Heart Rate Monitor findings.

I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175, so
I headed off into the local hills one cold January night to see what my heart runs at whilst
cycling. Attacking Skidby hill which goes to about 200ft in half a mile, the rate went to around 140
and I could not get it to go above 150 even pushing myself quite hard. Indeed, cruising along on the
level later on the rate ticked along at 115 which is fine for fat burning, but of less use for
training for fitness.

I then thought I'd try it while playing 5 a side football outside with my workmates. I thought that
by simply chasing a ball around, my heart rate would be nowhere near that brought on by cycling up
hills. However, I was stunned to see after only 20 minutes, the rate at the max 175! It was
typically in the 160 - 175 region all through the game except when I went in goal. I couldn't
believe it, I can't see how short bursts of running would get the rate to the max, whereas by
cycling I can get nowhere near. Shows you how efficient a bike is.

One odd thing happened - I listen to AM radio on my rides which is inside a remote control attached
to my jacket at chest level, right next to the chest strap. Even though the transmitted signal from
the sensor is 5 kHz, the radio picks it up, meaning that I can hear my heart rate as an audible
"pip" in my earpieces.

Simon Mason Kingston upon Hull

On 23 Feb 2004 19:07:39 -0800, MasonS@BP.com (Simon Mason) wrote:

>I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175,
>so I headed off into the local hills one cold January night to see what my heart runs at whilst
>cycling. Attacking Skidby hill which goes to about 200ft in half a mile, the rate went to around
>140 and I could not get it to go above 150 even pushing myself quite hard. Indeed, cruising along
>on the level later on the rate ticked along at 115 which is fine for fat burning, but of less use
>for training for fitness.
>
> I then thought I'd try it while playing 5 a side football outside with my workmates. I thought
> that by simply chasing a ball around, my heart rate would be nowhere near that brought on by
> cycling up hills. However, I was stunned to see after only 20 minutes, the rate at the max 175! It
> was typically in the 160 - 175 region all through the game except when I went in goal. I couldn't
> believe it, I can't see how short bursts of running would get the rate to the max, whereas by
> cycling I can get nowhere near. Shows you how efficient a bike is.

The difference is that you're not carrying your bodyweight very often when on the bike! Triathletes
( especially fat ones like me! ) notice this very early on, where the perceived level of effort
returns a varied heart rate depending on which sport you're doing. Running is always the highest!

I'm still to be convinced about the 115 being ok for fat burning. Yes, the higher the hr, the less
percentage of calories coming from fat, but the more calories burnt in total. THey all have to come
from somewhere!

Cheers,

Steve
>
> One odd thing happened - I listen to AM radio on my rides which is inside a remote control
> attached to my jacket at chest level, right next to the chest strap. Even though the transmitted
> signal from the sensor is 5 kHz, the radio picks it up, meaning that I can hear my heart rate as
> an audible "pip" in my earpieces.
>
> Simon Mason Kingston upon Hull

ANY exercise will burn fat. Twirling effortlessly will burn fat. The rate at which it burns it is
another matter.

People who walk fast think that they burn more fat per mile. They don't. They just burn it faster.

Try posting this on the www.cyclingforums.com training forum.

__________________
www.cyclingforums.com

"Steve Holdoway" <steve@itemfront.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:rbvl309bdpotmp99n7elet2bh32t87adoi@4ax.com...
> On 23 Feb 2004 19:07:39 -0800, MasonS@BP.com (Simon Mason) wrote:
>
> >I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175

A figure that is seldom correct.

> >Attacking Skidby hill which goes to about 200ft in half a mile, the rate went to around 140 and I
> >could not get it to go above 150 even
...
> > I then thought I'd try it while playing 5 a side football outside with my workmates. I thought
> > that by simply chasing a ball around, my heart rate would be nowhere near that brought on by
> > cycling up hills. However, I was stunned to see after only 20 minutes, the rate at the max 175!
> > It was typically in the 160 - 175 region all through the game except when I went in goal. I
> > couldn't believe it, I can't see how short bursts of running would get the rate to the max,
> > whereas by cycling I can get nowhere near. Shows you how efficient a bike is.

Do you actually get excited playing football? OTOH short bursts of very fast running will give you a
higher rate. I can, and do, get just as high HRs on a bike as running.

> The difference is that you're not carrying your bodyweight very often when on the bike!
> Triathletes ( especially fat ones like me! ) notice this very early on, where the perceived level
> of effort returns a varied heart rate depending on which sport you're doing. Running is always the
> highest!

I bet lance's is pretty damn high when he's going up a hill sitting down (esp after being knocked
off by a kid!). It's got to have a lot to do with your proportions of muscles and their blood
supplies. I have certainly found that on some hills I could feel my legs running out of oxygen, and
the heart rate staying reasonable. I'll agree that its likely that unless you are very specialised
as a cyclist, running will give you higher rates.

> I'm still to be convinced about the 115 being ok for fat burning. Yes, the higher the hr, the less
> percentage of calories coming from fat, but the more calories burnt in total. THey all have to
> come from somewhere!

If you are using mainly carbohydrates, they'll come from food, very very quickly unless you can
manage to ignore your hunger. I'm less sure how this works if you are using a higher proportion of
fat, but you can certainly get far more hours in per week at such rates.

If the goal is weight loss then burning most calories is preferable to maximising fat metabolism, given that the difference between energy in and energy out dictates weight loss/gain.

While the greatest percentage of calories may come from fat at lower intensities (particularly while siting down watching TV) at higher intensities there is a greater absolute amount of fat and energy used (even though fat may provide a smaller % contribution of the energy).

There is lots of evidence now to suggest that if you want to maximise weight loss via exercise exercise for as hard as you can for as long as you have available; be that 10 mins or 8 hours. Exercising in this way maximises the amount of calories and fat used during the exercise (as a side effect you will also get fitter faster than if you ride around at 115 bpm).

Also if you wish to maximise fat use don't bother with training on an empty stomach or similar, but get fit instead. The fitter you are the more fat you use at relative and absolute intensities compared to less fit people.

www.cyclingforums.com

__________________
www.cyclingforums.com

"Simon Mason" <MasonS@BP.com> wrote in message
news:8862a1cc.0402231907.6f43abb0@posting.google.com...
> I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175,
> so I headed off into the local hills one cold January night to see what my heart runs at whilst
> cycling. Attacking Skidby hill which goes to about 200ft in half a mile, the rate went to around
> 140 and I could not get it to go above 150 even pushing myself quite hard. Indeed, cruising along
> on the level later on the rate ticked along at 115 which is fine for fat burning, but of less use
> for training for fitness.
>
> I then thought I'd try it while playing 5 a side football outside with my workmates. I thought
> that by simply chasing a ball around, my heart rate would be nowhere near that brought on by
> cycling up hills. However, I was stunned to see after only 20 minutes, the rate at the max 175!
> It was typically in the 160 - 175 region all through the game except when I went in goal. I
> couldn't believe it, I can't see how short bursts of running would get the rate to the max,
> whereas by cycling I can get nowhere near. Shows you how efficient a bike is.
>
> One odd thing happened - I listen to AM radio on my rides which is inside a remote control
> attached to my jacket at chest level, right next to the chest strap. Even though the transmitted
> signal from the sensor is 5 kHz, the radio picks it up, meaning that I can hear my heart rate as
> an audible "pip" in my earpieces.
>
> Simon Mason Kingston upon Hull

I don't think listening to yhe radio while riding a bike is a good idea !

Graham

I was maintaining 175bpm for half an hour on some of my fastest commutes. The exertion felt extreme
but exhilarating.

Those occasions where I was unable to raise my rate above 140bpm were when I was seriously
carbohydrate depleted. Progress was painfully slow.

Carbo Queen.

--
Helen D. Vecht: helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk Edgware.

"Graham" <gtgelliott@hotmailDOT.com> wrote in message
news:c1f4td$ecf$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
>
> I don't think listening to yhe radio while riding a bike is a good idea
!
>

I listen to the radio in one ear myself, and that's on a commute. I can still hear
aproaching traffic.

On 24/2/04 9:30 am, in article fRE_b.84301$j8.73855@fe08.usenetserver.com,
"2LAP" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:

> Steve Holdoway wrote:
>> I'm still to be convinced about the 115 being ok for fat burning. Yes, the higher the hr, the
>> less percentage of calories coming from fat, but the more calories burnt in total. THey all have
>> to come from somewhere! Cheers, Steve
>
>
> If the goal is weight loss then burning most calories is preferable to maximising fat metabolism,
> given that the difference between energy in and energy out dictates weight loss/gain.
>
> While the greatest percentage of calories may come from fat at lower intensities (particularly
> while siting down watching TV) at higher intensities there is a greater absolute amount of fat and
> energy used (even though fat may provide a smaller % contribution of the energy).

Doesn't this ignore teh various different stages of metabolism?

For the first few seconds you burn available ATP in the muscles. This is a sprint and cannot be led
for long. It is entirely anaerobic

The next stage is to burn carbo from existing free sources (eg food.) After about 45 minutes the
body shifts towards glucogenesis which burns fat.

The trick is to not overdo the first part and end up in an anaerobic state otherwise you will be
unable to continue until the body has caught up with you.

Eating directly after exercise is also a very good way to put the pounds back on. Energy adsorption
is maximal in the 30-60 minutes after exercise.

> There is lots of evidence now to suggest that if you want to maximise weight loss via exercise
> exercise for as hard as you can for as long as you have available; be that 10 mins or 8 hours.
> Exercising in this way maximises the amount of calories and fat used during the exercise (as a
> side effect you will also get fitter faster than if you ride around at 115 bpm).

The trick is to maximise output over that timescale. If you go hell for leather for one hour but
then cannot continue, you will burn less than trundling for eight hours.

> Also if you wish to maximise fat use don't bother with training on an empty stomach or similar,
> but get fit instead. The fitter you are the more fat you use at relative and absolute intensities
> compared to less fit people.

Surely training on an empty stomach (especially if you are going longer, slower) will be more
beneficial at any given point. However, getting fitter will move that point, even if it doesn't burn
as many calories.

I am speaking from the experience of having lost over 15 kg in the last 6 months through exercise
and moderating input as well as having a nodding acquaintance with the sports science centre across
the road (I do some work for some of the researchers there and go tot he lunchtime circuit
training).

Weight loss has come about by a combination of 1. Don't eat so much. Have a pathalogical aversion to
refined sugars and minimise the carbohydrate. No snacking between meals. Save alcohol and chocolate
as rewards..

2. Exercise. Short and hard. The lunchtime circuit trainign is about 30-40 minutes including warm
up. I aim to maintain a heart rate of 150-170 (I am
3) during the exercises. Some are easier than others. The strength ones I typically rate about 120.
I have a circuit I can do on the bike that involves riding around and up the local hill. There is
a road around the hill (about 1.5-2km per circuit) and it is just under a K to the top (75m
height gain). So I do laps and on alternate laps I ride up the hill. The aim is to do as many as
possible before I either get bored or too tired. This is long interval training.

4. Exercise long and far. I have been riding longer distances on the weekends. WIth so many small
towns and nice roads around there is plenty of variety to make loops longer or shorter, hillier
or flatter. These rides are from 2-4 hours duration at present. I'd like to be up to doing a
short audax event in the summer.

On the long rides I will drop by between 1-2 kilos in weight which after rehydration gives a weight
loss of about 0.5kg. I typically head off early in the morning and eat when I get back. The major
problem is not so much the fitness as the joints feeling a bit sore after that time on the bike.
Pulserate tends to be around 120-140, pushing up to 150-160 on the longer hills.

The downside is the perpetual hunger but you get used to that. Drink water instead of snacking. the
upside is the weight loss and feeling much better because of it. I still rank as 'obese' on the
standard BMI scales though. Only another ten or so kilo to go.

..d

"elyob" <newsprofile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tUE_b.833$FX1.8003645@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "Graham" <gtgelliott@hotmailDOT.com> wrote in message news:c1f4td$ecf$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> >
> >
> > I don't think listening to yhe radio while riding a bike is a good
idea
> !
> >
>
> I listen to the radio in one ear myself, and that's on a commute. I can still hear aproaching
> traffic.
>
>

that's maybe true but your mind could be elsewhere

"2LAP" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
news:fRE_b.84301$j8.73855@fe08.usenetserver.com...
> Steve Holdoway wrote:
> > I'm still to be convinced about the 115 being ok for fat burning. Yes, the higher the hr, the
> > less percentage of calories coming from fat,
but
> > the more calories burnt in total. THey all have to come from
somewhere!

> If the goal is weight loss then burning most calories is preferable to maximising fat metabolism,
> given that the difference between energy in and energy out dictates weight loss/gain.

I'd be suspicious at the simplicity of this point. If you use up 500g of carbohydrate today, you'll
either eat that much to catch up, or you won't be cycling tomorrow. Not entirely sure how that
works with fat.

> There is lots of evidence now to suggest that if you want to maximise weight loss via exercise
> exercise for as hard as you can for as long as you have available; be that 10 mins or 8 hours.

Does this evidence take into account hunger and eating behaviour? I don't doubt its the best way of
burning the most calories, but as above, I'm far from convinced on the logic that got us here.

> Exercising in this way maximises the amount of calories and fat used during the exercise (as a
> side effect you will also get fitter faster than if you ride around at 115 bpm).

again, if I do 1 hour of intense exercise today, I won't be doing any tomorrow. "always as hard as
possible" is not a good exercise plan.

MasonS@BP.com (Simon Mason) wrote in message news:<8862a1cc.0402231907.6f43abb0@posting.google.com>...

> I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175,
> so I headed off into the local hills one cold January night to see what my heart runs at whilst
> cycling.

Forget about 220 minus your age. It's nonsense. Your mhr is whatever it is. It varies by individual
and by activity. Mine goes way over 200 minus my age.

--
Dave...

Steve Holdoway <steve@itemfront.ltd.uk> wrote in message news:<rbvl309bdpotmp99n7elet2bh32t87adoi@4ax.com>...

> The difference is that you're not carrying your bodyweight very often when on the bike!
> Triathletes ( especially fat ones like me! ) notice this very early on, where the perceived level
> of effort returns a varied heart rate depending on which sport you're doing. Running is always the
> highest!

It depends on a lot of factors. My max heart rate is about 15 bpm higher for cycling than
for running.

--
Dave...

On 24/2/04 12:32 pm, in article
57db8bde.0402240432.38d4220e@posting.google.com, "Dave Kahn"
<dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> MasonS@BP.com (Simon Mason) wrote in message
> news:<8862a1cc.0402231907.6f43abb0@posting.google.com>...
>
>> I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175,
>> so I headed off into the local hills one cold January night to see what my heart runs at whilst
>> cycling.
>
> Forget about 220 minus your age. It's nonsense. Your mhr is whatever it is. It varies by
> individual and by activity. Mine goes way over 200 minus my age.

According to my max heart rate I am ten years younger...

(according to my shoe size and weight I am six inches taller as well).

Must remember to return this body for one the right size, if only I could find the receipt.

..d