Heart Rate Question ...

CoolRunning.com > Cool Running Community > Basic Training >

Up to Threads in Basic Training

37 Replies Last post: Jun 11, 2007 12:01 PM by jflv Go to original post 1 2 3 Previous Next

runawayjesse

538 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

15. Jun 8, 2007 8:55 PM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

Here's another interesting article. their were studies done to prove the "fat burning zone" myth.

High intensity cardio, including high intensity interval training (HIIT), is very effective and time efficient, although it's not for beginners or those with certain health problems).

It's common sense if you think about it - work harder, burn more calories, right?

Here's where the confusion has come from:

It's well known that low intensity exercise utilizes primarily fat as fuel and high intensity exercise utilizes more carbohydrate as fuel.

In the past, this was the basis for the idea that low intensity, long duration aerobic exercise was superior for fat loss. Some people were were afraid to exercise too hard because they thought it would take them out of the "fat burning zone" and make them them burn only "sugar" and not body fat.

Today, research has proven that this belief in exercising at a low intensity to stay in the "fat burning zone" was false. At lower intensities, you burn more calories from fat, but you burn fewer total calories.

For example, a 1995 study conducted by Grediagin, et al, published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association (95(6):661-5) compared fat loss in two groups over a 12 week period.

One group performed exercise at 80% of VO2 max for a duration sufficient to burn 300 kcal, the other group performed exercise at 50% of VO2 max for a duration sufficient to burn 300 calories (took a lot longer, of course). Hydrostatic body composition testing revealed that...

***Each group lost an identical amount of fat.***

The authors concluded:

"This study suggests that fat loss is a function of energy expended rather than exercise intensity. Therefore, if fat loss is the goal and time is limited, persons should exercise safely at as high an intensity as tolerable to expend as much energy as possible during their allotted time."

In my opinion, that conclusion pretty much hits the nail on the head when it comes to answering the questions, "How long and how hard should your cardio workouts be?"

Another study published by Ballard, et al in the same journal (51(2):142-6, 1990) showed identical findings. High (80-90% VO2max) versus low (40-50% VO2max) intensity rates were compared in two groups with duration carefully controlled to ensure each group burned the same number of calories.

The high intensity group exercised for only 25 minutes and the low intensity group for 50 minutes...

***Both groups lost the same amount of body fat! ***

Keep in mind BOTH approaches worked, but the high intensity group got it done in half the time!

Regardless of whether your cardio sessions are 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 45 minutes, or whatever, the higher the intensity during that time period, the more TOTAL calories you will burn. The more TOTAL calories you burn, the more fat you burn.

Although many factors are involved in exercise-induced fat loss, the most important factor is the total number of calories burned, NOT whether the calories burned are fat or carbohydrate.

It's also important to consider energy expenditure after the workout, not just the calories burned during the workout. Higher intensities not only burn more calories per unit of time, but they also elevate your metabolism more at rest after the workout is over. This post workout increase in metabolic rate is known as "excess post exercise oxygen consumption" or EPOC for short.

It has been proposed, based on the results of several studies comparing the amount of calories burned at rest after low intensity versus high intensity exercise, that HIIT is a superior method of fat loss due to its effect on post workout metabolic rate.

Clearly, HIIT is the logical protocol of choice if you are healthy, already fit and you have little time to work out.

However, it's also logical that time permitting, more frequent and longer duration exercise might cause even greater overall fat loss if intensity is sufficient, simply because more total calories can be burned over the course of a week.

Remember, it's all about the intensity and the calories burned, not necessarily whether the workout is performed with intervals or in a steady state.

For example, if you do 20-25 minutes of very intense cardio, you might burn about 400 calories. That's a lot of calories for such a brief workout. But it only adds up to 1200 total calories in one week if your frequency is only three days per week.

If you (gradually) built up your frequency to four, five, then even six days per week, you could double your caloric expenditure to 2400 calories per week.

If you also increase your duration, your intensity will decrease so you'll burn fewer calories per minute, but the calorie expenditure for the entire workout is higher, which increases your total weekly calorie burn even further.

Duration and intensity are inversely related, so the longer the workout, the lower the intensity. But that doesn't mean a 30 or 45 minute workout necessarily has to be "low" in intensity.
A 30 or 45 minute steady state workout can be "moderate" or "moderately-high" in intensity. The combination of the highest intensity you can muster with a 30-45 minute duration can create an enormous calorie burn. Some of that calorie burn will occur after the workout as well, because studies have shown that EPOC is influenced not just by intensity, but also by duration.

Although infrequent and very brief (15-20 minutes or even less) HIIT workouts have recently gained great popularity (and deservedly so), that doesn't mean you should never do steady state cardio, nor does it mean that certain individuals aren't better off with longer, less intense cardio.

Respected organizations such as The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) still recommend longer daily and cumulative weekly exercise duration when the goal is fat loss.

The ACSM position stand titled, "The recommended quantity and quality of exercise" states, "A threshold level for total body mass and fat mass loss generally would require at least 30-45 min of exercise per session for a person of average fitness. If the primary purpose of the training program is
for weight loss, then regimens of greater frequency and duration of training and moderate intensity are recommended. Shorter duration, higher intensity programs may be recommended for healthy individuals at low risk for cardiovascular disease and orthopedic injury."

To avoid overtraining, injury or aerobic adaptation, which become risks with higher intensity, frequency, and duration, it's important to build up slowly and ALWAYS get your physician's clearance before attempting high intensity cardio.

Naturally, of course, it's not wise to dramatically increase your training volume or intensity suddenly, but rather to increase gradually.

If your current goal is to maintain your level of body fat and stay healthy, I'd recommend starting with at least 20 minutes of cardio 3 days per week. If your goal is maximum fat loss, then time permitting, I would recommend higher frequency and duration, sometimes building up to much as 30-60 minutes 5-7 days per week, if necessary, based on your weekly results.

Once you reach your desired percentage of body fat, then you can gradually shift back into a "maintenance" program of lesser frequency, duration and intensity. This is a form of "cardio periodization," similar in nature to the periodization of weight training used by elite athletes. Staying on high volume cardio all year round is counterproductive and may lead to overtraining, aerobic adaptation and a plateau in fat loss.

Genetics also play a role in the ideal volume of cardio for fat loss. If you're one of the few people who are genetically blessed with the fast metabolism and physical attributes to burn fat easily, then three days a week for twenty minutes often provides sufficient stimulus for results. In fact, I know a few people with hyperactive metabolisms who stay ripped all year round without doing any cardio at all (I hate those people, don't you?)
The bottom line is that a single cardio workout prescription, such as "three days a week for 20 minutes" will not work for everyone. Exercise programs must be developed on an individual basis and they are not static. The frequency, duration AND intensity all need to be adjusted based on your results.

If the intensity is high enough, three twenty-minute cardio sessions may be sufficient for you, depending on your goals, your current level of fitness and your actual results, but longer and/or more frequent cardio sessions are sometimes a "necessary evil."

You can learn much more about calories, metabolism and fat burning foods by visiting 1. www.BurnTheFat.com[/URL" target="_blank">
Editor's Note: Christian Finn, another certified personal trainer, wrote an article titled, A Better Way to Burn Fat Faster - Or Is It? In the article he discusses the "high intensity vs. low intensity" debate as well.

formationflier

989 posts since
Oct 13, 2007

16. Dec 22, 2007 11:07 AM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

quote:<HR>Originally posted by runawayjesse:
This is what I don't get. You say the lower intensity you run the better for fat loss yet, but, but wait, don't think about walking. How the heck does your body know the difference? According to your logic it would actually be better to walk very slowly for 20 miles rather than run. After all low intensity exercise burns more fat right?

Also the more efficent you become at an exercise the less calories you will burn doing it. Regardless of time mileage whatever. When you get a new runner starting up running they might burn 100 calories per 10 min of running. If they hold that same intensity of running consistantly for some time their body will become effiecient at that activity and burn less calories. So in three months time they are now burning only 75 calories per 10 mins. Who gives a rats a** what percentage of of fat or carbs your burning you are burning less calories. This is exactly what training is- becoming effiecient. For us training to race it's a great deal. For weight loss not so good.

I agree running at high heart rates all the time isn't good BUT and it's a big but that doesn't mean it's bad to run at higher heart rates. You can effectively run at higher intensitys everyday if you wish and burn more calories in far less time than just jogging alone. Also higher heart rates doesn't automaticly mean it's anaerobic. You can sprint all out for 30 even 45 seconds with 1-2 min rest and not fall into oxygen depth. I know people that do this each and every run they do and they build their aerobic capacity. This is very aerobic and the variation in intensity will burn more calories, a greater percentage of fat, and boost matobolism. It also holds the benefit of recruting more muscle fibers. The jog recoveries work type I while the sprints work Type II. Jogging alone will not have this benefit till wayyy late in the run and you tire all your type I muscle fibers.

Another caveat to jogging all high mileage for weight loss. Lots and i mean lots of that weight loss will come from muscle mass. Running at a steady intensity for long time periods will burn a portain of fat, protien and carbs weather you like it or not. Muscle mass speeds matablosim. If you are dieting it isn't wise to lose muscle. So what lift weights? Go jog 100 miles per week and it completely cancels out your weight training. Your merly working to replace lost muscle. Add a reduced calorie diet on top of that and weight training is now almost a wast of time.

Jesse, can you comment on my article on HIIT I posted above?

<HR>

First of all, I never said anywhere, in any post, including this
one, anything even implying that the "lower intensity you run,
the better for fat loss." I made a very, very simple statement
that says the lower the intensity, the higher the percentage of
fat vs carb you use for fuel. The problem that many people make
is that they equate that to saying that using more fat for fuel
means more weight loss. That's "the myth" and your interpretation
of my statement is the exact problem many people have that
don't understand what exactly it means. Henceforth, I also said
that the more miles you
run, the more calories you burn. Then I said that running burns
more calories (per mile) than walking. I didn't talk about what
distinguishes running from walking, but the consensus seems
to be consistent with the definition that is used in walking
races that there always must be a foot on the ground when
walking, i.e., it's the up and down motion that provides more
calorie burn because more energy is expended. Will more intensity
spark up the metabolism
more? Perhaps, but who cares. I beefed up my metabolism
without a lot of intensity, so one can do very well by mileage.
Run more miles, burn more calories, watch your eating - it's
very simple. Now I don't need to watch my eating anymore
unless I stop running.
Honestly, I'm not terribly interested in long quotes by various
experts here. One can do some research and get it anywhere
with disputing opinions on every topic. My approach is to
present my own data and findings. I was reading today another
article from an expert that talked about how running most mileage
at less than 65% max heart rate will make someone a very slow
runner. I can state this fact - I ran my first marathon in 4:03 with
pretty much no training, just running miles that I didn't track in
any way, shape, or form. For my second marathon, I followed
Pfitzinger's 70 mpw advanced marathoning program. (It's a great
program for a true advanced marathoner who is well-fit aerobically).
Unfortunately, I was not well-fit aerobically and I ran it 4:23 after
an 8 mile death march. I cut out all intensity and speed work
from my training and reduced the intensity of every single
training run I did (in fact, I ran almost every training mile at
less than 60% of max heart rate), and worked my marathon
time down to 3:11
over a year and a half without any hard training runs (but have
run several marathons and ultras). So, the point is, one must
be careful about listening to experts and really try to understand
people's particular experiences.

Lastly, certainly I believe that running the most mileage at the
highest intensity possible will indeed result in the most weight loss,
assuming the extra intensity is not compensated by extra eating.
For many reasons.
The problem is that a large number of people get injured or
otherwise overtrained that way or they are simply not able to
run enough mileage to really see an effect. I lost over 70 lbs
in 4 months. So much so, that I became too skinny for my
own liking and I spent another 6 months to work to get 20 lbs
back on, where I've basically stabilized. Perhaps you've lost
more, but I haven't heard you tell the story of your own
personal experiences.

------------------
MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">
MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">
My marathons and ultras[/URL" target="_blank">
My races and reports[/URL" target="_blank">

http://This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited Jun-08-2007).

aharmer

460 posts since
May 25, 2005

17. Dec 22, 2007 11:07 AM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

"You can in fact get to a condition that runninning isn't burning calories."

runawayjesse,

Now I've heard it all. Could you please post a link showing that you can IN FACT get to a condition that running does not burn calories?

http://This message has been edited by aharmer (edited Jun-09-2007).

runawayjesse

538 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

18. Dec 22, 2007 11:07 AM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

quote:<HR>Originally posted by aharmer:
"You can in fact get to a condition that runninning isn't burning calories."

runawayjesse,

Now I've heard it all. Could you please post a link showing that you can IN FACT get to a condition that running does not burn calories?

http://This message has been edited by aharmer (edited Jun-09-2007).<HR>

Sorry my mistake. I meant burns less caloreies than when you started.

runawayjesse

538 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

19. Jun 9, 2007 9:02 AM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

Jesse, certently I appreciate you speaking from experience. Thanks! Did you read my article I potsed in my post right above your last post.

Ya see it's not just the fat burning myth. It's the misconception that a mile is a mile regardless of intensity. It is proven that higher intensity exercise burns more calories point blank. So a mile run at say 60% MHR will not burn as many calores as a mile run at 90% MHR theiorfore will not burn as much fat. Again read my article above their were studies done. Research it yourself you will see it is in fact, well a fact. Just because you believe in something doesn't give you the right to dismiss facts. Thats what I feel you are doing.

Also you don't seem to understand what I mean when I talk about HIIT. You keep equating that to some kind of puke your guts out workout. You speak like their is this line not to be crossed, not even for a milla second. Like if you run for 30 seconds at a higher effort per week you are risking injury. Don't you think running 100 slow miles per week doesn't risk inkury. You can lose more weight doing 30 miles per week at mixed intensitys. HIIT, Hill running, steady state cardio etc.. Bare in mind I'm speaking about weight loss here not endurance training.

On to my experience. I weighed 150 lbs when I started running not sure of my body fat % as I knew nothing about that yet. I started running with the goal of losing weight nothing more. All my runs were done at a tempo effort. I just didn't know any better. I went down to 118 lbs in just a few short months. I couldn't figure out why though I felt so weak and still had this little pouch covering my abs. That was when I begin to search fat loss etc.. I weighted 118 lbs with 15 % body fat. I was very weak. This is when I switched my goal to build muscle mass and drop body fat. By this time I was training to race so my running went through a few different cycles. I would achieve the best weight loss during my "anaerobic" phase when I was doing a mix of anaerobic running, hill running, jogging etc.. Anyways I achiieved my goal. Today I weigh 125 lbs with 7% body fat. My running actually improved from the muscle mass I gained(being weak I lacked power, a whole different story). Now today I'm rather "cut" looking. I have 6 pack abs that are visible all the time. My maintance calories did go up a little from just my running and diet alone. When I stood at 118lbs lacking muscle and with 15% body fat my miantance calories was at 2200 per day. As I gained muscle mass(through weight lifting) is when things sky rocketed. My maibtance calories are at 3200 today. it is important to note that when I had the goal of gaining muscle I actually gained some fat as well(al la bulking) than I followed a cutting phase(dieting) and maintained all my muscle that I gained while droping body fat ONLY like no one's busniess. I did this through multi paced training. In order to lose the weight I wanted to just jogging I would have to run higher mileage and by the time I got down to my 7% body fat goal my muscle mass would have been back in the dumper and matabloisim back down again.

formationflier

989 posts since
Oct 13, 2007

20. Jun 9, 2007 10:19 AM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

quote:<HR>Originally posted by runawayjesse:
Jesse, certently I appreciate you speaking from experience. Thanks! Did you read my article I potsed in my post right above your last post.

Ya see it's not just the fat burning myth. It's the misconception that a mile is a mile regardless of intensity. It is proven that higher intensity exercise burns more calories point blank. So a mile run at say 60% MHR will not burn as many calores as a mile run at 90% MHR theiorfore will not burn as much fat. Again read my article above their were studies done. Research it yourself you will see it is in fact, well a fact. Just because you believe in something doesn't give you the right to dismiss facts. Thats what I feel you are doing.

Also you don't seem to understand what I mean when I talk about HIIT. You keep equating that to some kind of puke your guts out workout. You speak like their is this line not to be crossed, not even for a milla second. Like if you run for 30 seconds at a higher effort per week you are risking injury. Don't you think running 100 slow miles per week doesn't risk inkury. You can lose more weight doing 30 miles per week at mixed intensitys. HIIT, Hill running, steady state cardio etc.. Bare in mind I'm speaking about weight loss here not endurance training.

On to my experience. I weighed 150 lbs when I started running not sure of my body fat % as I knew nothing about that yet. I started running with the goal of losing weight nothing more. All my runs were done at a tempo effort. I just didn't know any better. I went down to 118 lbs in just a few short months. I couldn't figure out why though I felt so weak and still had this little pouch covering my abs. That was when I begin to search fat loss etc.. I weighted 118 lbs with 15 % body fat. I was very weak. This is when I switched my goal to build muscle mass and drop body fat. By this time I was training to race so my running went through a few different cycles. I would achieve the best weight loss during my "anaerobic" phase when I was doing a mix of anaerobic running, hill running, jogging etc.. Anyways I achiieved my goal. Today I weigh 125 lbs with 7% body fat. My running actually improved from the muscle mass I gained(being weak I lacked power, a whole different story). Now today I'm rather "cut" looking. I have 6 pack abs that are visible all the time. My maintance calories did go up a little from just my running and diet alone. When I stood at 118lbs lacking muscle and with 15% body fat my miantance calories was at 2200 per day. As I gained muscle mass(through weight lifting) is when things sky rocketed. My maibtance calories are at 3200 today. it is important to note that when I had the goal of gaining muscle I actually gained some fat as well(al la bulking) than I followed a cutting phase(dieting) and maintained all my muscle that I gained while droping body fat ONLY like no one's busniess. I did this through multi paced training. In order to lose the weight I wanted to just jogging I would have to run higher mileage and by the time I got down to my 7% body fat goal my muscle mass would have been back in the dumper and matabloisim back down again.<HR>

First, as I mentioned above, I don't care about the absolute minimal
(and I truly believe it's very much in the noise) distinction between
higher intensity running and lower intensity running. No one really
needs all of that technobabble just to lose weight. For those studying
fitness and physiology, that's great, read up, but it's not needed just
for someone to get rid of the excess body fat. Nonetheless, I don't
mean to say that I don't think you should be posting it because
some people like to read that stuff, but don't expect me to get in a
a debate about it because (1) I'm not a physiologist and (2) I think
it's of minimal relevance to a basic question. There are way too many
of us PhDs and PhD-types around here that spew out technobabble
left and right where it's not needed and I certainly have been guilty
of that myself, here and in the work environment. Furthermore, you're
not getting what I'm saying at all if you think by high-intensity, I'm thinking
of "puking your guts out" hard. In fact, on the contrary, I'm referring
to anything which is anaerobic or nearly anaerobic, at respiratory
quotients near or above unity, which for people in poor aerobic shape,
can seem like a very "slow" and "too easy" workout. Even people
who run a good number of miles at a slow pace can risk overtraining
due to being at too high of an intensity because they are still nearly
anaerobic. And by the way, I will contend that you are 100% wrong
to assume that one will lose more weight with 30 miles per week
of intense training vs 100 miles per week of low intensity training
(running, of course, not walking). Please show me some empirical
evidence for such utter nonsense. A basic set of data or
equations will suffice, rather than pages
and pages of babble. (If you're talking about 30 miles of climbing
mountains with miles of elevation gain vs 100 miles of flat course
running, I can easily see the balance point, but even then the
30 miles can be done at low intensity).

With all of that said, I will reiterate that the answer to the original
question is that to lose weight one should run as many miles as
he can and be careful about he eats.

At 125 lbs and virtually no body fat, you should be running a 2:30
marathon. You definitely have a runner's build! At the very least,
you blast my heavy-weight, 37 year old, easy-training, novice-runner
body into absolute oblivion.

------------------
MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">
MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">
My marathons and ultras[/URL" target="_blank">
My races and reports[/URL" target="_blank">

AthenaM

8 posts since
Sep 16, 2004

21. Jun 9, 2007 12:32 PM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

You have to strike a balance in regard to weight loss. For the past 3 days I have been running 90 minutes at 80% of my max heart rate and I went from 122 pounds to 119 pounds in 3 days. I'm 5'4" and a girl. It really didn't feel that challenging during the workout, but afterwards it really shocked my system and I felt a little nauseous after, and did NOT feel like eating!! So I'm gonna ease up.

I think the amount of time and intensity together really boosted my after workout burn.

A couple of weeks ago I ran 45 miles at below 70% of my max and lost no weight.

runawayjesse

538 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

22. Jun 9, 2007 2:08 PM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

quote:<HR>Originally posted by leitnerj:

With all of that said, I will reiterate that the answer to the original
question is that to lose weight one should run as many miles as
he can and be careful about he eats.

At 125 lbs and virtually no body fat, you should be running a 2:30
marathon. You definitely have a runner's build! At the very least,
you blast my heavy-weight, 37 year old, easy-training, novice-runner
body into absolute oblivion.

<HR>

Jesse I'm not at all saying running miles will not result in weight loss. It will!! But lets be practicle here. First were not talking about training to race here we are talking about weight loss. When a normal everyday soccor mom comes into the gym and has the goal of losing that extra flab on her but do you tell her, ohh go out and jog for 100 miles per week. It might take away from everything else in your life since it will take you 20 hour per week to exercise but thats what you have to do. Of couse thats not the answer.

Also we are talking about fat loss here not weight loss. Steady cardio or jogging whatever you call it for long periods will result in calories burned. So yes 100 miles per week will burn more overall calories. In that mix you are burning carbs and protiet as well. Your body fat might not even change much at all. You can easily go from 150 lbs to 118 lbs yet still carry a high percantage of body fat(as in my case).

So I'm not against your method of losing weight I'm just saying it isn't very optimal. Yes you will lose more body fat while maintaining muscle and gaining muscle by adopting a mix of reduced calorie dieting, mixed intensity cardio, and weight training. Even most busy single moms at my gym are producing amazing results on like 4 total hours exercise per week. Their is this board that has peoples goals and rewards them points. It's posted for everyone to see. Not many of them if any are running more than 25 miles per week(or the equlivent in some other cardio). FWIW- I'm not talking a quick fix method to weight loss I'm talking from a practicle standpoint.

I would say that jogging for 100 miles per week is deffently more of a risk to injury than what I'm suggesting.

Well I'm not a 2:30 marathoner. I think it's more than a body type that dertermains that(though I wish it was). But yes I have been told that I have a nice runners phisque. But it took work. Whats you percentage of body fat?

I'm not so sure what I can post. You seem to have a method that works for you and thats great. I posted some simple facts(not babble) above, I have seen results in myself and others. Let me try to gather some data from the folks at my gym and I will be sure to post it. Really I'm not lieing I have seen people go from fat to hot all while maintaining a social life.

Dana Becker

392 posts since
Nov 20, 2007

23. Jun 9, 2007 2:31 PM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

quote:<HR>Originally posted by runawayjesse:
Jesse I'm not at all saying running miles will not result in weight loss. It will!! But lets be practicle here. First were not talking about training to race here we are talking about weight loss. When a normal everyday soccor mom comes into the gym and has the goal of losing that extra flab on her but do you tell her, ohh go out and jog for 100 miles per week. It might take away from everything else in your life since it will take you 20 hour per week to exercise but thats what you have to do. Of couse thats not the answer.

Also we are talking about fat loss here not weight loss. Steady cardio or jogging whatever you call it for long periods will result in calories burned. So yes 100 miles per week will burn more overall calories. In that mix you are burning carbs and protiet as well. Your body fat might not even change much at all. You can easily go from 150 lbs to 118 lbs yet still carry a high percantage of body fat(as in my case).

So I'm not against your method of losing weight I'm just saying it isn't very optimal. Yes you will lose more body fat while maintaining muscle and gaining muscle by adopting a mix of reduced calorie dieting, mixed intensity cardio, and weight training. Even most busy single moms at my gym are producing amazing results on like 4 total hours exercise per week. Their is this board that has peoples goals and rewards them points. It's posted for everyone to see. Not many of them if any are running more than 25 miles per week(or the equlivent in some other cardio). FWIW- I'm not talking a quick fix method to weight loss I'm talking from a practicle standpoint.

I would say that jogging for 100 miles per week is deffently more of a risk to injury than what I'm suggesting.

Well I'm not a 2:30 marathoner. I think it's more than a body type that dertermains that(though I wish it was). But yes I have been told that I have a nice runners phisque. But it took work. Whats you percentage of body fat?

I'm not so sure what I can post. You seem to have a method that works for you and thats great. I posted some simple facts(not babble) above, I have seen results in myself and others. Let me try to gather some data from the folks at my gym and I will be sure to post it. Really I'm not lieing I have seen people go from fat to hot all while maintaining a social life.<HR>

Good lord, Jesse. You spin things so out of context. "I have seen people go from fat to hot all while maintaining a social life" People don't need to excercise 15 hours a week to be fit and look good. In fact, many people (especially younger) don't have to do a **** thing to look good. What is your point on that, exactly?

Where did anyone here say you had to run 100 mpw to get a good physique? Did I miss something in this thread?

Again, we know MAF didn't work out for you, for whatever reason. We get it. Maybe you should start your own thread with your experiences and have others try them.

willamona

384 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

24. Jun 9, 2007 5:40 PM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

Why would someone want to do interval training consistently? Wouldn't that lead to going stale after a few weeks and then greatly increasing the chance of injury?

Wouldn't it make sense to stick to an even keeled pace? That way the person would more than likely stick with the program for the long term, right? I will never know from experience but I have heard you need both excersize and diet to lose weight. If you burn out on one, the other will not work alone. Running is cheep. All you need is road and shoes. A ton of people pick up running simply because of that. A bunch of these newbies run too fast as it is, let's not make it worse by telling them to run even faster. You need a good base before you start your intervals to at least reduce the chance of hurting yourself. If you start out with the hard stuff and get hurt, I would guess that it would make the weight loss part incrediblably hard. Then understand that once a newbie gets hurt running, the chances of them coming back to it are slim to none. They now think it is way too hard.

I ate at an all you can eat buffet today. I noticed that I was one of the thinnest people there. My BMI is in the 'normal' range. My point is that if someone asked me how to run, I would say, just go as slow as you can to start out and then come talk to me in a year. Let's face it, if they can get through the first year, the lifestyle choice has been made and they are well on their way. Maybe at that point they can try some intervals to peak for a race. Maybe their diet has changed so much in that time that they no longer need the intervals.

These ideas are based on the fact that I have only been hurt during the speed work phase of a program. Usually it has been minor but twice it has been a major injury that required a few months of recovery. I am sure that if I also had a weight loss goal, I would have been fairly ticked off that I could not excersize at all.

In the end, people are just going to do what they want anyway, so I guess my two cents will be something like this. runawayjesse has a habit of being a bit trollish and coming into any heart rate thread just to stir the pot. You see, he tried low heart rate training once and it turned out that he is one of the few people that do not show improvement with low heart rate training. They are few and far in between, but they do exist. The ongoing experiment is in the MAF thread here. He is the only dropout I know of, but that does not mean that he is alone. (I am currently reading the first thread and I am still just on the first third. runwayjesse has not made an appearance yet.) The point is, he seems to have an agenda. He does the best he can to steer everyone away from what turned out the be a waste for time for him. I don't think he understands that he is the exception that proves the rule.

My advice is to just run. Keep the effort and therefore the heart rate low. This will keep you active and in the sport for years to come. But I like to think in the long term. I am not the typical American that needs things handed to me RIGHT NOW. I can wait a couple of years. If you need things right now, go get the stomach stapled.

------------------
***********
My myspace[/URL" target="_blank">
No Complaining[/URL" target="_blank">
My User Profile[/URL" target="_blank">
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ [/URL" target="_blank"> Because many have asked...

runawayjesse

538 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

25. Jun 9, 2007 6:51 PM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Docster:

Good lord, Jesse. You spin things so out of context. "I have seen people go from fat to hot all while maintaining a social life" People don't need to excercise 15 hours a week to be fit and look good. In fact, many people (especially younger) don't have to do a **** thing to look good. What is your point on that, exactly?

Where did anyone here say you had to run 100 mpw to get a good physique? Did I miss something in this thread?

Again, we know MAF didn't work out for you, for whatever reason. We get it. Maybe you should start your own thread with your experiences and have others try them. <HR>

My point was simple. Someone chimed in with the advice that to lose fat you need to exercise in a low intensity. Low intensity but not walking. And if your going to run you need to run a lot for it to work. Hers is the quote-

"Don't expect to lose a lot of weight by running 20 or 30 miles per
week. If you really want to lose weight, run a good amount of
mileage and control your calorie intake. It's as simple as that."

Ummm yeah like i said I have seen many, many people slim way down running less than 30 MPW. It's not only possible but also a more optimal way to lose body fat. Again I posted facts above but I'm starting to see I just wasted my time. You jumped in the thread, read a post ot two than jumped to conclusions. Your first question to me made me suspicious of that. Your MAFF reference(which has no place in this thread) confirmed it.

And yes, you did miss something.

runawayjesse

538 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

26. Jun 9, 2007 6:57 PM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

quote:<HR>Originally posted by willamona:
Why would someone want to do interval training consistently? Wouldn't that lead to going stale after a few weeks and then greatly increasing the chance of injury?

Wouldn't it make sense to stick to an even keeled pace? That way the person would more than likely stick with the program for the long term, right? I will never know from experience but I have heard you need both excersize and diet to lose weight. If you burn out on one, the other will not work alone. Running is cheep. All you need is road and shoes. A ton of people pick up running simply because of that. A bunch of these newbies run too fast as it is, let's not make it worse by telling them to run even faster. You need a good base before you start your intervals to at least reduce the chance of hurting yourself. If you start out with the hard stuff and get hurt, I would guess that it would make the weight loss part incrediblably hard. Then understand that once a newbie gets hurt running, the chances of them coming back to it are slim to none. They now think it is way too hard.

I ate at an all you can eat buffet today. I noticed that I was one of the thinnest people there. My BMI is in the 'normal' range. My point is that if someone asked me how to run, I would say, just go as slow as you can to start out and then come talk to me in a year. Let's face it, if they can get through the first year, the lifestyle choice has been made and they are well on their way. Maybe at that point they can try some intervals to peak for a race. Maybe their diet has changed so much in that time that they no longer need the intervals.

These ideas are based on the fact that I have only been hurt during the speed work phase of a program. Usually it has been minor but twice it has been a major injury that required a few months of recovery. I am sure that if I also had a weight loss goal, I would have been fairly ticked off that I could not excersize at all.

In the end, people are just going to do what they want anyway, so I guess my two cents will be something like this. runawayjesse has a habit of being a bit trollish and coming into any heart rate thread just to stir the pot. You see, he tried low heart rate training once and it turned out that he is one of the few people that do not show improvement with low heart rate training. They are few and far in between, but they do exist. The ongoing experiment is in the MAF thread here. He is the only dropout I know of, but that does not mean that he is alone. (I am currently reading the first thread and I am still just on the first third. runwayjesse has not made an appearance yet.) The point is, he seems to have an agenda. He does the best he can to steer everyone away from what turned out the be a waste for time for him. I don't think he understands that he is the exception that proves the rule.

My advice is to just run. Keep the effort and therefore the heart rate low. This will keep you active and in the sport for years to come. But I like to think in the long term. I am not the typical American that needs things handed to me RIGHT NOW. I can wait a couple of years. If you need things right now, go get the stomach stapled.

<HR>

If you read a few of the articles I posted above it will answer some of your questions. In short, no you do not need an aerobic base to do HIIT. HIIT in itself is a form of aerobic aerobic exercise.

I'm not so sure where you find MAFF in this disscussion. Everything I posted above I was speaking about weight loss and body fat. A bit biased against me are we?

What is your experience with weight loss? Other than the fact you can look around at the buffet and see other people are fatter than yourself.

willamona

384 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

27. Jun 9, 2007 7:12 PM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

Jesse, all of your concerns are touched upon in my post. You have gotten all defensive again. I hate to mother you again, but quit being defensive and relax.

------------------
***********
My myspace[/URL" target="_blank">
No Complaining[/URL" target="_blank">
My User Profile[/URL" target="_blank">
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ [/URL" target="_blank"> Because many have asked...

runawayjesse

538 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

28. Jun 9, 2007 7:36 PM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

Yes mam!! Ha, Ha, Ha. how was your run today mom?(LOL)

willamona

384 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

29. Jun 9, 2007 8:02 PM

in response to: jflv

Re: Heart Rate Question

About what one would expect I guess. The humidity is starting to creep up a touch. I don't like that one bit. Meh, I'll live.

------------------
***********
My myspace[/URL" target="_blank">
No Complaining[/URL" target="_blank">
My User Profile[/URL" target="_blank">
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ [/URL" target="_blank"> Because many have asked...

Go to original post 1 2 3 Previous Next

Go to original post

Actions

More Like This