Heart Rate Monitor Question!

I'm looking to buy a cheap, but reliable heart rate monitor. I have NEVER used one before, and am unsure about how to even work/read one. I'm sure it can't be THAT hard, but I have some questions about monitors and heart percentages. First, where should my heart range percentage be, and how should I find it out? Do I need to figure out my maximum heart range and work with-in 85% of that? Would this be my "target heart range"? Also, I'm seeing a few monitors/watches that claim to count cals and take your heart rate with-out the use of a strap. Now, first of all I didn't even know that heart rate monitors use a chest strap (yes, I'm stupid, I know) and second, some of the reviews for this HRM watches are pretty negative. Do you guys have any experiences with these? I guess, my question is basically what do I need a HRM for and how do I find an ideal HRM range? Vague, I know, but all responses will be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

joekame - not sure this will help a lot but here are a couple of ways to do it:

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml? identifier=4736

http://exercise.about.com/cs/fitnesstools/l/b l_THR.htm

As for monitors you can either do it by taking your pulse or if you buy a monitor then I dont really have any advice wxcept I use two...I use the chest monitor on my treadmill and I have a MIO wrist watch one that works fairly well...but I just purchased the MIO and so far it seems to be working fairly well (for Heart Rate)...I wouldnt take much stock in a lot of calorie burn info on watches, treadmills or other areas because generally the formulas are too general (Daves opinion). 

What do you need a HRM for...well that depends on are you looking to make sure you dont over work your heart/body?  or are you looking to get the target area to burn the most fat/calories without over working?  I guess it depends on what you want to achieve...I personally use it to see where I am at my training intervals.

Hope that helped.

Dave

 

The first heart rate monitor I bought was a cheap one from Walmart that didn't have a chest strap and took your heart rate from the watch itself on your wrist.  The thing was awful and never worked correctly probably because the wrist isn't the best place to have a heart rate monitor sensor.  I got frustrated with it and just threw it in the trash.  I've since bought a Polar F6 (with a chest strap) and love it!  When you input you age, height, weight, etc and start working out it can display your heart rate % or your heart rate as a number.  I wouldn't go too cheap on the monitors though.  I bought mine off of ebay for ~$80.  Definitly go with one with a chest strap.

Original Post by dave98z3:

joekame - not sure this will help a lot but here are a couple of ways to do it:

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml? identifier=4736

http://exercise.about.com/cs/fitnesstools/l/b l_THR.htm

As for monitors you can either do it by taking your pulse or if you buy a monitor then I dont really have any advice wxcept I use two...I use the chest monitor on my treadmill and I have a MIO wrist watch one that works fairly well...but I just purchased the MIO and so far it seems to be working fairly well (for Heart Rate)...I wouldnt take much stock in a lot of calorie burn info on watches, treadmills or other areas because generally the formulas are too general (Daves opinion). 

What do you need a HRM for...well that depends on are you looking to make sure you dont over work your heart/body?  or are you looking to get the target area to burn the most fat/calories without over working?  I guess it depends on what you want to achieve...I personally use it to see where I am at my training intervals.

Hope that helped.

Dave

 

Well, I don't really care about OVER working. I thought that I read that the "ideal Target heart range" thing was a myth? I just wanna make sure that I'm working hard ENOUGH, and that I'm getting the MOST out of my workouts. I want to have an idea of my limit, and know when I am approaching it. I want to know that I pushing myself every time. Does that make sense?

I am not sure where you read that the target heart rate was a myth but I guess if it is I am sure there is probably another study that debunks that study...lol  I recommend looking at this link

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/exercise -heart-rate-training-zones-a-convenient-metho d-to-maximize-the-effectiveness-and-results-o f-exercise-routines.html

I know I have read several articles discussing the benefits of the Heart Rate while weight training as well as doing cardio.  Like any information its all in what you do with it that counts.  I have noticed over the past 2 years my Heart Rate is more efficient and lower today at rest and while exercising and I have been seeing the benefits from it.

 

Original Post by joekame:

Well, I don't really care about OVER working. I thought that I read that the "ideal Target heart range" thing was a myth? I just wanna make sure that I'm working hard ENOUGH, and that I'm getting the MOST out of my workouts. I want to have an idea of my limit, and know when I am approaching it. I want to know that I pushing myself every time. Does that make sense?

I think I completely understand - I recently got a Polar F5. It starts beeping when I'm below or over my "targer zone", which would be around 70-90% of my max heart rate. Anyway, last time I went running I stayed above 90% for about half the time, which would be 12 minutes. When it's beeping telling me to go faster I want it to shut up, but when it wants me to go slower I just happily pick up the pace.

Here is my 2 cents... I use a Polar w/strap.

determine your RHR (resting heart rate)--I recommend checking your heart rate the first 5 days of the month before you get out of bed. Record on your calendar or other chart. Take an average as your RHR can vary because of quality of sleep, alcohol, etc. You should see a downward trend every month if you are doing conditioning training! If RHR doesn't decrease--you need to change what you are doing!

You know your true max HR when you feel like you are going to throw up. (Mine <female age 47> is 180-184.) When you reach MHR you will only be able to last for a few seconds before you will have to back off. The monitor and charts will not be accurate the more "in shape" you become. There are many at my gym who are in their 40's adjusting their monitors to the 20's! (proving that working out improves your cardio vas. system!)

I find it helpful when I am exercising to know my HR so I can train in the 75-85% range and then do intervals to 92% and check my recovery. The faster you recover, the stronger your heart. It is also fun to wear one and watch how your breathing affects your HR! Start exercising and get your heart rate up.... then keep the same pace and start doing deep diaphramtic breathing and watch it start to drop!! Makes you REALLY aware of the whole breath/blood/heart connection!!

If you are below 75% you don't really get much benefit to your heart.

good luck. hope this helps. Oh, yeah, I don't really find the cal counter too accurate but it is fun! Some of the expensive models let you download your workouts to your computer and you can see a graph of your exertion. Only worth the money if you are going to take the time to do it!

I love my Nike IMARA,

it calculates calories burned based on height and weight.  You do have to wear the strap.  You get use to it.  The ones without a strap are crap.  I use mine for running so those are out. You have to hold 2 fingers on a sensor on the watch to take your pulse.  Well i am pretty sure I would fall on my face doing this :)  Plus how accurate can that be only a few seconds?  Mine was $45 on ebay and love love love it.

First off, I'd highly recommend a HRM.  I have found mine to be an invaluable tool for my workouts, and I don't think they'd be nearly as effective without it.

I would avoid the ones without a strap.  The strap really isn't all that much of a bother, and you stop thinking about it after the first few minutes with it on.  However, it does - at least in my experience - provide a much better product than those that don't use a strap.

I use a Polar F55 HRM.  This watch allows me to track my HR (obviously), to put in my min/max heart rate target zone for a given workout (or have the watch choose for me), and to download the information to my computer to show the progress of my workouts over time.  It also has a feature called (I think) "OwnIndex" that is Polar's estimation of VO2max.  If the estimation of VO2max is good - and I understand that there are some pretty good studies out there that show that it is - then the calorie calculation will also be fairly accurate.  Perfect? No.  Good enough to be very useful? Absolutely.  (I have tracked my calorie intake pretty carefully, and my weight loss is just about right if the calories burned measure is accurate.  If it's not accurate, then there are magical calories either being created or destroyed... ;o)

Finally, what HR target range you use is a subject, apparently, of much debate.  I found for myself that initially intentionally limiting myself to 65-75% of max allowed me to work out much longer, and thus burn many more calories, than if I spent most of my time in the 75-85% range.  Then as I've progressed I've tried staying mostly in that range, but adding some higher resistances (on the elliptical) for periods of time during my exercise in which I raise that HR up into the mid-80s for a while before coming back down.  This has seemed to be pretty effective for me in increasing my stamina and making the workouts better.  (Some will also tell you that your body burns fat most efficiently in the 60-70% max HR range.  Based on the skimming of the literature that I've done, I think that's probably right - but others would disagree.  And even if it is right, it may be that the most *efficient* fat burning regime isn't the one that will burn the most total calories of fat for a given period of time.)

I've rambled long enough.  Hope that helps.

Oh, ghod .- Fuhrman.

 The guy who thinks you need about one-tenth of the protein that the   Journal of American College of Nutrition research shows? The same Fuhrman who thinks that "The China study" contains valid science? That Fuhrman? The same Fuhrman who claims calorie counting doesn't work?

 Oh, yeah, I'll take training advice from that Fuhrman.

 Not.

 For athletes looking to maximize performance and training effects from each workout heart rate zone training has merit as a tool for cardiovascular conditioning.

 For anyone looking for general health benefits and/or to lose fat it's complete BS; the "fat burning zone" is nonsense from any perspective - when training in the "fat burning zone" you may burn a higher relative percentage of calories from fat, but that's completely irrelevant to your results - 60% of 300 calories an hour from fat is proportionally greater than 40% of 800cal/hour, but it's still less in actual amount of fat used. And it also overlooks that the bulk of your fat burn happens outside of formal exercise, and that higher-intensity exercise upregulates the effectiveness of your lipase enzymes. Plus there's how your body mostly balances out the percentages of energy expenditure over a 24-hour period, so if you burn more carbs during exercise your body will expend more energy from fat outside of formal exercise.

 Fuhrman's source neatly avoids pointing this out directly, and if you didn't already know the facts on the ground you'd walk away from that article with the entirely wrong impression of how to train for fat loss, including a misunderstood notion of how to determine your maximum heart rate.

 Well. On the macro level Fuhrman and company have the right general idea, but they get the details so horribly wrong that the overall result is anything but healthy.

Ok if that link or info wasnt enough heres some more info:

Heart Matters Bodybuilders train their muscles, but they often neglect the most important muscle of them all - the heart. Your heart is a great indicator of your level of fitness. Training your heart can improve all aspects of your health. Your heart can even be used as a guide to help improve your training and, more importantly, customize training to your body. When you understand how the heart works and how it can be used as an amazing tool for training, you will appreciate exactly how much the heart matters!


Your heart is between one to two times the size of your clenched fist. Contrary to popular belief, it is not located to one side of the body - it is located almost in the exact center of your chest. Due to the shape of the heart and chest cavity, the heart pounds against the chest wall on your left side, so the heart rate is stronger when felt there. Your heart is responsible for pumping about six quarts of blood throughout your body, with about the same amount of force that the average person applies when squeezing a tennis ball. The heart is not under voluntary control. A system known as the autonomic nervous system, which includes the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system, is responsible for regulating your heart rate.

There are many ways to measure how healthy a heart is. A healthy heart should beat with a fairly regular rhythm that will change based on levels of exertion and oxygen requirements. A healthy heart has a high stroke volume, which refers to the amount of blood that is pumped out with each beat. A healthy heart does not have to work as hard to pump blood, so the resting heart rate of a healthy heart will be lower than average. Blood pressure is another indicator of heart health and should be in the healthy range of around 120 over 80, as determined by the national average.

Various types of training have different effects on the heart. Training that elevates the heart rate for even brief durations can increase the size of the heart. This will increase the stroke volume, and result in a lower resting heart rate. Training can also increase the rate at which the heart recovers from a bout of intense work. In other words, a trained individual will return to their resting heart rate faster than a sedentary individual. Exercise has been shown to lower blood pressure. In addition, regular cardiovascular exercise can increase the concentration of hemoglobin in blood, allowing the body to become more efficient at transporting oxygen to the cells that need it (as well as removing waste products such as carbon dioxide).

The average resting heart rate for an adult is around 72 beats per minute, or 75 for women and 70 for men. The lowest recorded heart rate is 28 beats per minute, attributed to a Spanish cyclist named Miguel Indurain. Many athletes have resting heart rates between the mid 30’s and mid 40’s. Bradycardia refers to a resting heart rate less than 60 beats per minute. It is simply a name for the condition of a slow heart, and does not imply an unhealthy heart or disease. Tachycardia refers to a resting heart rate over 100 beats per minute, and is considered a very dangerous condition to have.

The notion of maximum heart rate was designed to help people safely and effectively exercise. The maximum heart rate is theoretically the most times that your heart can safely beat in the span of one minute. The traditional formula for computing maximum heart rate is 220 - age. I am 29, so my maximum heart rate would be computed at 191 beats per minute. As you can see, maximum heart rate will decrease with age.

It has been speculated that the generic equation for determining maximum heart rate is not very accurate. Individuals of the same age will have different sized hearts, stroke volume, blood pressure, resting heart rates, and other factors that would contribute to the maximum possible beats per minute. A few attempts have been made to “fine tune” the formula, but even those efforts may fall short. One formula is known as the “adjusted heart rate”. It involves removing the resting heart rate from the maximum before applying a target formula. For example, if my target heart rate were 193, 80% of my maximum would be 154 beats per minute. In other words, my “target” heart rate at 80% is 154 beats. Using the adjusted method, I would first subtract my resting heart rate, apply the percentage, then add it back in. So, in this example:

193 (maximum heart rate) - 39 (resting heart rate) = 154.

154 x 80% = 123.

123 + 39 (adding resting heart rate back) = 162.

Therefore, instead of the traditional 154 beats per minute, my “adjusted target” at 80% would be 162 beats per minute. Another “tweak” to the traditional formula is known as the Tanaka method. Based on a study of literally thousands of individuals, a new formula was devised which is believed to be more accurate. The formula is 208 - 0.7 x age. Using this formula, my maximum heart rate when I was 27 would have been 208 - 0.7 x 27 = 189, or about 3 beats per minute less than the traditional formula. So why even worry about your heart rate? Heart rate is a great indicator of training. In order to better understand heart rate, you must understand the various “systems” of energy that your body uses when you train. There are three systems that are always in effect, but one system will dominate based on the type of training. These systems are ATP-CP and glycolytic (both are anaerobic, or systems that do not rely on oxygen as the primary energy source) and aerobic.

The ATP-CP system is the system that bodybuilders are most familiar with. It is the system where your body is forced to perform work without the aid of oxygen. When you perform a repetition during a weight training exercise, your muscles contract and must generate force quickly to resist the weight. This action happens quickly, and your body is not able to use oxygen to fuel the contraction. Instead, your body will rely on stores of energy within the muscle cells, namely a compound called adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and creatine phosphate. ATP depletes rapidly, and is replenished by CP. Sports that rely on this system include power lifting, shot put, and short distance sprints.

Bouts of work lasting more than a few seconds will draw energy mainly from the glycolytic system. Once ATP and CP are depleted, the glycolytic system kicks in. This system takes carbohydrate stored in the muscle cell (glycogen) and breaks down the glycogen to replenish ATP. Sports that utilize the glycolytic system include mid-distance sprinting, basketball, volleyball, boxing, and football. These are all sports that involve prolonged periods of moderate activity mixed with short bouts of near maximal effort.

Marathon runners and other distance runners use the aerobic system. The aerobic system utilizes oxygen for energy. The blood transports oxygen, so this system has the largest influence on the heart. Any type of activity that is prolonged (more than a few minutes) and does not involve repeated bouts of near maximal effort would use the aerobic system as the primary source of energy. Keep in mind that all systems are being used, but the aerobic system becomes the predominant system.

The rate at which your heart is pumping can help indicate which energy system is dominant at any given period of time. This is where the maximum heart rate and target heart rates become useful. Traditionally, training “zones” have been determined based on percentage of the target heart rate. The common breakdown of these training zones is:

50% - 60% = low intensity
60% - 70% = fat-burning zone
70% - 80% = aerobic zone
80% - 90% = anaerobic zone
90% - 100% = maximal zone

The low intensity zone is ideal for burning calories without stressing your body. If you are recovering from a workout or an injury, on a reduced-calorie diet, or looking to burn additional calories with minimal impact on muscle gains, this a great zone to work out in. Brisk walking on an incline is an ideal way to reach this zone, and the main drawback is time. It takes the longest amount of time to burn a given number of calories when training in this zone.

The fat-burning zone is what I consider the land of myth. This is the most misunderstood zone in training. When you are at 60 to 70 percent of your target heart rate, the majority of your calories burned will come from fat, during that training session. Over 65% of your burned calories can come from fat. Due to this trivial fact, many people believe that this is the necessary zone to burn fat. This is not necessarily true. Any time you create a caloric deficit, or expend more calories than you consume, you will lose weight in the form of fat and/or muscle mass. While other systems may burn less percentage of fat, they can burn more calories and therefore result in greater fat loss!

As an example, let’s talk about the “aerobic zone.” In this zone, intensity increases, so less of your calories are burned from fat. However, due to the increased intensity, you burn more calories per minute. Does this mean that you should avoid the aerobic zone if fat loss is your goal? Let’s break this down.

It is estimated that 45% of calories in the “aerobic zone” are burned from fat. Let’s say you run 6mph to reach the “fat-burning zone” and you run 9mph to reach the “aerobic zone”.

In one hour, you will run either 6 miles or 9 miles. According to research, a 175-pound person burns on average about 34 calories per mile. So, in one hour, you might burn:

6 x 34 = 204 calories, or
9 x 34 = 306 calories

In the fat-burning zone, you burned 65% of your calories from fat. This is 204 x .65 = 133 calories from fat.

In the aerobic zone, you burned 45% of your calories from fat. This is 306 x .45 = 138 calories.

As you can see, getting comfortable and going into the “fat burning” zone actually burned fewer calories. You might say, “What’s the big deal? It was only 5 calories difference.” But when you take into account total calories, you burned over 100 more calories in the aerobic zone. Since total calories expended have the largest impact on the amount of fat you will lose, obviously the aerobic method will result in more fat loss (provided you also resistance train so that you are not losing muscle) than the “fat-burning” method.

The fat-burning zone and below used the aerobic system. In the aerobic zone, you are still using the aerobic system of energetics, but may see a shift towards the glycolytic system. Once you reach 80%, you are venturing into the glycolytic and ATP-CP zones (over 90% is going to be predominantly ATP-CP). So heart rate relative to your maximum heart rate can help understand where your fuel is coming from and even how many calories you will burn. What is interesting to note is that the longer you sustain an elevated heart rate (i.e. aerobic zone or higher), the longer it takes for your body to recover by slowing down. This means you continue to have a faster metabolism and to burn more calories even after your training is done!

I mentioned these “traditional” zones because I don’t like to follow tradition when it comes to monitoring heart rate. For one, I feel that perceived effort is just as valid an indicator. Why limit yourself based on a “zone” you must workout in, when you can simply push yourself to achieve your results! Another problem with the traditional method is that it does not take into account errors with the heart rate calculations - should I train in the same zone as someone whose resting heart rate is 75 beats per minute (my own resting heart rate is around 39 beats per minute)? I don’t think so - I think that the lower resting heart rate is an indicator of advanced fitness and means that I can train more intensely. What if your heart is maxing out at 170 beats per minute instead of 193? Should you still “push the limit” because the equation tells you to? I don’t think so.

Heart rate can still be a useful tool for training, but you must learn to use your body as the tool, not the equation. For example, if you want to understand what your anaerobic zone is, instead of plugging away at a formula, why not perform anaerobic work? I can guarantee that you will be using your ATP-CP system (a completely anaerobic system) when you perform a one-rep max. So instead of taking 90% of 220 minus your age, just strap on a heart rate monitor the next time you perform a maximum lift. Then, instead of relying on statistics, your body will tell you what your “anaerobic” zone is. This may not be traditional, but do you think your heart will lie?

Once you have this useful information, you can apply it to your training. If you are performing high intensity interval training, and would rather have your heart dictate the intervals than your perception, let your body be the guide. Start by walking on an incline for several minutes. This is your low intensity zone. Now go outside and perform an all-out sprint. This will be your high intensity zone. Now you simply build intervals between those two heart rates for your training. Again, no equation that has no clue what the size of your heart is or what your blood chemistry is like - let your body be the tool.

As a final note, heart rate can apply to resistance training as well. If you are looking to reduce body fat, calories are king. Should you rest 15 seconds? 1 minute? How about staying in the “aerobic” zone? Pick a target rate for your training. Your “75% effort” (somewhere between your sprinting and incline walking) could be the bottom line. Simply rest until your heart rate drops to that level, and then perform the next set. This will ensure your heart rate is always elevated to a minimal level while allowing sufficient recovery to move on. When you are training for strength or heavy lifts, how long should you rest? 3 minutes? 10 minutes? Again, why not let your body decide. Rest until you fall to the fat-burning zone or even less, then start the next set. For you, this may only take 2 minutes, while another person will recover after 10 minutes of rest. The key is that your body is telling you when sufficient recovery has taken place to perform the next set - not some rigid standard like “4 minutes” that doesn’t take into account your specific, individual recovery ability.

When you are training, don’t forget the most important muscle: your heart. Not only is it an indicator of health, it is a tool that can help to improve your health. Instead of relying on cookie-cutter formulas, you can use your heart as an interactive gauge to tailor your workouts to your own unique body. Learn that the heart matters and use the powerful information it provides to build your peak physique.

"The maximum heart rate is theoretically the most times that your heart can safely beat in the span of one minute. The traditional formula for computing maximum heart rate is 220 - age. I am 29, so my maximum heart rate would be computed at 191 beats per minute. As you can see, maximum heart rate will decrease with age."

The statement from the post above is where most people go wrong when training with heart rate zones because it simply isn't true. 

First Maximum Heart Rate is NOT the most times your heart can safely beat in one minute.  It is simply the maximum number of times your heart can beat in minute, period.  There is no "safely" to it.  This implies that it would be dangerous for you to exercise at a level of intensity above your calculated maximum heart rate.  The reality is that is impossible to exercise at an intensity above your maximum heart rate because your maximum is just that, your maximum and it cannot be exceeded.

Secondly, there is no accurate formula for determining you maximum heart rate.  This is a personal number specific to each individual and age has nothing to do with it so it CANNOT be predicted with a formula.  Furthermore, each individual has different maximums for different activities. In other words, a triathlete training to swim, ride, and run will have different training zones for each activity because maximum heart rate they can achieve will vary from one discipline to another.

At lastly, Maximum Heart Rate does not decline with age.  There was some evidence that maximum heart rate declined over time in sedentary individuals which was the basis for the outdated predicting formulas but it is well know that maximum heart rate remains largely unchanged in active adults as they age.

Manufactures of heart rate monitors would prefer that this weren’t true because it makes their product less useful to the average person.  Polar has programmed their higher end products with built in fitness tests to make them more accurate but lower end monitors that use age to determine target zones need to be tweaked by the user to be more accurate based on real heart rate maximums.  Also, none of the manufactures reveal the formulas that they use to calculate “calories burned” so it up to the user to determine whether or not they think that this information is reliable.  I have found mine to be fairly consistent with the available tables when I have it adjusted for my correct MHR, which is about 190 while cycling even though I am 49.  My heart zones haven’t changed in the 15 years that I’ve been training with a heart rate monitor.  I have been able to push my LT up though.

Original Post by melkor:

Oh, ghod .- Fuhrman.

 The guy who thinks you need about one-tenth of the protein that the   Journal of American College of Nutrition research shows? The same Fuhrman who thinks that "The China study" contains valid science? That Fuhrman? The same Fuhrman who claims calorie counting doesn't work?

 Oh, yeah, I'll take training advice from that Fuhrman.

 Not.

 For athletes looking to maximize performance and training effects from each workout heart rate zone training has merit as a tool for cardiovascular conditioning.

 For anyone looking for general health benefits and/or to lose fat it's complete BS; the "fat burning zone" is nonsense from any perspective - when training in the "fat burning zone" you may burn a higher relative percentage of calories from fat, but that's completely irrelevant to your results - 60% of 300 calories an hour from fat is proportionally greater than 40% of 800cal/hour, but it's still less in actual amount of fat used. And it also overlooks that the bulk of your fat burn happens outside of formal exercise, and that higher-intensity exercise upregulates the effectiveness of your lipase enzymes. Plus there's how your body mostly balances out the percentages of energy expenditure over a 24-hour period, so if you burn more carbs during exercise your body will expend more energy from fat outside of formal exercise.

 Fuhrman's source neatly avoids pointing this out directly, and if you didn't already know the facts on the ground you'd walk away from that article with the entirely wrong impression of how to train for fat loss, including a misunderstood notion of how to determine your maximum heart rate.

 Well. On the macro level Fuhrman and company have the right general idea, but they get the details so horribly wrong that the overall result is anything but healthy.

Yeah, I knew I read somewhere that the fat burning zone was a myth!

Original Post by dave98z3:



The fat-burning zone is what I consider the land of myth. This is the most misunderstood zone in training. When you are at 60 to 70 percent of your target heart rate, the majority of your calories burned will come from fat, during that training session. Over 65% of your burned calories can come from fat. Due to this trivial fact, many people believe that this is the necessary zone to burn fat. This is not necessarily true. Any time you create a caloric deficit, or expend more calories than you consume, you will lose weight in the form of fat and/or muscle mass. While other systems may burn less percentage of fat, they can burn more calories and therefore result in greater fat loss!

As an example, let’s talk about the “aerobic zone.” In this zone, intensity increases, so less of your calories are burned from fat. However, due to the increased intensity, you burn more calories per minute. Does this mean that you should avoid the aerobic zone if fat loss is your goal? Let’s break this down.

Uhhh...you do realize how that contradicts the first link?

I wouldn't consider the fat burning zone a myth, it's just science misapplied.  As discribed several times above target heart zones are irrelevant for weight loss. 

Misapplied science is prevalent in the health/fitness field.

I don't think Melkor was replying to me (since I didn't quote Fuhrman), but I think there are some points that can be made that indicate a middle ground between Melkor's and dave's positions.  I'm going to make those points by replying to Melkor's post.  Melkor, if by doing so I misrepresent anything you were trying to say, it certainly is not my intent.  If that does happen, feel free to correct me, and please accept my apologies for the error.

Original Post by melkor:

(clipped out first part of Melkor's comments)...

 For athletes looking to maximize performance and training effects from each workout heart rate zone training has merit as a tool for cardiovascular conditioning.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. :)

 For anyone looking for general health benefits and/or to lose fat it's complete BS; the "fat burning zone" is nonsense from any perspective - when training in the "fat burning zone" you may burn a higher relative percentage of calories from fat, but that's completely irrelevant to your results - 60% of 300 calories an hour from fat is proportionally greater than 40% of 800cal/hour, but it's still less in actual amount of fat used.

I agree with that, too - except that I think "nonsense from any perspective" is a significant overstatement. (Hence my comment that, "And even if it is right, it may be that the most *efficient* fat burning regime isn't the one that will burn the most total calories of fat for a given period of time."  However, if going at a bit lower intensity (especially when first beginning to exercise) allows one to exercise longer and build stamina, that can be a great building block for increasing calorie burns down the road, as well as potentially burning more calories during a given workout due to longer durations.  I have very little doubt that if I want to burn the highest possible number of calories today that I probably should strive to work out such that I maintain the highest (safe) heart rate for me that I can maintain for the entire time I have available to exercise.  However, in terms of achieving long-term goals I have found that there is considerable value in working out for longer periods of time at a slightly lower HR.

Fuhrman's source neatly avoids pointing this out directly, and if you didn't already know the facts on the ground you'd walk away from that article with the entirely wrong impression of how to train for fat loss, including a misunderstood notion of how to determine your maximum heart rate.

 Well. On the macro level Fuhrman and company have the right general idea, but they get the details so horribly wrong that the overall result is anything but healthy.

Unfortunately, that seems to be a consistent thing we can count on in MANY of the methods that are proposed for people to lose weight/get in shape/get cut/etc.... people either push the advantages of "their" program while downplaying the disadvantages, or they stretch (probably unintentionally) the evidence supporting their preferred program beyond what that evidence really supports.

(As an aside, one of the posts above says that the lowest recorded heart rate was 28 bpm.  I would argue that's just the lowest possibly healthy heart rate that has been recorded. The lowest *recorded* rate is zero... )

Yeah, I knew I read somewhere that the fat burning zone was a myth!

Not a myth.  Often (usually?) misunderstood or misapplied - but not a myth.

I have both the wrist pulse monitor and the strap monitor--I highly recommend going for the strap.  I find the wrist monitor frustrating b/c it doesn't work great if you sweat or if you are moving (on mine you have to push the button on the wrist watch to get your heart rate). Spending a few extra bucks will save you a lot of frustration. Who wants that while working out...

 

Original Post by ledgehanger:

Yeah, I knew I read somewhere that the fat burning zone was a myth!

Not a myth.  Often (usually?) misunderstood or misapplied - but not a myth.

I have a magic rod. It kills people. It focuses my Chi into a sharp point, and strikes at people.

Okay, I don't have a magic rod, but it does kill people, as it's actually a M1 carbine.

Calling the fat burning zone a myth is similar. I completely agree with you, from a training perspective. I think that your traning methodology is spot on. But the point of calling the fat burning zone a myth is that there's no magical thing about keeping your heart rate at a certain level to achieve weight loss, which is, more or less, what the myth is. It doesn't mean that there's not a utility to a similar praxis. But just because you manage to achieve a goal with misinformation that replicates useful information doesn't mean that the misinformation is any less mythical, it's only that it's still useful folklore.

Furthermore, if the points trhawley raises are accurate, (regarding the general uncertantly of heart rates numbers in general) any such information is largely useless for the vast majority of people, because there's little that exertion levels can't tell you.