# Heart Rate and Cardio Exercise



## Phoenix44 (Nov 17, 2005)

Anybody out there an exercise physiologist?  

According to conventional wisdom, to get a good cardiovascular workout, you should aim for 65% (for beginners) to 80% (advanced) of your "maximum" heart rate, with the maximum defined as 220 minus your age.  By that standard, I should be hitting around 136.  But no matter how hard I exercise, my heart rate doesn't go higher than 120 or so.

Then it occurred to me:  my resting heart rate is about 54, so 120 is more than twice my resting heart rate.  So maybe I'm still getting a good cardio workout.  Does that make any sense, or am I just lazy?


----------



## Shirt Ripper (Nov 17, 2005)

With a resting heart rate of 54ish, you must be in pretty good shape to start with.
With that generalized means of find ones "exercise zone" one can allow for a "give or take" situation of 10 or 12 bpm.  You are probably doing alright.

What are you doing when taking these measurements?  Give some details, just curious.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 17, 2005)

I'm usually cycling or doing cardio-kickboxing.  Occasionally I run.  (I hate running)


----------



## arnisador (Nov 17, 2005)

Running bores me to tears. I use an elliptical trainer for cardio like this (also a bit dull).


----------



## The Kai (Nov 18, 2005)

As I general run for my best cardio I run hard enough so that I have to put my cigarette down


----------



## MJS (Nov 18, 2005)

I don't buy into the heart rate percentages all that much.  If you're out there running, its going to be pretty hard to measure exactly where you are, unless you take the time to stop.  

IMO, anytime your rate goes up more than the resting rate, you're getting a cardio workout.  Are you breathing harder than you normally would?  Does your heart rate seem like its beating faster than normal?  If we can answer yes to those questions, ones cardio is being improved upon.

Mike


----------



## Shirt Ripper (Nov 18, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> I don't buy into the heart rate percentages all that much. If you're out there running, its going to be pretty hard to measure exactly where you are, unless you take the time to stop.
> 
> IMO, anytime your rate goes up more than the resting rate, you're getting a cardio workout. Are you breathing harder than you normally would? Does your heart rate seem like its beating faster than normal? If we can answer yes to those questions, ones cardio is being improved upon.
> 
> Mike


 
True to an extent, you not eating cheetos and suck a cigarette, so that's good.

I hate ellipticals, no science to back it or anything and nothing against others using them, they just feel lame, in my opinion.  I'd rather run.


----------



## MJS (Nov 18, 2005)

Shirt Ripper said:
			
		

> I hate ellipticals, no science to back it or anything and nothing against others using them, they just feel lame, in my opinion. I'd rather run.


 
When I was working out at the gym, (I now workout at home), I would use the elliptical machine for my cardio.  I found that out of all of the machines there, I'd get my best on that one.  Gave me a great workout in addition to there being alot less impact on the knees.

Mike


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 18, 2005)

Yeah, the heart rate percentages are really just guidlines. By that calculation my maximum heart rate would be almost 4 times my resting rate. Everyone is different and as your heart gets in better shape the percentages should change. I wouldn't agree that anytime your heart rate rises above resting its a cardio workout, but raising it above resting for a set period of time on a consistent basis, I would. Everyone is different, so no one thing will fit everyone, but as far as pure cardio health, consistentcy is the key.

7sm


----------



## MJS (Nov 18, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I wouldn't agree that anytime your heart rate rises above resting its a cardio workout, but raising it above resting for a set period of time on a consistent basis, I would.


 
Yes, thats what I was referring to. 




> Everyone is different, so no one thing will fit everyone, but as far as pure cardio health, consistentcy is the key.
> 
> 7sm


 
Absolutely!!  Unfortunately, its so much easier to put the lbs. on than to take them off.  That is probably why some people may get frustrated and give up, because they don't see quick results.

Mike


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 18, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Absolutely!! Unfortunately, its so much easier to put the lbs. on than to take them off. That is probably why some people may get frustrated and give up, because they don't see quick results.



So true! However, for burning fat or "weight" I think its more of a moderate steady heart rate, not too fast or too slow, just moderate rate at longer times. 

At least thats what "they" are saying now.

7sm


----------



## MJS (Nov 18, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> So true! However, for burning fat or "weight" I think its more of a moderate steady heart rate, not too fast or too slow, just moderate rate at longer times.
> 
> At least thats what "they" are saying now.
> 
> 7sm


 
Yes, I hear the same thing.  Many of the cardio machines out there today have programs where you can set it for fat burn, cardio, endurance, etc.

Mike


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 18, 2005)

Well, taking off pounds is different than getting a cardio workout.  Taking off pounds can be as simple as walking a mile a day where you DIDN'T walk a mile a day before.  Not necessarily pushing your heart rate, but it burns calories.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 18, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> When I was working out at the gym, (I now workout at home), I would use the elliptical machine for my cardio. I found that out of all of the machines there, I'd get my best on that one. Gave me a great workout in addition to there being alot less impact on the knees.



That's it for me. I use the one at the gym at work, and it gives me the best combination of a hard sweat and low stress on my knees. The cycle doesn't stress me enough, but jogging/treadmill is tough on my knees. The stairmaster and the rowing machine figure in to my cardio workout, but the elliptical machine is the best deal for me.

It took me a few times trying  it to adjust to the motion!


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 19, 2005)

Well, I guess I have to assume that whatever I'm doing, it's keeping my resting heart rate in the 50s, which means it's enough of a cardio workout.

Personally, I like cycling best, because you can actually go someplace on a bicycle.  But it's getting a little chilly lately...

Do you folks own your own stationary bikes, ellipticals, etc?  I'd like to buy something for indoors, but they're so expensive.  Of course, there's always FIT TV...


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 19, 2005)

I would consult a physician if your really worried about getting a workout designed to your own heart rate, but I personally wouldn't consider a workout that didn't raise your heart rate past 60 a realy cardio workout. Fat burning for sure, but the heart must be pushed just like any other muscle. You need to really push the heart rate up higher to really workout the heart (cardio). 

Again, just my own personal opinions,
 7sm


----------



## MJS (Nov 20, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Well, taking off pounds is different than getting a cardio workout. Taking off pounds can be as simple as walking a mile a day where you DIDN'T walk a mile a day before. Not necessarily pushing your heart rate, but it burns calories.


 
IMO, if you're getting on a machine and working hard, you're going to be getting the best of both..cardio and fat loss.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Nov 20, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Do you folks own your own stationary bikes, ellipticals, etc? I'd like to buy something for indoors, but they're so expensive. Of course, there's always FIT TV...


 
I bought a treadmill.  I'll alternate my workouts with walking one day and running the next time.

Mike


----------



## MountainSage (Nov 20, 2005)

I consider cycling to be the best choice because it can be done inside and outside.  Cycling can be incorporated into your everyday life; ride to training hall,work, or get a trailer and go to the store. You can ride year-round, even up North if you have the right gear and mental strength. If you don't feel you aren't getting a good cardio workout then increase a couple of gears and ride uphill.

Mountainsage
Michael Wood


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 21, 2005)

> You can ride year-round, even up North if you have the right gear and mental strength


 
I guess I'm lacking the mental strength...I'm not really happy in the cold!

:idunno:


----------



## Shirt Ripper (Nov 21, 2005)

MountainSage said:
			
		

> I consider cycling to be the best choice because it can be done inside and outside. Cycling can be incorporated into your everyday life; ride to training hall,work, or get a trailer and go to the store. You can ride year-round, even up North if you have the right gear and mental strength. If you don't feel you aren't getting a good cardio workout then increase a couple of gears and ride uphill.
> 
> Mountainsage
> Michael Wood


Excellent points.  Limited, however, in the total calory "burnage" simply because your sitting down.  And also your conditioning, as we all have to consider our martial arts while training, your legs and hip are doing practically everything.  Throw in some bear crawls or some hand walking and you got a good set-up.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 21, 2005)

Well, I'm not considering here a total body conditioning plan, which would presumably include strength training and flexibility.  I'm just thinking about the cardio component, raising the heart rate.  For cardio, I personally prefer cycling, because it's a lot easier on the knees than running.  I also like cardio kickboxing, because of the variation in movement, so it's more interesting.


----------



## Shirt Ripper (Nov 21, 2005)

Okay, gotcha.  This sparks an interesting thought of that I, unfortunately find myself knowing little to nothing about off-hand.  It is obvious that certain activities will bode greater stress and thus gain cardiovacularly but which are more beneficial, all things being equal.  Hmmm...I may have some research ahead of me.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 22, 2005)

You must make a distinction between "cardio" to burn calories and fat or "cardio" to strengthen the heart. Only one is actually cardio work, but both get lumped together. If your goal is strengthening and health of the heart, a simple raising of the heart rate for a small section of time is not going to give you the best results. For burning calories and fat it will. 

Think of this; if your goal is to strengthen and build your biceps, you wouldn't do 10 curls of light weight a day and look for results. You need to really break down that muscle and build it up....your heart is the same way, its just a bit more serious if you do it wrong.

7sm


----------



## Navarre (Nov 22, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> You need to really break down that muscle and build it up....your heart is the same way, its just a bit more serious if you do it wrong.


 
How tactfully put.  heh heh


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 22, 2005)

Yeah, but my issue is, what parameter are you measuring?

The heart rate achieved during exercise is not the "goal."  The goal is cardiovascular health.  I think most doctors would consider a heart rate in the 50s in a healthy person who exercises regularly to be a sign of cardiovascular health, whether or not the individual achieves that 220 - age x 85% heart rate during training.

That's different than strength training, where you may well want to lift more and more weight.  I don't know anyone who says, "Hey, I'm going to shoot for a heart rate of 30!"


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 22, 2005)

True, but in that instance, heart rate alone is not used to determine cardiovascular health. I'm saying I dont agree with the equation (220- age x 85%). Because every person is different, and the resting heart reat is simply not enough on its own to show cardiovascualr health or lack of health. Also, we are talking about workouts here, and the resting heart rate has little to do with the type of workout needed to create a healthy heart.

7sm


----------



## Shirt Ripper (Nov 22, 2005)

'tis indeed possible to have common signs of strong health (fifty something RHR) and not truely be healthy.

Good points all around though, good talk.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 23, 2005)

> 'tis indeed possible to have common signs of strong health (fifty something RHR) and not truely be healthy.


 
OMG!  I'm going to have to update my will!!!


----------

