HR vs WL

[DJerome]

I have been rowing for many years (just past 15 million meters) and have a question about weight loss and aerobic exercise, specifically with the Concept2.

STRICTLY ON THE BASIS OF LOSING WEIGHT (my emphasis), is it better to row 'as hard as you can', or use a heart rate monitor and keep your heart rate 'in the zone'? And by that I mean keep your heart rate at something around 85% of the defined maximum.

The reason I ask is that I tend to row above the maximum; it just feels sort of comfortable. But I'm not losing much weight. And I was wondering if actually slowing down my pace (and heart rate) would improve weight lose.

I usually row 10K but lately have been trying 15k.

Thanks in advance for any advice.
DaveJ

[rfahle]

DJ:

I have only been rowing about a year (2,500,000 meters) and I focused on losing weight dropping 30 lbs in the first six months. I have always used a HR monitor for recordkeeping, but, I haven't used it to limit my pace.

I used www.fitday.com to monitor my diet reducing calories to 2000 - 2100/day with 30 minutes/day rowing between 2:05 - 2:10/500m splits.

Regarding max HR targets, I found that there is a lot of difference between my "calculated max HR's" and my "actual max HR's". I warmed up good (1000m) and used both 500 and 1000 meter rows to find my max. My actual max HR was nearly 20 BPM higher than the calcuated HR. These facts really challenge one's attempt to target (85% of max HR) goals.

Good Luck!

Rick

[tomhz]

DaveJ,

If you are willing to spent more time on the C2 in order to loose weight I would advice you to row a bit slower and longer. If you are not (and I can imagine that, as you allready did 15 million) you are better off going as fast as possible.
One example:
1h at pace 2:10 uses 163W during 1h --> 590 kJoule
1.5h at pace 2:20 uses 131W during 1.5h --> 708 kJoule
1.5h at pace 2:10 might be too much

I don't know you pace but these are just examples. When time on the c2 is no issue you loose most weight doing a very slow marathon (at say: 60% of max HR) every day.

Tom

[DJerome]

DJ:


Regarding max HR targets, I found that there is a lot of difference between my "calculated max HR's" and my "actual max HR's".

Rick

Thanks for the response. That brings up another question.

How does one find their maximum HR? I know the easy way is something like 220-age. There was also some slightly more complicated way I copied out of a C2 update a few years back that took a resting HR (i.e. when you first wake up in the morning) and computed a aerobic and anaerobic range.

Are there other ways that would give me an idea about my MHR?

DaveJ

[nteeman]

I have been rowing for many years (just past 15 million meters) and have a question about weight loss and aerobic exercise, specifically with the Concept2.

STRICTLY ON THE BASIS OF LOSING WEIGHT (my emphasis), is it better to row 'as hard as you can', or use a heart rate monitor and keep your heart rate 'in the zone'? And by that I mean keep your heart rate at something around 85% of the defined maximum.

The reason I ask is that I tend to row above the maximum; it just feels sort of comfortable. But I'm not losing much weight. And I was wondering if actually slowing down my pace (and heart rate) would improve weight lose.

I usually row 10K but lately have been trying 15k.

Thanks in advance for any advice.
DaveJ

Dave,

This could be a debatable issue and there has been a lot written on this by many. But I will tell you what I have found. As I have been using my C2 since 2001 I rowed hard for a number of years and did not lose any weight of significance. On occasion I would burn out and need to take a few weeks off. Other times I would strain a muscle and need to take time off. In the end I achieved some degree of fitness but not any real weight loss. Then I made some changes. I used the Maffetone method of keeping my HR in an aerobic range and altered my diet. At first the lower HR seemed that I was not working hard enough but I stuck with it. The diet change was not volume of food I ate but quality of food--for the most part whole foods not processed foods. This may not be for you but you will have to make some dietary change if you want to lose weight.

And for that matter when we say 'lose weight' don't we really mean 'lose fat?' I know for me that is what I really wanted to lose. I know that you will always lose some lean mass when losing weight but if you eat right and exercise with a method for losing fat as your goal it can be done. If you exercise at a higher intensity more calories are burned. And even though the percent of fat goes down the overall amount of fat burned goes up. But is that good? You are also losing more lean mass this way. According to Maffetone by staying in the aerobic zone you are burning mostly fat, less lean mass and getting your metabolism to 'learn' to burn fat as the norm instead of glucose. While his method was developed for endurance atheletes to go further by using fat for energy at higher intensities instead of burning glucose and hitting a wall, it also is useful for those of us who are more interested in losing excess fat. Over time the intensity used while keeping your HR in the aerobic range will increase--you will work harder, burn more calories AND most of the calories will be fat.

This has been my experience and I hope this helps, but of course I know that others may disagree with this method. YMMV.

If you are interested you can find books by Philip Maffetone on Amazon--I have found them very helpful.

[rfahle]

DJ:

I checked through my reference files to locate the Karvonen Heart Rate Calculator recommended by one of our rowing physician team mates. The link provides suggested HR targets for weight loss and improved athletic performance. I hope that this helps.

Rick

http://www.briancalkins.com/HeartRate.htm

[Bob S.]

DJ:

I checked through my reference files to locate the Karvonen Heart Rate Calculator recommended by one of our rowing physician team mates. The link provides suggested HR targets for weight loss and improved athletic performance. I hope that this helps.

Rick

http://www.briancalkins.com/HeartRate.htm

According to that, my max is 138. I spent well over an hour in the mid 140s yesterday doing an HM, so I don't think that the calculator results have much meaning.

Bob S.

[nteeman]

DJ:

I checked through my reference files to locate the Karvonen Heart Rate Calculator recommended by one of our rowing physician team mates. The link provides suggested HR targets for weight loss and improved athletic performance. I hope that this helps.

Rick

http://www.briancalkins.com/HeartRate.htm

According to that, my max is 138. I spent well over an hour in the mid 140s yesterday doing an HM, so I don't think that the calculator results have much meaning.

Bob S.

Bob,

The meaning is that you workout over that max you are not in the aerobic range and going into the anaerobic range. You are using more sugar than fat for energy. You may prefer to workout that way but you will not be expanding your aerobic range (fat burning). When you start training in this aerobic zone it almost always feels too easy. Over time you will find that you have to work harder to reach this lower HR but in the beginning it does seem easy. The benefit is that you will burn fat and build endurance.

BTW, I find that Karvonen Heart Rate Calculator result TOO HIGH and think that Philip Maffetone's formula works better for most ages. Those younger than 20 or older than 70 need to make adjustments to his forlmula.

[LJWagner]

A description I read recently stated that fat takes longer to mobilize for energy, so a lower pace is conducive to fat burning, but yes you have to stay at the slower pace more time, but the benefit is more fat burning. Most folks have plenty to spare.

Working at a higher rate require more sugar, which is converted to energy faster (not enough time to "chew" the fat), thus you bonk out when going at high aerobic pace. Limited glycogen in the muscles and blood stream.

Top athletes train and extend the entire range of their energy system, sport and event dependent.

In college we had a guy who dropped 40 lbs, and still had multiple rolls around his middle, not a lot smaller. Not sure what he lost.

[DJerome]

Thanks for all the input.

I have decided to slow down a bit and keep my HR below the estimated 85% of maximum. Although it still feels a little 'unnatural' to row slower than I can, I'm keeping my eye on the monitor (for the most part) and we'll see what happens.

And for that matter when we say 'lose weight' don't we really mean 'lose fat?'

Yes that is exactly what I mean - to lose fat. As far as diet goes, I know I can do better, but it's difficult. I'm pretty much a vegetarian, but carbohydrates seem to be my downfall.

Thanks for the link to the heart rate calculation. I believe that's the calculation I use, and got from an old issue of the Concept 2 Update.

I'm off to paddle for a week in northern Maine and then it will be back to the rower.

All the best
Dave

[hjs]

DJ:

I checked through my reference files to locate the Karvonen Heart Rate Calculator recommended by one of our rowing physician team mates. The link provides suggested HR targets for weight loss and improved athletic performance. I hope that this helps.

Rick

http://www.briancalkins.com/HeartRate.htm

According to that, my max is 138. I spent well over an hour in the mid 140s yesterday doing an HM, so I don't think that the calculator results have much meaning.

Bob S.

Bob,

The meaning is that you workout over that max you are not in the aerobic range and going into the anaerobic range. You are using more sugar than fat for energy. You may prefer to workout that way but you will not be expanding your aerobic range (fat burning). When you start training in this aerobic zone it almost always feels too easy. Over time you will find that you have to work harder to reach this lower HR but in the beginning it does seem easy. The benefit is that you will burn fat and build endurance.

BTW, I find that Karvonen Heart Rate Calculator result TOO HIGH and think that Philip Maffetone's formula works better for most ages. Those younger than 20 or older than 70 need to make adjustments to his forlmula.

No bob max is much higher than 138. This is not 220 min your age. that's a simple quite useless average.

[hjs]

A description I read recently stated that fat takes longer to mobilize for energy, so a lower pace is conducive to fat burning, but yes you have to stay at the slower pace more time, but the benefit is more fat burning. Most folks have plenty to spare.

Working at a higher rate require more sugar, which is converted to energy faster (not enough time to "chew" the fat), thus you bonk out when going at high aerobic pace. Limited glycogen in the muscles and blood stream.

Top athletes train and extend the entire range of their energy system, sport and event dependent.

In college we had a guy who dropped 40 lbs, and still had multiple rolls around his middle, not a lot smaller. Not sure what he lost.

If the body can it will spare the sugur (glycogeen) , so exercise on a modarate level you will use relative more fat. On a higher level fat is not a good sourch of energy so the body has to use glycogeen.

To lose weight (fat) you simply have to burn more than you consume.
exercising to slow will not help much. Which people are the most fit/lean.
Those who exercise very modorate ot those who do more than that?

[nteeman]

According to that, my max is 138. I spent well over an hour in the mid 140s yesterday doing an HM, so I don't think that the calculator results have much meaning.

Bob S.

Bob,

The meaning is that you workout over that max you are not in the aerobic range and going into the anaerobic range. You are using more sugar than fat for energy. You may prefer to workout that way but you will not be expanding your aerobic range (fat burning). When you start training in this aerobic zone it almost always feels too easy. Over time you will find that you have to work harder to reach this lower HR but in the beginning it does seem easy. The benefit is that you will burn fat and build endurance.

BTW, I find that Karvonen Heart Rate Calculator result TOO HIGH and think that Philip Maffetone's formula works better for most ages. Those younger than 20 or older than 70 need to make adjustments to his forlmula.

No bob max is much higher than 138. This is not 220 min your age. that's a simple quite useless average.

I'll stick with what I wrote, I find the Karvonen formula too high, I prefer Phil Maffetone's formula. I've achieved better results using that. This is my opinion and of course your's may vary. I never said that 138 was his max only that he would get better results working at a lower HR. That has been my experience. Remember he posted because he was training so hard yet not losing weight. He can continue to train hard and not lose weight or take a step back and examine what he's doing and consider that if it is not working doing it this way maybe he should consider changing what he is doing.

[LJWagner]

Hjs:

Lean can be too thin, who lift tiny weights, like many women in aerobics classes.

Very fit is usually lean, with high strength to body weight, high endurance in many sports. I was slim, but not too lean, since I ate what I burned, around 6,000 calories a day.

Big and fit is more impressive, captain of the rowing team my freshman year comes to mind. 6'4", 210 lbs, and faster than me, a sprinter.

[hjs]

Hjs:

Lean can be too thin, who lift tiny weights, like many women in aerobics classes.

Very fit is usually lean, with high strength to body weight, high endurance in many sports. I was slim, but not too lean, since I ate what I burned, around 6,000 calories a day.

Big and fit is more impressive, captain of the rowing team my freshman year comes to mind. 6'4", 210 lbs, and faster than me, a sprinter.

That's exacly what I mean.
Train and eat to fit, don,t Go "fatburning" and starve yourself.