Quote:
Originally Posted by baffled111
Meg, what do you take to be the advantage of the heart rate monitor? The ones on the machines at my gym are pretty hit and miss (sweaty hands and they will report a heartrate that suggests I might be half dead), but since I'm a bit confused by this "weight loss target" and "cardio target" HR business, I haven't been fussing about it. Should I be?
Baffled, I'm addicted to my HR monitor.
The first reason is that not all of my gym's cardio equipment has built in HR monitors and I imagine I'm working harder than I really am unless I see the numbers and push myself (I'm inclined to be lazy
). Second, the cardio monitors built into the machines are grossly inaccurate and read wa-a-ay too high. My monitor is set to my age, gender, height, and weight and tells me I'm burning about 50% of what the machines say. That's a BIG difference!
I also use my HR monitor to do cardio intervals, working in different heart rates zones for defined periods of time.
One advantage mine has over the ones in machines is that it will track an entire workout - cardio and weights - and give a read-out on calories burned when I'm finished. I was thrilled to discover that my heart rate and calories burned are almost as high when I'm lifting weights as when I'm doing cardio. I can hit 90% of my max HR on a good set of squats or bicep curls.
As for the so-called 'cardio zones' and 'fat-burning zones' you see on the machines ... they're a myth perpetuated by machine manufacturers. Check out this recent thread for more info:
Cardio versus fat burn? What we care about is total calories burned and the more intensely you exercise and the higher your heart rate, the more calories you're burning.
Some studies have shown that we burn the most fat mixing in some cardio intervals, like when you're jogging then sprint for a minute, recover, jog, sprint again etc. Do you use interval training in your cardio workouts now?