either the > formulae are misleading for an individual, as opposed to a population, > or my birth certificate is wrong. And I can't get mine over 150 even in my 40's. Maybe my birthday is a moving target. :) -Doug                     Date: 19 Dec 2006 23:31:57 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Doug Freese wrote: > "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message > news:4uplibF193k99U1@mid.individual.net... >> Everyone is different. According to the formulae my MHR should be >> around 170. I can cycle all day at around 160 and at 170 I am just >> starting to breathe heavier. My max on the hills is around 195-200. >> My resting heart rate is a shade under 60. As I posted ^ either the >> formulae are misleading for an individual, as opposed to a population, >> or my birth certificate is wrong. > > > And I can't get mine over 150 even in my 40's. Maybe my birthday > is a moving target. :) > > -Doug > > Are you really, really trying or are you playing it on the conservative side? 150 is pretty low for only 40's. Either that or your heart is in way better shape than your legs will allow to stress. ???? Bill Baka                       Date: 20 Dec 2006 08:51:55 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Bill wrote on 19/12/2006 23:31 +0100: > > Are you really, really trying or are you playing it on the conservative > side? 150 is pretty low for only 40's. Either that or your heart is in > way better shape than your legs will allow to stress. > Why does he have to not be trying? Different people are different. My MHR is pretty high for my age, his is low. So what? I believe there was one world level competitive cyclist who rarely exceeded 120. -- Tony "...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate..." Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy                         Date: 20 Dec 2006 23:12:04 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Tony Raven wrote: > Bill wrote on 19/12/2006 23:31 +0100: >> >> Are you really, really trying or are you playing it on the >> conservative side? 150 is pretty low for only 40's. Either that or >> your heart is in way better shape than your legs will allow to stress. >> > > Why does he have to not be trying? Different people are different. My > MHR is pretty high for my age, his is low. So what? I believe there > was one world level competitive cyclist who rarely exceeded 120. > > That is doubtful, to say the least. Lance Armstrong ran almost 200 in the TdF, and Indurain had a resting pulse of only 25-28, but still got close to 200 in the race. Not exceeding 120 sounds like somebody gave you a big barge of BS. Bill Baka                           Date: 20 Dec 2006 23:42:25 From: Tony Raven Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Bill wrote on 20/12/2006 23:12 +0100: > > That is doubtful, to say the least. Lance Armstrong ran almost 200 in > the TdF, and Indurain had a resting pulse of only 25-28, but still got > close to 200 in the race. Not exceeding 120 sounds like somebody gave > you a big barge of BS. His pulse rate on the climbs though was below 150. It was only on the time trials that it rose to his MHR of 195. -- Tony "...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate..." Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy                             Date: 20 Dec 2006 23:49:56 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Tony Raven wrote: > Bill wrote on 20/12/2006 23:12 +0100: >> >> That is doubtful, to say the least. Lance Armstrong ran almost 200 in >> the TdF, and Indurain had a resting pulse of only 25-28, but still got >> close to 200 in the race. Not exceeding 120 sounds like somebody gave >> you a big barge of BS. > > His pulse rate on the climbs though was below 150. It was only on the > time trials that it rose to his MHR of 195. > I can believe that because you couldn't run at 195 for 4 hours a day anyway. 150 on the climbs sounds reasonable and explains why he had the reserve to run away from anyone who dared to challenge him on the mountains. Under 120 for anybody I still doubt. Bill Baka                       Date: 20 Dec 2006 05:53:20 From: Dot Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Bill wrote: > Doug Freese wrote: > >> "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message >> news:4uplibF193k99U1@mid.individual.net... >> >>> Everyone is different. According to the formulae my MHR should be >>> around 170. I can cycle all day at around 160 and at 170 I am just >>> starting to breathe heavier. My max on the hills is around 195-200. >>> My resting heart rate is a shade under 60. As I posted ^ either the >>> formulae are misleading for an individual, as opposed to a >>> population, or my birth certificate is wrong. >> >> >> >> And I can't get mine over 150 even in my 40's. Maybe my birthday >> is a moving target. :) >> >> -Doug >> > Are you really, really trying or are you playing it on the conservative > side? 150 is pretty low for only 40's. Either that or your heart is in > way better shape than your legs will allow to stress. > ???? > Bill Baka Doug's just got a big heart that pumps lots of volume.;) People with smaller hearts, like women, tend to have higher hr. Dot hey, nothing else in this thread makes any sense -- "If we reach all our goals, we are not setting them high enough." - Matt Carpenter                   Date: 19 Dec 2006 09:37:05 From: Dot Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Tony Raven wrote: > Beginning runner wrote on 19/12/2006 03:06 +0100: > >> >> OK, this is something I don't really understand. According to the >> formula 217 - (age *.85), my maximum heart rate is 163. According to >> the 220 - age formula, it is 156. >> >> Yet when I'm running in the neighborhood of 13:40 to 14:30 minute >> miles, I can go 5K (and probably further, although I haven't tried >> yet) with my heart rate averaging in the mid 150s (100% of the 200 >> formula, or 95% of the 217 formula) and maxing out in the mid to high >> 160s, yet I do not feel the effects that everything I've read says I >> should feel with heart rates in those ranges. The real question is are the effects you feel consistent with the zones when based on your *tested* max hr, not the calculated ones from assorted formulae, which was discussed earlier in a r.r thread? The various formulas provide estimates that can vary as much as 20 bpm, but you don't know which, if any, are reasonable until tested. I think this is fairly well known and was discussed earlier in r.r. I think you said your garmin 301 had a built-in test, and that's what you were using for your zones, iirc, but maybe not. Your earlier descriptions sounded fairly consistent with reasonably accurate zones, although your efforts sounded like you were running a little bit on the high side for hr for easy runs, which is consistent with a new runner until your body adapts. You weren't very clear if you could talk at conversational effort on your easy runs, though, or maybe I misunderstood. (my max hr is similar to yours so I know what the zones feel like) http://www.coachbenson.com/ebtcorr.pdf >> > > Everyone is different. According to the formulae my MHR should be around > 170. I can cycle all day at around 160 and at 170 I am just starting to > breathe heavier. My max on the hills is around 195-200. My resting > heart rate is a shade under 60. As I posted ^ either the formulae are > misleading for an individual, as opposed to a population, or my birth > certificate is wrong. FWIW. My max hr is near 180 (estimated from an informal field test). Some formulas (more complex ones that include things besides age) are close, and some are about 15 bpm low, closer to my LT (low 160s). I seldom train above LT, but have hit 170s in race as well as some workouts. There's lots of examples like that out there. Dot -- "If we reach all our goals, we are not setting them high enough." - Matt Carpenter                     Date: 19 Dec 2006 12:43:36 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <5pOhh.525019$QZ1.373586@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >, Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote: > I think you said your garmin 301 had a built-in test, and that's what > you were using for your zones, iirc, but maybe not. It has a built-in calculator that supposedly auto learned, but when I had that turned on, it appeared to be using the 220 - age formula, and never varied from that, so I don't know whether auto learning was working or not. > You weren't very clear if you could talk at conversational effort on > your easy runs, though, or maybe I misunderstood. As I said, running by myself doesn't give me the opportunity to have much of a conversation. But the description I gave in my original description in this thread is accurate. I believe that when I ran a 13:30 min/mile last Wednesday, I hit my lactate threshold, based on how sore I felt afterwards. Normally, I don't feel very sore after a run, even after the 13:41 min/mile 5K race (which was the first time I ran that far), and it goes away within a few hours. After last Wednesday's run, I was very sore (and took an ice bath afterwards), and it lasted well over 24 hours. (So, I'm trying not to run that fast again until I can naturally work up to it.)                       Date: 20 Dec 2006 05:52:22 From: Dot Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Beginning runner wrote: > In article > <5pOhh.525019$QZ1.373586@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote: > > >>I think you said your garmin 301 had a built-in test, and that's what >>you were using for your zones, iirc, but maybe not. > > > It has a built-in calculator that supposedly auto learned, but when I > had that turned on, it appeared to be using the 220 - age formula, and > never varied from that, so I don't know whether auto learning was > working or not. Ok, but there were some other data that you posted that indicated your max hr was about 15-20 bpm greater than the 2 formula estimates you just presented. IOW, you know your max hr is greater, so I'm assuming you just posted this as an example of how the max hr formulas based on age only may not be good (ok, useless) for some people. That value is consistent with the way you felt. When you read more about training, esp. hr training, you'll find that most of it is targeting some physiological processes, which are more related to LT or VO2max. Or I should say, among the multiplicity of methods to train, some that focus on physiological zones trigger off VO2max and some off LT (which can vary as % of max hr). I can't remember reading a refereed journal article (not to say they aren't out there), that uses % max hr as a variable (either independent or response). It's usually as % of VO2max or LT - at least the ones I've read. When I suddenly realized this (part of learning process as a newbie), I realized it made no sense to fret about max hr, when some of the descriptions of the zones were more directly related to the physiological processes. If I triggered my zones off those responses (like conversational effort), I'd be in good shape for getting the desired training. Note: I've noticed you prefer to train by pace, largely governed by what you can do. That's another option for training. Not trying to change anything, just trying to broaden your understanding of training. > > >>You weren't very clear if you could talk at conversational effort on >>your easy runs, though, or maybe I misunderstood. > > > As I said, running by myself doesn't give me the opportunity to have > much of a conversation. Right. But I thought you were going to try it by talking to yourself, singing or whatever just to get a data point. I apparently misunderstood. Did you by any chance talk with the volunteers at your races - thank them for being out there as you went by? I tend not to be very inhibited when running alone on trails and may sing Christmas songs to the spruce trees all decked out in fresh falling snow. Definitely keeps the bears away too ;) (although they should be snuggled in their dens right now) >But the description I gave in my original > description in this thread is accurate. > > I believe that when I ran a 13:30 min/mile last Wednesday, I hit my > lactate threshold, based on how sore I felt afterwards. Normally, I > don't feel very sore after a run, even after the 13:41 min/mile 5K race > (which was the first time I ran that far), and it goes away within a few > hours. After last Wednesday's run, I was very sore (and took an ice > bath afterwards), and it lasted well over 24 hours. (So, I'm trying not > to run that fast again until I can naturally work up to it.) Donovan already answered this. Lactic acid clears within an hour usually. There's still some questions as to what causes soreness, but the most common hypothesis, that I've heard anyway, is microtears in the muscles. Soreness is not usually the clue that people use for perceiving when they are approaching or passing LT or VT (ventilatory threshold). You might want to read more about aerobic training and LT to understand the effects of training at the different zones (you don't need hrm for this). Dot I'll be sore tomorrow but wasn't anywhere near LT today. -- "If we reach all our goals, we are not setting them high enough." - Matt Carpenter                         Date: 20 Dec 2006 17:50:51 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? I was always told when the calf muscles are burning it is because the lactic acid can not be shunted fast enough. A better vascular system through endurance or whatever your main exercise style is does adapt to that. It is the burning feeling in whatever muscle you use I think.                           Date: 20 Dec 2006 23:21:50 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? nash wrote: > I was always told when the calf muscles are burning it is because the lactic > acid can not be shunted fast enough. A better vascular system through > endurance or whatever your main exercise style is does adapt to that. > It is the burning feeling in whatever muscle you use I think. > > Like I said before I mainly bicycle but I like to run flat out until I am fried, walk a bit, then run again, with no jogging in between. That is just what I prefer, not that I can't or want to tell everyone else how to run. My style of running, that's all. Bill Baka                         Date: 19 Dec 2006 23:38:56 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <qc4ih.237818$Fi1.149026@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >, Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote: > Ok, but there were some other data that you posted that indicated > your max hr was about 15-20 bpm greater than the 2 formula estimates > you just presented. Well, a few months ago, I posted something that my HR monitor (the Polar I had before the Garmin) had readings higher than the calculated maximum, and that I was concerned that I'd be harming myself if I continually ran at those readings. But my max HR has never been clinically determined. > Note: I've noticed you prefer to train by pace, largely governed by > what you can do. That's another option for training. Not trying to > change anything, just trying to broaden your understanding of > training. Not so much as preferring to train by pace, but more along the lines of experimenting to see how different paces affect me. For example, last Wedneday, I tried to maintain a 13:30 pace, and managed to do it, but I was sore afterwards, especially my upper calves. Then on Friday, I tried to maintain a 14:30 pace, but found it more difficult than the 14:30 I tried the Monday before, and my HR was elevated above even what it had been for the 13:30 two days before. So instead of running on Sunday, I took an extra day off and ran on Monday. My plan had been to run every other day, but because of last week's efforts, I've decided to stay at three days a week, and take every weekend off during training, at least for the time being. > > As I said, running by myself doesn't give me the opportunity to have > > much of a conversation. > > Right. But I thought you were going to try it by talking to yourself, > singing or whatever just to get a data point. I apparently > misunderstood. No, you didn't misunderstand. I've done it a bit, but not as a regular thing. And if you ever heard me sing, you'd appreciate my not singing. <g > Unfortunately, I inherited my mother's singing ability and my father's dancing ability, rather than the other way around. > Did you by any chance talk with the volunteers at your races - thank > them for being out there as you went by? Well, so far, it's been one race, and yes, I did do that, but it was only a sentence or so. ("Thanks for being here," or something like that.) No problem getting that out. > You might want to read more about aerobic training and LT to > understand the effects of training at the different zones (you don't > need hrm for this). OK. Will do. And thanks to both you and Donavan for correcting my misperceptions about LT, and for all the other advice as well. -- "I'll do the best I can do because that's the best I can do!"                       Date: 19 Dec 2006 20:59:59 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-19, Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote: > I believe that when I ran a 13:30 min/mile last Wednesday, I hit my > lactate threshold, based on how sore I felt afterwards. Normally, I lactate threshold has nothing to do with post run soreness. If you were really sore, you probably either ran a long way or were well over LT. Cheers, -- Elflord                         Date: 19 Dec 2006 14:15:08 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <slrneogkmf.5t3.abuse@panix2.panix.com >, Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote: > lactate threshold has nothing to do with post run soreness. > > If you were really sore, you ... were well over LT. Don't those two sentences contradict each other?                           Date: 19 Dec 2006 23:33:01 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-19, Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote: > In article <slrneogkmf.5t3.abuse@panix2.panix.com>, > Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote: > >> lactate threshold has nothing to do with post run soreness. >> >> If you were really sore, you ... were well over LT. > > Don't those two sentences contradict each other? The way I read your post, it looked like you meant that blood lactate methods were the cause of DOMS. This is not the case (and it's a common myth sold to beginners, so beware of anyone who tries to sell it to you. LT is only related in that it's some measure of intensity and running at a sufficiently high intensity will make you sore. Cheers, -- Elflord                           Date: 19 Dec 2006 23:29:36 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Beginning runner wrote: > In article <slrneogkmf.5t3.abuse@panix2.panix.com>, > Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote: > >> lactate threshold has nothing to do with post run soreness. >> >> If you were really sore, you ... were well over LT. > > Don't those two sentences contradict each other? Maybe. I am on the bicycles.misc group where these cross posts are coming but do run too and it takes a good long run to hit LT. Probably more than 5K which is my feet limit, where I start to get blisters, so I haven't had that happen yet. I have hit the LT limit after about 2 hours of hard riding and that in itself did not cause soreness, just tired-ness. After a liter of Orange juice and some food I was ready to ride more with no bad effects. What has caused soreness is long rides into the mountains where I am straining my legs for hours on end climbing (with plenty of food and water on hand). My summer 9 hour plus rides into the back woods wilds where I have to carry the bike up some 30% hills are the ones that make me really sore. No running involved but a lot of leg work. LT? Not a problem for soreness for me at least. Bill Baka                 Date: 18 Dec 2006 23:47:29 From: Steve Freides Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Beginning runner" <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote in message news:beginning_runner-0A4DD3.20055918122006@news.east.cox.net... > In article <4up164F18vbl5U1@mid.individual.net>, > "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote: > >> Your idea of a "full sprint" to the corner stop sign and actually >> being near your maximum heart rate are, I suspect, two different >> things. You "have to fall back to a fast run" well before you're >> near your MHR unless you are making a very, very concerted effort to >> keep going, something most people won't do except in the heat of >> competition or with their doctor watching over them on a treadmill >> during a stress test of some sort. > > OK, this is something I don't really understand. According to the > formula 217 - (age *.85), my maximum heart rate is 163. According to > the 220 - age formula, it is 156. > > Yet when I'm running in the neighborhood of 13:40 to 14:30 minute > miles, > I can go 5K (and probably further, although I haven't tried yet) with > my > heart rate averaging in the mid 150s (100% of the 200 formula, or 95% > of > the 217 formula) and maxing out in the mid to high 160s, yet I do not > feel the effects that everything I've read says I should feel with > heart > rates in those ranges. > > For instance, the Garmin 301 manual says > 80% to 90%: Pace fast and a bit uncomfortable; breathing forceful. > 90% to 100%: Pace a sprinting effor, unsustainable for a long period > of > time; labored breathing. > > It feels more like > 70% to 80%: Pace moderate, more difficult to hold conversation. > > So how come? Variation from the formulas is quite common. The way to determine your max heart rate is to test it for yourself, best done under a doctor's supervision but easy enough to do by yourself with a HR monitor. I tested mine by warming up running for a few miles then towards the end of the run gradually picking up the pace until I was running absolutely all-out for the last 100 yards or so. I came very close to puking, and if memory serves, the HR monitor had a function to record the highest number it had seem. Someone who keeps track of this stuff more than I do should be able to convert a 5k race pace into an approximate percentage of MHR. Figure yours is simply higher than the formula suggests. I measured 184 for myself in my late 40's, which is above what most formulas say my max should be. Jack Daniels' "Running Formula" would make interesting reading for you, too. -S- http://www.kbnj.com                   Date: 18 Dec 2006 22:21:57 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <4up9daF192tjsU1@mid.individual.net >, "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com > wrote: > Variation from the formulas is quite common. I found this article on heart rate as regards training. It's a bit technical, but interesting nevertheless. <http://www.fingerlakesrunningcompany.com/retail/common/community/article .asp?id=397 >                 Date: 19 Dec 2006 03:28:37 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Beginning runner wrote: > In article <4up164F18vbl5U1@mid.individual.net>, > "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote: > >> Your idea of a "full sprint" to the corner stop sign and actually >> being near your maximum heart rate are, I suspect, two different >> things. You "have to fall back to a fast run" well before you're >> near your MHR unless you are making a very, very concerted effort to >> keep going, something most people won't do except in the heat of >> competition or with their doctor watching over them on a treadmill >> during a stress test of some sort. > > OK, this is something I don't really understand. According to the > formula 217 - (age *.85), my maximum heart rate is 163. According to > the 220 - age formula, it is 156. > > Yet when I'm running in the neighborhood of 13:40 to 14:30 minute miles, > I can go 5K (and probably further, although I haven't tried yet) with my > heart rate averaging in the mid 150s (100% of the 200 formula, or 95% of > the 217 formula) and maxing out in the mid to high 160s, yet I do not > feel the effects that everything I've read says I should feel with heart > rates in those ranges. > > For instance, the Garmin 301 manual says > 80% to 90%: Pace fast and a bit uncomfortable; breathing forceful. > 90% to 100%: Pace a sprinting effor, unsustainable for a long period of > time; labored breathing. > > It feels more like > 70% to 80%: Pace moderate, more difficult to hold conversation. > > So how come? Possibly because the numbers tell me you are 64 and the manual is probably written for the average 30 something office worker who runs at lunch time?? If you are doing 13:40 to 14:30 minute miles you are running slow. I walk almost that fast, about 4 MPH for me when I want to get somewhere. In Boy Scouts I learned to do a 9 minute mile by alternate walking and running while barely working up a heavy breath. I think we ran 10 seconds and walked 20 and repeated this until we got where we were going. My team of 3 made the mile in 9:05 which won us the closest time and it was a no strain, but then I was 13 at the time too, so.... Bill Baka                   Date: 18 Dec 2006 20:36:13 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? In article <F%Ihh.379$sR.189@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net >, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: > Possibly because the numbers tell me you are 64 and the manual is > probably written for the average 30 something office worker who runs > at lunch time?? Yes, I am 64, but the formula is supposed to be age agnostic. > If you are doing 13:40 to 14:30 minute miles you are running slow. I > walk almost that fast, Yes, it is slow, but it got me 4th out of 5 in age group at a 5K two weeks ago. And I can walk almost that fast too, but the way the muscles are used and the breathing are so different between running and walking. (For one thing, when running both feet are off the ground at the same time, but in walking they're never both off the ground.) I've been running only about six months; when I started, I could barely run for one minute at a time, with 90 second to two minute walks in between.                     Date: 23 Dec 2006 02:19:42 From: steve common Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote: >Yes, I am 64, but the formula is supposed to be age agnostic. I'll have to check (or someone else will be less lazy than me and do it instead :-) but I believe that all those HR formulae are centered on yer "average" sedentary (or active, depending on which formula you choose) populations, they probably are only agnostic for ages 20-50 or so. 64yo just aint anywhere like "average" in that respect. I'll try find out what our 76yo club member's values are. He still does a sub 50' 10km btw.                       Date: 23 Dec 2006 13:48:01 From: Daniel Barlow Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? steve common wrote: > I'll have to check (or someone else will be less lazy than me and do it > instead :-) but I believe that all those HR formulae are centered on yer > "average" sedentary (or active, depending on which formula you choose) > populations, they probably are only agnostic for ages 20-50 or so. 64yo > just aint anywhere like "average" in that respect. Not even that. If I'm thinking of the right anecdote, the 220-age formula was plotted on a plane to a conference based on 6 to 10 data points. The subjects were post-op heart patients. -dan -- http://www.coruskate.net/                     Date: 19 Dec 2006 23:17:12 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Beginning runner wrote: > In article <F%Ihh.379$sR.189@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Possibly because the numbers tell me you are 64 and the manual is >> probably written for the average 30 something office worker who runs >> at lunch time?? > > Yes, I am 64, but the formula is supposed to be age agnostic. So they say, but we know better. > >> If you are doing 13:40 to 14:30 minute miles you are running slow. I >> walk almost that fast, > > Yes, it is slow, but it got me 4th out of 5 in age group at a 5K two > weeks ago. And I can walk almost that fast too, but the way the muscles > are used and the breathing are so different between running and walking. > (For one thing, when running both feet are off the ground at the same > time, but in walking they're never both off the ground.) > > I've been running only about six months; when I started, I could barely > run for one minute at a time, with 90 second to two minute walks in > between. That was how I got the 9 minute mile thing in Boy Scouts. It still isn't that hard If I run (not jog) then walk. I intentionally don't jog because of the heel impact so I either flat out run on my toes or walk, and even skip with my grandkids, but never jog. That may piss off the hard core joggers but I don't have leg problems from the impact either. The fact that you took up running at 64 is a good thing, so maybe soon you can try some sprinting and work out some more muscles. Just don't try my routine of sprinting flat out until you can't even stand unless you are 100% sure of your heart. Good health to you, Bill Baka                       Date: 19 Dec 2006 23:34:38 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-19, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: > Beginning runner wrote: >> In article <F%Ihh.379$sR.189@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Possibly because the numbers tell me you are 64 and the manual is >>> probably written for the average 30 something office worker who runs >>> at lunch time?? >> >> Yes, I am 64, but the formula is supposed to be age agnostic. > > So they say, but we know better. >> >>> If you are doing 13:40 to 14:30 minute miles you are running slow. I >>> walk almost that fast, >> >> Yes, it is slow, but it got me 4th out of 5 in age group at a 5K two >> weeks ago. And I can walk almost that fast too, but the way the muscles >> are used and the breathing are so different between running and walking. >> (For one thing, when running both feet are off the ground at the same >> time, but in walking they're never both off the ground.) >> >> I've been running only about six months; when I started, I could barely >> run for one minute at a time, with 90 second to two minute walks in >> between. > > That was how I got the 9 minute mile thing in Boy Scouts. It still isn't > that hard If I run (not jog) then walk. I intentionally don't jog > because of the heel impact so I either flat out run on my toes or walk, > and even skip with my grandkids, but never jog. That may piss off the > hard core joggers Why should your ignorance piss off anyone but yourself ? Besides, my 10k pace (5:33/mile, or 83 seconds per lap, try it!) is probably faster than your "sprint". Cheers, -- Elflord                         Date: 20 Dec 2006 01:26:32 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Elflord wrote: > On 2006-12-19, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> Beginning runner wrote: >>> In article <F%Ihh.379$sR.189@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >>> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Possibly because the numbers tell me you are 64 and the manual is >>>> probably written for the average 30 something office worker who runs >>>> at lunch time?? >>> Yes, I am 64, but the formula is supposed to be age agnostic. >> So they say, but we know better. >>>> If you are doing 13:40 to 14:30 minute miles you are running slow. I >>>> walk almost that fast, >>> Yes, it is slow, but it got me 4th out of 5 in age group at a 5K two >>> weeks ago. And I can walk almost that fast too, but the way the muscles >>> are used and the breathing are so different between running and walking. >>> (For one thing, when running both feet are off the ground at the same >>> time, but in walking they're never both off the ground.) >>> >>> I've been running only about six months; when I started, I could barely >>> run for one minute at a time, with 90 second to two minute walks in >>> between. >> That was how I got the 9 minute mile thing in Boy Scouts. It still isn't >> that hard If I run (not jog) then walk. I intentionally don't jog >> because of the heel impact so I either flat out run on my toes or walk, >> and even skip with my grandkids, but never jog. That may piss off the >> hard core joggers > > Why should your ignorance piss off anyone but yourself ? Besides, my 10k pace > (5:33/mile, or 83 seconds per lap, try it!) is probably faster than your "sprint". > > Cheers, That depends on how tall you are, too. I am short, coming in at only 5'7" so I would never be a candidate for a 4 minute mile. My sprint speed is only about 17-18 MPH as measured by one of those LIDAR units the police put on the road once in a while. We had one at H.P. in the parking lot and we had a contest between most of the engineers and the fastest guy in the group hit 19 MPH and he was tall and skinny. Nobody hit 20 MPH but then again we were all mouse potatoes, working at a computer all day. I have no clue what my pace would be for a 10k since my feet get to the blister point after about 5k. My priy sport is bicycling but I still like to run, not enough to buy running shoes, but I do run wearing plain old sneaker type shoes. I am only spread across 4 groups because somebody broke the rules and cross posted so I don't know who I am replying to. When the thread dies I will probably be gone with it. Too many groups makes for too much time reading and responding. Bill Baka                           Date: 20 Dec 2006 12:50:05 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-20, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: > That depends on how tall you are, too. I am short, coming in at only > 5'7" so I would never be a candidate for a 4 minute mile. My sprint Most of the top 5k-10k guys are about that height, and they could go well under 4 (5k record is about 4:06 pace). The current mile record holder, El Guerrouj (3:43) is 5'9". Cheers, -- Elflord                             Date: 20 Dec 2006 23:19:04 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Elflord wrote: > On 2006-12-20, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> That depends on how tall you are, too. I am short, coming in at only >> 5'7" so I would never be a candidate for a 4 minute mile. My sprint > > Most of the top 5k-10k guys are about that height, and they could go well under > 4 (5k record is about 4:06 pace). The current mile record holder, El Guerrouj > (3:43) is 5'9". > > Cheers, A 3:43 mile is about a 17 MPH pace, isn't it? That is just about my anaerobic sprint speed so this guy must have some spindly legs and run with super light shoes or barefoot. About 18 MPH was my top sprint speed when I was a teenager in high school and I was the fastest kid in class except for one 6 foot plus skinny kid. Living in the Andes at 12,000 feet plus and racing at sea level might give somebody a big advantage over most people too, but....? Bill Baka                             Date: 20 Dec 2006 17:59:46 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message news:slrneoicbu.2dj.abuse@panix2.panix.com... > On 2006-12-20, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> That depends on how tall you are, too. I am short, coming in at only >> 5'7" so I would never be a candidate for a 4 minute mile. My sprint > > Most of the top 5k-10k guys are about that height, and they could go well > under > 4 (5k record is about 4:06 pace). The current mile record holder, El > Guerrouj > (3:43) is 5'9". > > Cheers, > -- > Elflord Right. For me jogging is very rough on my back being 5"9.                         Date: 20 Dec 2006 00:32:13 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message news:slrneogtoe.om3.abuse@panix2.panix.com... > On 2006-12-19, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> Beginning runner wrote: >>> In article <F%Ihh.379$sR.189@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >>> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Possibly because the numbers tell me you are 64 and the manual is >>>> probably written for the average 30 something office worker who runs >>>> at lunch time?? >>> >>> Yes, I am 64, but the formula is supposed to be age agnostic. >> >> So they say, but we know better. >>> >>>> If you are doing 13:40 to 14:30 minute miles you are running slow. I >>>> walk almost that fast, >>> >>> Yes, it is slow, but it got me 4th out of 5 in age group at a 5K two >>> weeks ago. And I can walk almost that fast too, but the way the muscles >>> are used and the breathing are so different between running and walking. >>> (For one thing, when running both feet are off the ground at the same >>> time, but in walking they're never both off the ground.) >>> >>> I've been running only about six months; when I started, I could barely >>> run for one minute at a time, with 90 second to two minute walks in >>> between. >> >> That was how I got the 9 minute mile thing in Boy Scouts. It still isn't >> that hard If I run (not jog) then walk. I intentionally don't jog >> because of the heel impact so I either flat out run on my toes or walk, >> and even skip with my grandkids, but never jog. That may piss off the >> hard core joggers > > Why should your ignorance piss off anyone but yourself ? Besides, my 10k > pace > (5:33/mile, or 83 seconds per lap, try it!) is probably faster than your > "sprint". > > Cheers, > -- > Elflord :)               Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:55:56 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Steve Freides wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:w5rhh.20547$wc5.4970@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >> Elflord wrote: >>> On 2006-12-11, sally <caspam@doj.ca.gov> wrote: >>>> In article <slrnenph9j.edr.abuse@panix3.panix.com>, >>>> Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote: >>>>> just in case anyone's wondering -- shoot for maximising total >>>>> calories, not percentage or absolute # of fat calories. >>>>> >>>>> So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that >>>>> too much of >>>>> it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good >>>>> area for most >>>>> beginners who are trying to lose weight. >>>> I agree about max calorie burn, but a high heart rate tires you out >>>> much >>>> sooner. >>> As stated above, there's a disadvantage to pushing heart rate too >>> high. However, I don't think getting tired out too soon is really the >>> issue. If >>> you do all your training at half-athon race pace, and run 6 miles >>> each >>> run, that's plen ty of miles, but it's still way too fast and will >>> lead to burn >>> out. It's not just a matter of finding a pace that you can sustain >>> *for that >>> workout*, recovery is the real issue. >>> >>> Cheers, >> What disadvantage? If I can't get the bike out for some reason or >> another I go to the corner stop sign and run at a full sprint until I >> have to fall back to a fast run, then slow run, then when I am ready >> to fall on my face I walk and turn back toward home. At that point my >> heart is pushing 180 or so and I am 58 as most of you know so that is >> really pushing it. By the time I walk back the 300 meters or so I ran >> my heart is back down to under 100 so I got my cardio speed burst, no >> heart attack, and feel 100% better with my metabolism up. I can't even >> get to 180 on the bike for some reason, but this is a good alternative >> to doing nothing at all on those busy days. >> Bill Baka > > Your idea of a "full sprint" to the corner stop sign and actually being > near your maximum heart rate are, I suspect, two different things. You > "have to fall back to a fast run" well before you're near your MHR > unless you are making a very, very concerted effort to keep going, > something most people won't do except in the heat of competition or with > their doctor watching over them on a treadmill during a stress test of > some sort. > > Just my opinion. > > -S- > http://www.kbnj.com > > I walk about 100 feet to the corner stop sign and then turn left and run until I am literally ready to drop. It starts as a full on sprint for about 150 meters then gradually slows down until I am ready to trip on my own feet at about 300 meters. I do make a very concerted effort to keep at top speed since I am in a competition with myself and I don't think I could have a heart attack if I tried since I have always been hyperactive. Perhaps I am an anomaly since I don't worry about things like that and heart attacks just don't run in my family. I refuse to act my age if it means shuffling around with a walker and never working up a good thumping heart beat. Maybe I'll slow down after I hit 100, but not yet. As long as I am capable I am damn well going to act like a kid and run full blast. I like to race my grandson and he's 15 so a good pace for me, and he wears out first. Bill Baka             Date: 18 Dec 2006 14:31:58 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-18, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >> As stated above, there's a disadvantage to pushing heart rate too high. >> However, I don't think getting tired out too soon is really the issue. If >> you do all your training at half-athon race pace, and run 6 miles each >> run, that's plen ty of miles, but it's still way too fast and will lead to burn >> out. It's not just a matter of finding a pace that you can sustain *for that >> workout*, recovery is the real issue. >> >> Cheers, > > What disadvantage? If I can't get the bike out for some reason or > another I go to the corner stop sign and run at a full sprint until I > have to fall back to a fast run, then slow run, then when I am ready to Try doing that every day for a month, and you'll have some insight into what the disadvantage is. Racing occasionaly is fine, but it's not sustainable as a daily or twice-daily training regimen. BTW, that's a really dumb way to do speed work anyway -- you will be able to train more intensely if you run hard, then take a break, then run hard again, etc. The way you're approaching this, everything after the first 2 minutes is probably a waste of time (because you're too tired to run fast). If you run intervals, you can get in about 15 minutes at about 100% VO2 max. Cheers, -- Elflord               Date: 19 Dec 2006 02:03:29 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Elflord wrote: > On 2006-12-18, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> As stated above, there's a disadvantage to pushing heart rate too high. >>> However, I don't think getting tired out too soon is really the issue. If >>> you do all your training at half-athon race pace, and run 6 miles each >>> run, that's plen ty of miles, but it's still way too fast and will lead to burn >>> out. It's not just a matter of finding a pace that you can sustain *for that >>> workout*, recovery is the real issue. >>> >>> Cheers, >> What disadvantage? If I can't get the bike out for some reason or >> another I go to the corner stop sign and run at a full sprint until I >> have to fall back to a fast run, then slow run, then when I am ready to > > Try doing that every day for a month, and you'll have some insight into what > the disadvantage is. Racing occasionaly is fine, but it's not sustainable as > a daily or twice-daily training regimen. > > BTW, that's a really dumb way to do speed work anyway -- you will be able to > train more intensely if you run hard, then take a break, then run hard again, > etc. The way you're approaching this, everything after the first 2 minutes is > probably a waste of time (because you're too tired to run fast). If you run > intervals, you can get in about 15 minutes at about 100% VO2 max. > > Cheers, That may be a really dumb way to train for speed work, but my main exercise is on the bike and the sprints are just something to get the heart going hard at least once a day. Hell, at 58 what would I be training for speed for? I don't jog because I don't like landing on my heels so it's a fast run or nothing for me. I bicycle up to 9 hours at a time in the summer but don't want to get caught 40 miles from home in the winter, hence the running. Most people my age CAN'T run anymore so I just like to do it and feel good while I do, all those Endorphins feel so good. I'm a hyperactive adrenalin junkie, not a athoner. Bill Baka                 Date: 19 Dec 2006 14:07:19 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-19, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: > That may be a really dumb way to train for speed work, but my main > exercise is on the bike and the sprints are just something to get the > heart going hard at least once a day. It's not even a very good way to do that. You can get your heart going at a much slower pace with substantially les injury risk. > Hell, at 58 what would I be > training for speed for? I don't jog because I don't like landing on my > heels No-one (well, no serious runner) "lands" on their heels. I don't have the time to provide the full standard lecture on biomech, I'll try to dig up a link to my old posts. here's a start: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.running/msg/3d3485658cf62d4e http://groups.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/c73db3076837fec2 Learn to run with reasonable form and good turnover, and you will not be doing anything like "landing on" your heels. Cheers, -- Elflord                   Date: 19 Dec 2006 18:49:21 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Elflord wrote: > On 2006-12-19, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> That may be a really dumb way to train for speed work, but my main >> exercise is on the bike and the sprints are just something to get the >> heart going hard at least once a day. > > It's not even a very good way to do that. You can get your heart going at > a much slower pace with substantially les injury risk. True, but not within a mere 5 minute window, maybe less. I just went out and did it again and added about 50 feet to my last run and got my heart up to maybe 160 today, less than the usual. By the time I walked home it was down to 80 so that is not a problem. The last injury I had was in 1982 when I was running on top of a levee at sunset and stepped into a gopher hole, pulling a hamstring very painfully. I limped for about 2 weeks on that one but it was my fault for running in the dark. My body is inherently pretty much injury proof or I would have messed myself up 50 years ago, so I think I can thank my parents for good genes. People around me drop like flies every flu season and I never get anything, and I don't know why, so I can get away with what would be "Dumb things" for other people. I may manage to kill myself off someday, but it hasn't happened yet. > >> Hell, at 58 what would I be >> training for speed for? I don't jog because I don't like landing on my >> heels > > No-one (well, no serious runner) "lands" on their heels. I don't have the time > to provide the full standard lecture on biomech, I'll try to dig up a link to > my old posts. I mainly bicycle but love to run at speed just because it feels so good. Actually, anything that involves outdoor activity feels good, and the more intense, the better, but I am not a serious runner. The bicycle takes me much farther and to some really interesting places. > > here's a start: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.running/msg/3d3485658cf62d4e > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/c73db3076837fec2 > > Learn to run with reasonable form and good turnover, and you will not be doing > anything like "landing on" your heels. > > Cheers, Ummm, Thanks?? My wife is the anti-Christ of fitness and rags on me for lifting weights outside and "Showing off" for the neighborhood women. My garage is so packed I have to use the weights out in the backyard. Some battles can't be won, as I found out after I got ried and had kids. Be well, Bill Baka                   Date: 19 Dec 2006 18:31:33 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? >>>Learn to run with reasonable form and good turnover, and you will not be >>>doing anything like "landing on" your heels.<<< A track coach I know tells the runners to push the road to the rear like you are climbing up a wall or something. You land light on the metatarsal area and push back. It helps and is motivating. Keeps you focused I think. SN                     Date: 19 Dec 2006 23:46:51 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? nash wrote: >>>> Learn to run with reasonable form and good turnover, and you will not be >>>> doing > anything like "landing on" your heels.<<< > > A track coach I know tells the runners to push the road to the rear like you > are climbing up a wall or something. You land light on the metatarsal area > and push back. It helps and is motivating. Keeps you focused I think. > > SN > > I know how to run. That was just a metaphor. Still, I have seen many joggers using poor form and then complaining of shin splints or whatever the impact causes. I prefer hiking up a mountain in the woods to either running or biking but those opportunities are rare. There is one 13 mile uphill hike to a waterfall near me but it is a commercialized park and now crowded with people. Still, nothing beats a drink from a real mountain waterfall after a good hike. Bill Baka                       Date: 20 Dec 2006 00:20:32 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:LR_hh.24215$wc5.13518@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > nash wrote: >>>>> Learn to run with reasonable form and good turnover, and you will not >>>>> be doing >> anything like "landing on" your heels.<<< >> >> A track coach I know tells the runners to push the road to the rear like >> you are climbing up a wall or something. You land light on the >> metatarsal area and push back. It helps and is motivating. Keeps you >> focused I think. >> >> SN >> >> > I know how to run. That was just a metaphor. Still, I have seen many > joggers using poor form and then complaining of shin splints or whatever > the impact causes. I prefer hiking up a mountain in the woods to either > running or biking but those opportunities are rare. There is one 13 mile > uphill hike to a waterfall near me but it is a commercialized park and now > crowded with people. Still, nothing beats a drink from a real mountain > waterfall after a good hike. > Bill Baka Have you tried the Grouse Grind? Everyone seems to like it. Old and young alike.                         Date: 20 Dec 2006 02:14:22 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? nash wrote: > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:LR_hh.24215$wc5.13518@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >> nash wrote: >>>>>> Learn to run with reasonable form and good turnover, and you will not >>>>>> be doing >>> anything like "landing on" your heels.<<< >>> >>> A track coach I know tells the runners to push the road to the rear like >>> you are climbing up a wall or something. You land light on the >>> metatarsal area and push back. It helps and is motivating. Keeps you >>> focused I think. >>> >>> SN >>> >>> >> I know how to run. That was just a metaphor. Still, I have seen many >> joggers using poor form and then complaining of shin splints or whatever >> the impact causes. I prefer hiking up a mountain in the woods to either >> running or biking but those opportunities are rare. There is one 13 mile >> uphill hike to a waterfall near me but it is a commercialized park and now >> crowded with people. Still, nothing beats a drink from a real mountain >> waterfall after a good hike. >> Bill Baka > > Have you tried the Grouse Grind? Everyone seems to like it. Old and young > alike. > > What the ???? is a Grouse Grind? On my mountain hikes I run downhill and use the momentum to get most of the way up the next hill, but that is a whole different subject, I think. Bill Baka                           Date: 20 Dec 2006 02:42:14 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? What the ???? is a Grouse Grind? On my mountain hikes I run downhill and use the momentum to get most of the way up the next hill, but that is a whole different subject, I think. Bill Baka Grouse Mtn. Hiking Trail up to the Grouse Nest. Follows underneath the gondola so I guess you start there.                             Date: 20 Dec 2006 06:06:12 From: Nodey Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in news:aq1ih.508952$R63.44439 @pd7urf1no: > What the ???? is a Grouse Grind? On my mountain hikes I run downhill and > use the momentum to get most of the way up the next hill, but that is a > whole different subject, I think. > Bill Baka > > Grouse Mtn. Hiking Trail up to the Grouse Nest. Follows underneath the > gondola so I guess you start there. Not everyone lives in Vancouver as to know what you're talking about, you know. Could give a little background when naming geographical locations. -- Nodey                               Date: 01 Jan 2007 02:57:37 From: Jen Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Nodey" <znodeNO@CAPSgmx.de > wrote in message news:Xns989EE0DA4A7CFznodegmxde@132.239.1.220... > "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in news:aq1ih.508952$R63.44439 > @pd7urf1no: > >> What the ???? is a Grouse Grind? On my mountain hikes I run downhill and >> use the momentum to get most of the way up the next hill, but that is a >> whole different subject, I think. >> Bill Baka >> >> Grouse Mtn. Hiking Trail up to the Grouse Nest. Follows underneath the >> gondola so I guess you start there. > > Not everyone lives in Vancouver as to know what you're talking about, you > know. Could give a little background when naming geographical locations. No wonder I couldn't work out what he was talking about!                                 Date: From: Subject:                             Date: 20 Dec 2006 06:03:28 From: Nodey Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in news:aq1ih.508952$R63.44439 @pd7urf1no: > What the ???? is a Grouse Grind? On my mountain hikes I run downhill and > use the momentum to get most of the way up the next hill, but that is a > whole different subject, I think. > Bill Baka > > Grouse Mtn. Hiking Trail up to the Grouse Nest. Follows underneath the > gondola so I guess you start there. Not everyone lives in Vancouver, you know. -- Nodey           Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:39:49 From: LurfysMa Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:52:43 +0000 (UTC), Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote: >On 2006-12-11, sally <caspam@doj.ca.gov> wrote: >> In article <slrnenph9j.edr.abuse@panix3.panix.com>, >> Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote: >>>just in case anyone's wondering -- shoot for maximising total calories, not >>>percentage or absolute # of fat calories. >>> >>>So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that too much of >>>it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good area for most >>>beginners who are trying to lose weight. >> >> I agree about max calorie burn, but a high heart rate tires you out much >> sooner. > >As stated above, there's a disadvantage to pushing heart rate too high. >However, I don't think getting tired out too soon is really the issue. If >you do all your training at half-athon race pace, and run 6 miles each >run, that's plen ty of miles, but it's still way too fast and will lead to burn >out. It's not just a matter of finding a pace that you can sustain *for that >workout*, recovery is the real issue. What do you mean by "recovery"? I thought the debate was how the rate of calorie burn was related to where those calories come from. No? That is, if I burn 300 calories in 30 minutes do they come from a different place than if I burn those 300 calories over 45 or 60 minutes? Right? I don't understand how recovery factors in. Are you saying that if I push it too hard, I won't be able to do it again for several days? --             Date: 12 Dec 2006 01:12:03 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "LurfysMa" <invalid@invalid.invalid > wrote in message news:bsqrn2pj0tai6uthuneipau1lf24rh7eqf@4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:52:43 +0000 (UTC), Elflord <abuse@aol.com> > wrote: > >>On 2006-12-11, sally <caspam@doj.ca.gov> wrote: >>> In article <slrnenph9j.edr.abuse@panix3.panix.com>, >>> Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote: >>>>just in case anyone's wondering -- shoot for maximising total calories, >>>>not >>>>percentage or absolute # of fat calories. >>>> >>>>So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that too >>>>much of >>>>it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good area for >>>>most >>>>beginners who are trying to lose weight. >>> >>> I agree about max calorie burn, but a high heart rate tires you out much >>> sooner. >> >>As stated above, there's a disadvantage to pushing heart rate too high. >>However, I don't think getting tired out too soon is really the issue. If >>you do all your training at half-athon race pace, and run 6 miles each >>run, that's plen ty of miles, but it's still way too fast and will lead to >>burn >>out. It's not just a matter of finding a pace that you can sustain *for >>that >>workout*, recovery is the real issue. > > What do you mean by "recovery"? > > I thought the debate was how the rate of calorie burn was related to > where those calories come from. No? > > That is, if I burn 300 calories in 30 minutes do they come from a > different place than if I burn those 300 calories over 45 or 60 > minutes? Right? > > I don't understand how recovery factors in. Are you saying that if I > push it too hard, I won't be able to do it again for several days? > Actually, muscle glycogen is used up at the start of any sport/exercise bout. After that you use fat. Takes 20 minutes depending on the individual to burn up the glycogen. Recovery burn is because you HR does not go to resting HR as soon as you stop doing what your doing. It could take half an hour some less some more depends. Take HR 10 minutes after stopping to see how well your recovery HR is doing. The blood is still carrying away lactic acid from you exercising so much. When your HR is normal is when you have recovered.             Date: 12 Dec 2006 00:20:08 From: Elflord Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On 2006-12-11, LurfysMa <invalid@invalid.invalid > wrote: >>As stated above, there's a disadvantage to pushing heart rate too high. >>However, I don't think getting tired out too soon is really the issue. If >>you do all your training at half-athon race pace, and run 6 miles each >>run, that's plen ty of miles, but it's still way too fast and will lead to burn >>out. It's not just a matter of finding a pace that you can sustain *for that >>workout*, recovery is the real issue. > > What do you mean by "recovery"? I mean that if you train at too high an intensity, you'll burn out. > I thought the debate was how the rate of calorie burn was related to > where those calories come from. No? I didn't think this was a "debate". > That is, if I burn 300 calories in 30 minutes do they come from a > different place than if I burn tose 300 calories over 45 or 60 > minutes? Right? Yes, but "where they come from" is completely irrelevant as far as weight loss is concerned. So for academic purposes, and even for athletic performance purposes, it makes a difference. But as far as weight loss is concerned, it doesn't. > I don't understand how recovery factors in. Are you saying that if I > push it too hard, I won't be able to do it again for several days? Yes. Cheers, -- Elflord       Date: 11 Dec 2006 17:15:07 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message news:slrnenph9j.edr.abuse@panix3.panix.com... > On 2006-12-10, Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net> wrote: >> In article <1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, >> "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> wrote: >> >>> Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how >>> much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning >>> by monitoring my heart rate? >> >> Fat burning and calorie burning are not the same thing. The fat burning >> zone is 60 to 70 percent of maximum heart rate. That's where the >> greatest percentage of calories burned comes from burning fat. >> >> However, if you're exercising in a higher zone, you'll burn more >> calories per minute, and even if the fat-burning calories are a lower >> percentage of the total, the number of calories burned from fat may be >> higher. > > just in case anyone's wondering -- shoot for maximising total calories, > not > percentage or absolute # of fat calories. > > So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that too much > of > it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good area for > most > beginners who are trying to lose weight. > > Cheers, > -- > Elflord that is overkill. Depends on how long you are doing it for as a beginner. Not enough info.       Date: 10 Dec 2006 22:05:04 From: Set Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:40:51 +0000 (UTC), Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote: >On 2006-12-10, Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net> wrote: >> In article <1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, >> "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu> wrote: >> >>> Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how >>> much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning >>> by monitoring my heart rate? >> >> Fat burning and calorie burning are not the same thing. The fat burning >> zone is 60 to 70 percent of maximum heart rate. That's where the >> greatest percentage of calories burned comes from burning fat. >> >> However, if you're exercising in a higher zone, you'll burn more >> calories per minute, and even if the fat-burning calories are a lower >> percentage of the total, the number of calories burned from fat may be >> higher. > >just in case anyone's wondering -- shoot for maximising total calories, not >percentage or absolute # of fat calories. > >So working at a higher heart rate is generally good, except that too much of >it is very hard on recovery. About 85% max heart rate is a good area for most >beginners who are trying to lose weight. It is kind of a difficult question to answer strictly as the OP proposed it (maintaining constant 135bpm). I can ride a road bike at about 85% HRmax for an hour per day and easily do that 7 days per week. (That's still not enough to cause weight loss past the first few months.) Running I can only do 4 days per week due to need to recover, even if I'm staying at a similar perceived effort as road biking, and it's not just do to the pounding - it seems to take more out of me systemically. Despite less time on the road, weight loss seems to be steady. Stationary biking is the worst for fitness improvement or weight loss, in my experience. I can ride the trainer at over 85% HRmax for an hour and still not be breathing as hard as when I'm road riding. It's a bit puzzling, because some people say that 'every mile on the trainer is equal to two miles on the road'. (due to constant pedaling vs freewheeling).         Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:41:58 From: Andrew Price Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:05:04 -0500, Set<@setnet.com > wrote: [---] >I can ride a road bike at about 85% HRmax for an hour per day and easily do >that 7 days per week. (That's still not enough to cause weight loss past >the first few months.) How do you explain the drop-off after the first few months - if your food intake remains identical, and the calories burnt in riding (plus in all other activities, of course) exceed the intake, then surely you should lose weight, no?           Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:11:43 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "Andrew Price" <ajprice@free.fr > wrote in message news:dd9rn2h5qnjku4veoprq2njuaemndt3id2@4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:05:04 -0500, Set<@setnet.com> wrote: > > [---] > >>I can ride a road bike at about 85% HRmax for an hour per day and easily >>do >>that 7 days per week. (That's still not enough to cause weight loss past >>the first few months.) > > How do you explain the drop-off after the first few months - if your > food intake remains identical, and the calories burnt in riding (plus > in all other activities, of course) exceed the intake, then surely you > should lose weight, no? It is called plateauing. I think you have to change your routine every few weeks. do not ride a bike one hour and day/week all the time. Your body has finished acclimatizing to the load now change it up.             Date: 17 Dec 2006 23:11:16 From: Bill Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? nash wrote: > "Andrew Price" <ajprice@free.fr> wrote in message > news:dd9rn2h5qnjku4veoprq2njuaemndt3id2@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:05:04 -0500, Set<@setnet.com> wrote: >> >> [---] >> >>> I can ride a road bike at about 85% HRmax for an hour per day and easily >>> do >>> that 7 days per week. (That's still not enough to cause weight loss past >>> the first few months.) >> How do you explain the drop-off after the first few months - if your >> food intake remains identical, and the calories burnt in riding (plus >> in all other activities, of course) exceed the intake, then surely you >> should lose weight, no? > > It is called plateauing. I think you have to change your routine every few > weeks. do not ride a bike one hour and day/week all the time. Your body > has finished acclimatizing to the load now change it up. > > I don't buy that. I got rather fanatic about riding and losing weight a few summers back and rode myself from 180 down to 143, at which point I felt great and ready to tackle any race, but my wife said I looked like a WWII POW from the waist up. Great legs and lungs but way too skinny on top, even though the BMI tool said I was in the optimum range for being 5'7". Even my neighbors thought I had cancer or something so I had to gain weight just to put the rumor mill to rest. I was mentally shooting for about 130 pounds but when I started fitting jeans my wife hadn't been able to wear for 20 years the shit hit the fan. When is enough too much? I felt great by the way. Bill Baka         Date: 11 Dec 2006 17:19:08 From: nash Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? >>>>Stationary biking is the worst for fitness improvement or weight loss, >>>>in my experience. I can ride the trainer at over 85% HRmax for an hour and still not be breathing as hard as when I'm road riding. It's a bit puzzling, because some people say that 'every mile on the trainer is equal to two miles on the road'. (due to constant pedaling vs freewheeling). It could be you are working harder. General rules do not apply to everyone. Wind is a factor too. Uphill, and other things like dangerous drivers keeping your adrenalin up.         Date: 11 Dec 2006 21:15:21 From: Michael Warner Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:05:04 -0500, Set wrote: > Stationary biking is the worst for fitness improvement or weight loss, in > my experience. I can ride the trainer at over 85% HRmax for an hour and > still not be breathing as hard as when I'm road riding. It's a bit > puzzling, because some people say that 'every mile on the trainer is equal > to two miles on the road'. (due to constant pedaling vs freewheeling). Could that be due to your position and the extra effort needed to control a bike on the road? If you sit upright on the trainer and relax your upper body, perhaps each breath delivers more oxygen to your system. -- Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw   Date: 10 Dec 2006 16:05:44 From: John Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? Polar heart rate monitors have a calorie counting counter on most of their models. How accurate they are I don't know. I went for an hour cross-country run yesterday and burnt around 820 calories according to the monitor. John "wizzywiz" <jimkk@umich.edu > wrote in message news:1165764900.814008.216520@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > Hello, there seems to be little consensus on which exercises burn how > much fat. So, can I just measure the intensity of my calorie burning by > monitoring my heart rate? > > Thanks.... >     Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:35:14 From: Jeremy Parker Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? "John" <john123@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:sfWeh.1502$1W1.824@newsfe4-win.ntli.net... > Polar heart rate monitors have a calorie counting counter on most > of their models. How accurate they are I don't know. I went for an > hour cross-country run yesterday and burnt around 820 calories > according to the monitor. What is the formula it uses to convert between pulse rate and calories. I have a TCM pulse rate monitor, which might (or might not) be a rebranded Polar. This requires entering your weight, and a constant whose value you can choose. The instructions give no guidance on how to choose the correct value - the range is 1:2.7 (0.00029 to 0.00079) and the numbers the pulse rate monitor produces seem highly implausible whatever number you choose Jeremy Parker       Date: 12 Dec 2006 19:11:43 From: John Subject: Re: Is heart rate a good measure of fat burning? The information you require can be found here. http://support.polar.fi/PKBSupport.nsf/42256c2b001e0f6ac22567cb001ee534/42256c2b001e0f6a422569d200305334?OpenDocument John > What is the formula it uses to convert between pulse rate and calories. I > have a TCM pulse rate monitor, which might (or might not) be a rebranded > Polar. This requires entering your weight, and a constant whose value you > can choose. The instructions give no guidance on how to choose the > correct value - the range is 1:2.7 (0.00029 to 0.00079) and the numbers > the pulse rate monitor produces seem highly implausible whatever number > you choose > > Jeremy Parker >