If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
questions about cardio training (frequences, intensity, etc...)
Hueyduck wrote in message ...
billydee wrote: - for those who took the time (and spent the money) to check their *real* maximal heart rate, did you find a big difference between the results and the theoric "220-age" number ? YES Thanks for your answer. Could you give us number. Like the theoric number and the real thing after having been to the doc. Thanks again. Huey My actual max HR is about 200 determined through a stress test at the drs office. My predicted using 220-age is 181. If you do regular cardio there is no reason you have to lose a beat a year, though it eventually will decrease--no stopping the aging process entirely. The 220-age thing was designed for sedentary individuals and is more accurate for those that eat bon-bons on the couch than those who engage in regular activity. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
questions about cardio training (frequences, intensity, etc...)
"Hannah Gruen" wrote in message ...
"billydee" wrote you burn a higher PERCENTAGE of fat to glucose at that level, but at higher intensities you burn more overall calories. That's right. I read a good post from Lyle MacDonald once that addressed this subject. Maybe Huey could find it by doing a Google search. At any rate, he pretty much shot out of the water the concept of exercising at certain rates in order to "burn more fat". True that you burn different proportions of fat to glucose depending on various factors including exercise intensity and duration, but the bottom line is to use up energy (calories) via any permutation of exercise in order to hopefully create or increase a negative calorie balance. That's what actually causes fat loss over a period of days, weeks etc. In other words, burn more calories and you'll lose more fat, assuming food intake stays the same. Besides which, if you're doing a ketogenic low-carb diet, you don't have all that much stored glucose anyhow and will be burning mostly fat regardless of intensity. HG At higher intensities you have to be careful of overtraining--especially on a ketogenic diet. Sometimes it is best to back off the intensity. You have to listen to your body. It's not always best to go as hard as you can all the time. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
questions about cardio training (frequences, intensity, etc...)
On 10 Aug 2004 10:48:53 -0700, billydee wrote:
Hueyduck wrote in message ... billydee wrote: - for those who took the time (and spent the money) to check their *real* maximal heart rate, did you find a big difference between the results and the theoric "220-age" number ? YES Thanks for your answer. Could you give us number. Like the theoric number and the real thing after having been to the doc. Thanks again. Huey My actual max HR is about 200 determined through a stress test at the drs office. My predicted using 220-age is 181. If you do regular cardio there is no reason you have to lose a beat a year, though it eventually will decrease--no stopping the aging process entirely. The 220-age thing was designed for sedentary individuals and is more accurate for those that eat bon-bons on the couch than those who engage in regular activity. I think it's an individual thing. My calculated max HR is 180, and that's about what my max HR is according to my HR monitor. But my max HR has been 180 for a while now. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
questions about cardio training (frequences, intensity, etc...)
"billydee" wrote
At higher intensities you have to be careful of overtraining--especially on a ketogenic diet. Sometimes it is best to back off the intensity. You have to listen to your body. It's not always best to go as hard as you can all the time. Good point. I'm not sure whether I agree this is more true for a person who is long-term adapted to a ketogenic diet, but you could be right. I totally agree about the "listening to your body" thing. I think it's the most important thing I've learned over the years, in terms of both diet and exercise. 've gotten myself into an overtrained state more than a few times and it's really counterproductive in the long run. I don't think most casual exercisers are aware of it when they get there. In fact, I'd never really heard of it nor was I aware of the symptoms. Even after hearing about it, I assumed it would apply only to "serious" athletes, not just some middleaged lady who came home from work and ran too many miles, too often. HG |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
questions about cardio training (frequences, intensity, etc...)
"billydee" wrote
At higher intensities you have to be careful of overtraining--especially on a ketogenic diet. Sometimes it is best to back off the intensity. You have to listen to your body. It's not always best to go as hard as you can all the time. Good point. I'm not sure whether I agree this is more true for a person who is long-term adapted to a ketogenic diet, but you could be right. I totally agree about the "listening to your body" thing. I think it's the most important thing I've learned over the years, in terms of both diet and exercise. 've gotten myself into an overtrained state more than a few times and it's really counterproductive in the long run. I don't think most casual exercisers are aware of it when they get there. In fact, I'd never really heard of it nor was I aware of the symptoms. Even after hearing about it, I assumed it would apply only to "serious" athletes, not just some middleaged lady who came home from work and ran too many miles, too often. HG |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
questions about cardio training (frequences, intensity, etc...)
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:08:29 -0400, Hannah Gruen
wrote: "billydee" wrote At higher intensities you have to be careful of overtraining--especially on a ketogenic diet. Sometimes it is best to back off the intensity. You have to listen to your body. It's not always best to go as hard as you can all the time. Good point. I'm not sure whether I agree this is more true for a person who is long-term adapted to a ketogenic diet, but you could be right. I totally agree about the "listening to your body" thing. I think it's the most important thing I've learned over the years, in terms of both diet and exercise. 've gotten myself into an overtrained state more than a few times and it's really counterproductive in the long run. I don't think most casual exercisers are aware of it when they get there. In fact, I'd never really heard of it nor was I aware of the symptoms. Even after hearing about it, I assumed it would apply only to "serious" athletes, not just some middleaged lady who came home from work and ran too many miles, too often. HG It would be great if there was a simple test for overtraining. Supposedly, you can take your heart rate in the morning as soon as you wake. If your resting HR is several beats above what it is normally, you might be overtrained (or had one too many beers!). However, even this isn't that reliable, supposedly. My problem is that I have to get up so quickly to get dressed and get outside, that I always forget to take my HR. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:08:29 -0400, Hannah Gruen
wrote: "billydee" wrote At higher intensities you have to be careful of overtraining--especially on a ketogenic diet. Sometimes it is best to back off the intensity. You have to listen to your body. It's not always best to go as hard as you can all the time. Good point. I'm not sure whether I agree this is more true for a person who is long-term adapted to a ketogenic diet, but you could be right. I totally agree about the "listening to your body" thing. I think it's the most important thing I've learned over the years, in terms of both diet and exercise. 've gotten myself into an overtrained state more than a few times and it's really counterproductive in the long run. I don't think most casual exercisers are aware of it when they get there. In fact, I'd never really heard of it nor was I aware of the symptoms. Even after hearing about it, I assumed it would apply only to "serious" athletes, not just some middleaged lady who came home from work and ran too many miles, too often. HG It would be great if there was a simple test for overtraining. Supposedly, you can take your heart rate in the morning as soon as you wake. If your resting HR is several beats above what it is normally, you might be overtrained (or had one too many beers!). However, even this isn't that reliable, supposedly. My problem is that I have to get up so quickly to get dressed and get outside, that I always forget to take my HR. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Hueyduck wrote:
|| Hi everyone, || || I just bought a device to measure my heart rate monitor, and I find || it || so much fun to be able to see precisely how effective my activity is. || Anyway, I have some questions for the cardiotraining specialists out || the || || - for those who took the time (and spent the money) to check their || *real* maximal heart rate, did you find a big difference between the || results and the theoric "220-age" number ? I've found it to be pretty close for me, but others frequently find otherwise. || || - The instruction manual of my monitor says that in orderto use fat, || you need to be between 60 and 70 bpm. They say it is a light to || moderate effort. Is there any real proportion between heart rate || beating and calorie burned ? I guess so but it's not so obvious to || me. This old notion has been challenged a lot in recent times. If you train in the range of 60 to 70%, you may indeed burn more fat, but you don't expend that much energy. On the other hand, if you mix really hard intervals of training with low intervals, you can end up burning more energy in the same amount of time. In addition, according to the theory, you can ramp up your body's use of energy for a longer period of time after the exercise. So, if you do the latter (called high-intensity interval training, or HIIT) you can get (so the theory goes) up to 9 times more fat burned. But rather than reading my 2-minute description, do some reading of your own: http://www.wsu.edu/~strength/hiit.htm http://www.stumptuous.com/cardio.html http://www.wsu.edu/~strength/bodycomp.htm http://www.cbass.com/FATBURN.HTM and if you try it, please report back on your progress. || || Thanks for your answers and have a nice evening. || || || Huey || || ============================================ || Huey / started LC October 27th 2002 || (1.74 m) 5ft 8 inch tall || lbs : 234 / 186 / 147 (-47) mini-goal : 182 lbs by August 20th 2004 || kg : 106.4 / 84.9 / 67 (-21) mini-goal : 83 kg by August 20th 2004 || =========================================== |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Hueyduck wrote:
|| Hi everyone, || || I just bought a device to measure my heart rate monitor, and I find || it || so much fun to be able to see precisely how effective my activity is. || Anyway, I have some questions for the cardiotraining specialists out || the || || - for those who took the time (and spent the money) to check their || *real* maximal heart rate, did you find a big difference between the || results and the theoric "220-age" number ? I've found it to be pretty close for me, but others frequently find otherwise. || || - The instruction manual of my monitor says that in orderto use fat, || you need to be between 60 and 70 bpm. They say it is a light to || moderate effort. Is there any real proportion between heart rate || beating and calorie burned ? I guess so but it's not so obvious to || me. This old notion has been challenged a lot in recent times. If you train in the range of 60 to 70%, you may indeed burn more fat, but you don't expend that much energy. On the other hand, if you mix really hard intervals of training with low intervals, you can end up burning more energy in the same amount of time. In addition, according to the theory, you can ramp up your body's use of energy for a longer period of time after the exercise. So, if you do the latter (called high-intensity interval training, or HIIT) you can get (so the theory goes) up to 9 times more fat burned. But rather than reading my 2-minute description, do some reading of your own: http://www.wsu.edu/~strength/hiit.htm http://www.stumptuous.com/cardio.html http://www.wsu.edu/~strength/bodycomp.htm http://www.cbass.com/FATBURN.HTM and if you try it, please report back on your progress. || || Thanks for your answers and have a nice evening. || || || Huey || || ============================================ || Huey / started LC October 27th 2002 || (1.74 m) 5ft 8 inch tall || lbs : 234 / 186 / 147 (-47) mini-goal : 182 lbs by August 20th 2004 || kg : 106.4 / 84.9 / 67 (-21) mini-goal : 83 kg by August 20th 2004 || =========================================== |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is Atkins + cardio & weight training enough to lower BF%... | GroupRateNOT! | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 16 | June 14th, 2004 10:31 PM |
Top 5 Exercise Questions | I Fraigun | General Discussion | 5 | April 20th, 2004 02:19 AM |
Top 5 Exercise Questions | I Fraigun | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | April 20th, 2004 02:19 AM |
cardio vs weight training | determined | General Discussion | 9 | April 6th, 2004 04:24 PM |
couple questions about weight training | Marsha | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 29 | January 28th, 2004 02:46 AM |