Too fit or too unfit? HRM question

[Redlight]

A question for those of you who train with heart rate monitors...

I am trying to lose a bit of flab so recently bought a HRM with the intention of trying to keep within the so-called fat Burn Zone while exercising.  No problem using the stuff at the gym – I find it relatively easy to pace my activity to keep at around 110bpm (the  upper limit for the Zone, according to the monitor, is 117). On the spin bikes, it feels as though I am riding along at a relatively good pace, while not pushing it. I’d liken it to a steady Sunday ride.

However, when I actually ride my bike on the commute, I find it impossible to stay below the upper limit and am averaging 137bpm over a 45 minute ride.  I’ve tried to ride as steadily and slowly as I can without feeling as though I’m dawdling, but to no avail.  Is my inability to ride gently without my heart thumping a sign that I’m not as fit as I should be, or is it possible that the monitor has assumed that at my age I should be less fit than I am and miscalculated the Zone parameters and I should be able to fat burn at a much higher heart rate?

Any advice would be welcomed!

[mattc]

Wot RR wrote sounds good.

Also:
Your commute's very urban isn't it? If it's very stop-start it can be a nightmare keeping within a particular zone (whichever one you choose!), and the average figure can be a bit meaningless (sorry!). Maybe do a test on flat/empty roads on Sunday morning?

You could also try a brisk walk - I've found walking quickly (the sort of pace where it might be more efficient to jog!) on the flat puts my HR around the middle of the (so-called) fat-burning zone. This might be a good sanity check for your numbers.

[andygates]

I've never been able to stay in that zone: I get too bored.  And I'm still fat

[mattc]

Andy:
Try riding a 600k, and check your heart-rate with about 50k to go!

[amaferanga]

You'd be much better off riding as hard as you can for the time you have available instead of pootling along in the mythical fat burning zone.  You may be burning a greater proportion of fat, but the total calorie burn will be less and hence you'll actually be losing weight more slowly by keeping the intensity that low.  The whole fat burning myth is popular because it appeals to the muppets that like to read a good book while 'working out' at the gym ;-)

[Feline]

A question for those of you who train with heart rate monitors...

I am trying to lose a bit of flab so recently bought a HRM with the intention of trying to keep within the so-called fat Burn Zone while exercising.  No problem using the stuff at the gym – I find it relatively easy to pace my activity to keep at around 110bpm (the  upper limit for the Zone, according to the monitor, is 117). On the spin bikes, it feels as though I am riding along at a relatively good pace, while not pushing it. I’d liken it to a steady Sunday ride.

However, when I actually ride my bike on the commute, I find it impossible to stay below the upper limit and am averaging 137bpm over a 45 minute ride.  I’ve tried to ride as steadily and slowly as I can without feeling as though I’m dawdling, but to no avail.  Is my inability to ride gently without my heart thumping a sign that I’m not as fit as I should be, or is it possible that the monitor has assumed that at my age I should be less fit than I am and miscalculated the Zone parameters and I should be able to fat burn at a much higher heart rate?

Any advice would be welcomed!

My heart rate can reach 195bpm on the bike which at my age shouldn't even be possible. I have stopped using the HR band 

[saturn]

Have you established your actual max heart rate or are you just trusting a calculated theoretical max for your age or that's programmed into your HRM?

Max heart rates are a very personal thing and calculated values can be so inaccurate to be totally misleading. If I take my own max and work the typically used calculation backwards I'm younger than my youngest daughter.

Establish your real max if you haven't done so (it's not that tricky) and work out your own zones.

[saturn]

My heart rate can reach 195bpm on the bike

Absolutely nothing wrong with that Feline.

which at my age shouldn't even be possible.

That's incorrect though. Trust the HRM, throw the rubbish theoretic calculations away.

[GruB]

The secret for me - has been to combine HRM riding with FIXED 
Because of the constant pedalling I don't feel like I am dawdling.  I also get into a rhythm that doesn't send my HR soaring - as the fixed gearing limits that.  But I stay in the FB zone a lot more ( not by trying or choice - I just do ) and that means I have changed shape again.
My legs have changed and the waist is slowly changing too.

[Redlight]

Thanks for all the useful advice so far.  The "recommended" heart rates that I have quoted are those calculated by the HRM. I assumed that it was simply applying a formula based on 'Age times X minus Y' but I noticed that a couple of days ago it had lowered further the point at which the fat burn zone becomes the fitness zone, so maybe there is something more sophisticated going on!   Either way, it feels as though the recommendations are set too low as I am hitting 25-30 bpm above my so-called maximum on the commute without pushing ridiculously hard.

According to the calculator in one of the links in the thread posted by Roadrunner, my fat burn heart rate should be about 133, which I could probably achieve by easing off a bit and not pushing hard away from the (many) traffic lights on the commute.  However,  taking Saturn's point on board, I'm also going to go back and have a look at the data from a BUPA checkup that I had last year as I think there might be a max heart rate in that.  I know that they told me that my "physical age" was about 12 years younger than my actual age and that was derived from tests on an exercise bike with a HRM and VO2 monitor.  So it may be that I will get a more sensible figure out of my HRM if I lie to it and tell it that I'm still under 40 

I'm also attracted to Amaferanga's philosophy that the fat burn zone is a bit of a myth.  I've certainly noticed that, according to the wretched HRM, I can go through twice as many KCals on a 45 minute commute as I can in the same time on an exercise bike. I suppose the question is what is being burned - food or fat. 

[saturn]

Seriously, forget the calculation, forget the BUPA check (unless that established your MHR when cycling). Strap on your monitor and go for a ride (on the road¹), get warmed up, do some hard efforts to get your heart rate up when heading for a long steepish hill. Then hit the hill as hard as you can, don't worry about getting to the top, sprint as hard as you can, when you think you can't go on put in one last effort ² until you really can't go on. When you can see straight again, check the max rate and that'll be fairly close providing the hill was long enough and you really did try hard enough. Let us know how the result compared to theoretical calculations. Mine was 205 when I was 47. Means nothing, it's an individual thing, but at least you'll know what your "zones" really are.

As amaferanga says, if you have limited time you'll burn more fat with hard effort. If you have all day, you'll eventually burn more fat riding gently because you'll be able to keep going a lot longer.

¹ On a turbo I can only get within 2 or 3 of my max measured on a proper ride, not sure why

² Assumes you have no known or unknown health problems, at your own risk

[mattc]

I'm also attracted to Amaferanga's philosophy that the fat burn zone is a bit of a myth.  I've certainly noticed that, according to the wretched HRM, I can go through twice as many KCals on a 45 minute commute as I can in the same time on an exercise bike. I suppose the question is what is being burned - food or fat.

Of course it's not a myth  However, it can be misinterpreted.

We've discussed this before - here's the first obvious post that Search brought back:

That's just 'Calories OUT > Calories IN'. Works every time.

No, it emphatically doesn't.  If you rip through your glycogen stores at a high HR you'll get hungry and will refuel then and for the next few days to a greater extent than the calories you burned.  If you have sufficient willpower not to, then you'll feel like crap and you'll be run-down and struggling to ride.

If the pace is set to be fat-burning so that the glycogen is preserved, you can have normal breakfast at the end of the ride and not over-compensate and not feel starved.  That's why slower fat-burning rides are very good for losing weight.  Obviously if you are after top-end speed then they're not useful.

(You'll note that Amaferenga agrees with Alouicious  )

Another thing; if you're looking at fat-burning zones DO NOT WORRY about whether your HRmax is accurate. In the lower zones it makes very little difference - worry about it only if you want to do lactate threshold stuff.

[GruB]

What is important though, is the combination of smart training and careful eating.
If you have a great ride in all the right zones and then get home and 'reward' yourself by eating all the wrong things or even simply too much of the right things - then you have just undone all your good work.

In many ways it is as simple as calories in must be less than calories out, however as most if not all know, that is much easier said than done.

Willpower in both your training and eating is the key.

I often pick up my bike(s) and think to myself that I deserve some lighter kit.  Then I look at myself and take stock and look at the extra weight I could shift from my frame, before I shift that from my wallet.   

[amaferanga]

(You'll note that Amaferenga agrees with Alouicious  )

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 


Fat burning zone maybe just misinterpreted and Mal Volio does have a point, but unless you are cycling at a ridiculously easy intensity you will still be burning a significant amount of glycogen.  And whatever intensity you exercise at you should be refuelling so you don't come close to depleting your glycogen stores completely.  That goes a long way to warding off the over-eating after the ride as well.

If I was only doing 45min rides I'd be doing them hard and burning 500-700 kCal instead of pootling and only burning half that number.  If the OP was doing 3 or 4 hour rides then doing them at a lower intensity makes sense, but not so for 45min rides.

[simonp]

I find my HR is higher on the bike for the same effort as on the turbo. My target HR for aerobic base training is 131bpm and long steady is 131-143 bpm. This is based on a measured HRmax of 192bpm 2 years ago which is 10bpm above 220-age which is a very rough guess and not reliable.

I dispute the utility of the fat burning zone. Exercising at a bit higher intensity will burn more fat. It will burn additional carbs also and if you eat less than you burn the net effect is just the same as being in the fat burning zone but you don't have to take so long over it, it's not so bloody boring, and you'll get fitter. Don't overdo it though as high intensity will burn loads of carbs and result in glycogen depletion and fatigue if you do it too much.

[Rhys W]

Seriously, forget the calculation, forget the BUPA check (unless that established your MHR when cycling). Strap on your monitor and go for a ride (on the road¹), get warmed up, do some hard efforts to get your heart rate up when heading for a long steepish hill. Then hit the hill as hard as you can, don't worry about getting to the top, sprint as hard as you can, when you think you can't go on put in one last effort ² until you really can't go on. When you can see straight again, check the max rate and that'll be fairly close providing the hill was long enough and you really did try hard enough.

This is much better than any estimate based on age etc. I did this a couple of times and set my zones accordingly... however, when I did some Kingcycle (ramp) tests in a sports science lab, I reached a max that was 10bpm higher than my own estimate. Once I knew my real max HR, my TT times improved because I could aim for (and sustain) a higher (and more accurate) threshold HR.

Trying to measure it yourself is good, but I'd say you're still probably underestimating. Maybe round it up to the nearest 5bpm.

[mattc]

I dispute the utility of the fat burning zone. Exercising at a bit higher intensity will burn more fat. It will burn additional carbs also and if you eat less than you burn the net effect is just the same ...

if you eat less than you burn

That's a very big if. If it was easy, why would people ever struggle to lose weight?

[GruB]

Because sugar is like a drug and it is very addictive.  Will power and commitment - what most fat people do not have.

[simonp]

I dispute the utility of the fat burning zone. Exercising at a bit higher intensity will burn more fat. It will burn additional carbs also and if you eat less than you burn the net effect is just the same ...

if you eat less than you burn

That's a very big if. If it was easy, why would people ever struggle to lose weight?

It's a necessary requirement whether you burn fat or carbs. The trouble people have with losing weight is that they first of all are doing things they don't enjoy (exercise) and diet alone is ineffective. People who take up cycling to lose weight fare worse than people who take up cycling because they enjoy it.

I actually find it very hard to eat as much as I burn.

[mattc]

Burning fat doesn't make you hungry.

Burning glycogen does.

_{(and yes I know you can't run on 100% fat)}

[simonp]

Burning fat doesn't make you hungry.

Burning glycogen does.

_{(and yes I know you can't run on 100% fat)}

Also, men fail to compensate for exercise-induced energy expenditure (EE) by increasing their energy intake at the meal after exercise, during the same day (12), or during the following day (5). Even when men performed high levels of exercise during 7 consecutive d, no compensation was seen (14). Similarly, women do not seem to acutely compensate in response to a bout of high-intensity exercise (13, 15-17) but tend to show a significant but partial compensation in energy intake of ≈30% of the energy expended during exercise over longer periods (7 d) (18).

http://www.ajcn.org/content/80/5/1230.full

At the end they note that low intensity exercise is better for women because they tend to compensate more at high intensity, unlike men.

[mattc]

Fair enough, but as I've read studies showing the opposite I shall choose to stick with my view!

(This isn't wikipedia - so no citation needed for this post  )

Bit of a different issue, but another benefit is training your body to burn more fat more of the time
and/or
get decent power from fat when that is pretty much all you've got to hand (e.g. when your digestion is foobared, or you are Bradley Wiggins, according to his recent interview)

I have direct experience of the latter - it's only anecdata, but I'm happy with it.

[GruB]

Matt,
If you know all this why don't you look like your avatar?

[mattc]

Matt,
If you know all this why don't you look like your avatar?

You should have seen me before I learned all this.

[GruB]

Ha ha, perfect reply