Cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Custom heart rate

ANSWERED
Replies are disabled for this topic. Start a new one or visit our Help Center.
When I go to look up my breakdown of my heart rate after a workout there is a row that's says peak, cardio, fat burn, and custom. What does custom mean?
Best Answer
0 Votes
1 BEST ANSWER

Accepted Solutions

Have you set a Custom heart rate range?

 

I ask because my heart rate handilly exceeds what Fitbit considers both my minimum and maximum thresholds.  When I first got my Fitbit Surge my workouts were showing my maximum heart rate clipped to what was supposed to be my maximum, however, I routinely exceed that number by ten to fifteen beats.  Same thing goes on the Sleeping/Resting side of the range (where I come in 30 or more beats per minute below the default minimum).

 

To get around the above issue, I created a "Custom" heart rate range of something like 30 to 192 (don't remembe exactly).  Every time my heart rate either exceeds or drops below the default range set for a 59 year old male, my "time in zone" is logged as being in the "Custom" zone.

View best answer in original post

Best Answer
15 REPLIES 15

Have you set a Custom heart rate range?

 

I ask because my heart rate handilly exceeds what Fitbit considers both my minimum and maximum thresholds.  When I first got my Fitbit Surge my workouts were showing my maximum heart rate clipped to what was supposed to be my maximum, however, I routinely exceed that number by ten to fifteen beats.  Same thing goes on the Sleeping/Resting side of the range (where I come in 30 or more beats per minute below the default minimum).

 

To get around the above issue, I created a "Custom" heart rate range of something like 30 to 192 (don't remembe exactly).  Every time my heart rate either exceeds or drops below the default range set for a 59 year old male, my "time in zone" is logged as being in the "Custom" zone.

Best Answer
Okay yes that makes sense I did have to change my ranged as well. So there really isn't away to know whether you were in a cardio of fat burn zone when it places it in the custom zone
Best Answer

Ignore the zones; you're burning calories either way.  FWIW, many-MANY folks in the running community consider the various zones pretty silly.

Best Answer
0 Votes
Okay that makes sense because I like to push to the high 170's in heart rate but since I'm got this blaze I have been scaling it back so that I'm in the fat burn zone to maximize weight loss.

Sent from my iPhone
Best Answer
0 Votes

@shipo wrote:

Ignore the zones; you're burning calories either way.  FWIW, many-MANY folks in the running community consider the various zones pretty silly.


I would'nt consider them silly for people who are not atholites (most people). I would consider them very important. In fact heart rate and time are the 2 things a person should know in order to get a training effect and increase their fitness level. You must keep your heart rate in a cardio zone for at least 20 minutes non stop to get a minimum training effect. many people don't know that and get very frustrated wondering why they are not increasing their cardio fitness level.

 

You seem like an avid runner, but I am talking about just the average person who wants to get to a good fitness level.

 

We should probably be a little more carefull about advising people about things that can possibly cause someone to injure themself.

Best Answer
0 Votes

Even for beginners I consider them silly (or worse).  There are numerous studies which show literally all of the formulas for heart rate max and heart rate zones are a poor predictor of how to train.  I won't belabor that point any longer; if you like them, use them.

 

As for those I coach and what I teach when coaching; for beginning runners, the only rule of thumb is to pay attention to their breathing:

  • If running brings you to the point where you're having a hard time catching your breath and are in immeninent danger of collapsing; you're running way too fast.
  • If running at a barely sustainable level for say a half hour, you're training at a tempo or race pace; this type of workout should only rarely be employed, and even then, only as a preparation for a race.
  • If runing at a pace where you can maintain a conversation in short sentences, then you're running at the right pace.

 

See, no heart rate zone voodoo involved; nice and simple.

Best Answer
0 Votes

@shipo wrote:

Even for beginners I consider them silly (or worse).  There are numerous studies which show literally all of the formulas for heart rate max and heart rate zones are a poor predictor of how to train.  I won't belabor that point any longer; if you like them, use them.

 

As for those I coach and what I teach when coaching; for beginning runners, the only rule of thumb is to pay attention to their breathing:

  • If running brings you to the point where you're having a hard time catching your breath and are in immeninent danger of collapsing; you're running way too fast.
  • If running at a barely sustainable level for say a half hour, you're training at a tempo or race pace; this type of workout should only rarely be employed, and even then, only as a preparation for a race.
  • If runing at a pace where you can maintain a conversation in short sentences, then you're running at the right pace.

 

See, no heart rate zone voodoo involved; nice and simple.


So you are saying that the CDC, AHA, and WHO are all voodoo?

The way the US Military trains in fitness is voodoo?

 

I was a fitness instructror in the Army back in my younger years, and they taught us how to train using the HR zones. If you keep your heart rate between 60 and 85 percent of your MHR for at least 20 minutes you will get a minimum training effect, and 85 to 100 percent was ok for short periods of time but not prolonged periods (if you are at a high fitness level), and you should avoid the peak zone until you get to a high fitness level.

 

I dont care how a person is breathing as different people breath differently. The heart rate is the determining factor in training effect.

 

Sorry if I'm wrong, but I think you claimed in another thread a while back that you consume 1 to 2 thousand calories more than you burn and still loses weight, and that the whole dieting system laid out by the CDC, AHA, and WHO are voodoo too.

 

In this thread I think you mention that you train 10 to 20 BPM above your MHR.

 

Did you ever see the youtube vidio (sure you could find it if you did a search) of a cardia surgean that started finding the same heart issues in people who over trained as he was in obese people who had heart issues due to their weight and poor diet?

 

Maybe that's voodoo too.

 

Maybe you are a high enough level atholite that conventional methods don't work for you any more, but the majority of the people on these forums are just regular people trying to just lose weight and get to a decent fitness level.

 

I just hope hou realize that someone could take your advice and cause injury to their heart. Or worse. You are free to believe anything you like, but standard systems that have been around since forever work pretty well for the majority of the population, and you seem to be giving pretty extream advice to people who may not know better and could possably injure themselves taking your advice.

Best Answer
0 Votes

Yes, I am in fact saying it is voodoo for many-many folks, I've said this before and I'll say it again, even a broken analog watch can be correct every now and again.  Like many other rule based trainings, I believe this one will ultimately be debunked (the process is already under way), and will be replaced with something much more sane; breathing for instance.

Best Answer
0 Votes

@shipo wrote:

Yes, I am in fact saying it is voodoo for many-many folks, I've said this before and I'll say it again, even a broken analog watch can be correct every now and again.  Like many other rule based trainings, I believe this one will ultimately be debunked (the process is already under way), and will be replaced with something much more sane; breathing for instance.


I am not going to go back and forth with you, but i will say that If I notice that you are giving dangerous advice to other members on these forums, I will try my best to warn them and the forum administaration if necissary.

Best Answer
0 Votes

@bcalvanese wrote:

@shipo wrote:

Yes, I am in fact saying it is voodoo for many-many folks, I've said this before and I'll say it again, even a broken analog watch can be correct every now and again.  Like many other rule based trainings, I believe this one will ultimately be debunked (the process is already under way), and will be replaced with something much more sane; breathing for instance.


I am not going to go back and forth with you, but i will say that If I notice that you are giving dangerous advice to other members on these forums, I will try my best to warn them and the forum administaration if necissary.


Knock yourself out; if anything, encouraging folks to target certain heart rate zones can be dangerous to many; so I guess I'll just have to return the favor.

 

The good news is the Fitbit folks know very well the limitations/failings of the heart rate zone training theory, and are very open to folks offering alternative ways of exercising safely.

Best Answer

@shipo wrote:

@bcalvanese wrote:

@shipo wrote:

Yes, I am in fact saying it is voodoo for many-many folks, I've said this before and I'll say it again, even a broken analog watch can be correct every now and again.  Like many other rule based trainings, I believe this one will ultimately be debunked (the process is already under way), and will be replaced with something much more sane; breathing for instance.


I am not going to go back and forth with you, but i will say that If I notice that you are giving dangerous advice to other members on these forums, I will try my best to warn them and the forum administaration if necissary.


Knock yourself out; if anything, encouraging folks to target certain heart rate zones can be dangerous to many; so I guess I'll just have to return the favor.

 

The good news is the Fitbit folks know very well the limitations/failings of the heart rate zone training theory, and are very open to folks offering alternative ways of exercising safely.


So telling folks that its ok to train at 10 to 20 beats per minute over their MHR is safe?

Telling folks that they can eat 1 to 2 thousand calories a day over what they burn is safe?

Telling folks to ignore heart rate zones instead of advising what zone they should be working in based on their fitness level is safe?

 

The best advice I could give folks is to do the exact oposite of what you advise. We are all from planet earth where the basic laws of physics apply.

Best Answer
0 Votes

@bcalvanese wrote:

@shipo wrote:

@bcalvanese wrote:

@shipo wrote:

Yes, I am in fact saying it is voodoo for many-many folks, I've said this before and I'll say it again, even a broken analog watch can be correct every now and again.  Like many other rule based trainings, I believe this one will ultimately be debunked (the process is already under way), and will be replaced with something much more sane; breathing for instance.


I am not going to go back and forth with you, but i will say that If I notice that you are giving dangerous advice to other members on these forums, I will try my best to warn them and the forum administaration if necissary.


Knock yourself out; if anything, encouraging folks to target certain heart rate zones can be dangerous to many; so I guess I'll just have to return the favor.

 

The good news is the Fitbit folks know very well the limitations/failings of the heart rate zone training theory, and are very open to folks offering alternative ways of exercising safely.


So telling folks that its ok to train at 10 to 20 beats per minute over their MHR is safe?

Telling folks that they can eat 1 to 2 thousand calories a day over what they burn is safe?

Telling folks to ignore heart rate zones instead of advising what zone they should be working in based on their fitness level is safe?

 

The best advice I could give folks is to do the exact oposite of what you advise. We are all from planet earth where the basic laws of physics apply.


Look, it's obvious you don't like me or my message, and as such, you're trying to prove me wrong by taking my words out of context.

 

 

Regarding the calorie surplus, yes, I ate at least that much and lost 70 pounds in six months, like it or don't believe it or not; that isn't the discussion here.

 

As for training above max heart rate, most folks have no clue what their max heart rate is, and as such, it would be pretty difficult to recommend they train over that threshold, and, by definition, it would also be impossible.  As for training over the poorly formed 220-Age max heart rate, yup, if someone can adhere to the breathing advice I gave above, and still train above the result from the formula, then A) I'll encourage them to do so, and B) the formula is clearly incorrect for that individual.

 

You're pretty funny with that physics comment.  Formulas apply to things like calculating the doppler effect, but when it comes to the human equation, they are a horrible miss; I'm sorry you cannot seem to grasp that concept.  In the meantime, I'll leave you with this from the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health regarding a study about the various methods of calculating a max heart rate:

Best Answer

@shipo wrote:

@bcalvanese wrote:

@shipo wrote:

@bcalvanese wrote:

@shipo wrote:

Yes, I am in fact saying it is voodoo for many-many folks, I've said this before and I'll say it again, even a broken analog watch can be correct every now and again.  Like many other rule based trainings, I believe this one will ultimately be debunked (the process is already under way), and will be replaced with something much more sane; breathing for instance.


I am not going to go back and forth with you, but i will say that If I notice that you are giving dangerous advice to other members on these forums, I will try my best to warn them and the forum administaration if necissary.


Knock yourself out; if anything, encouraging folks to target certain heart rate zones can be dangerous to many; so I guess I'll just have to return the favor.

 

The good news is the Fitbit folks know very well the limitations/failings of the heart rate zone training theory, and are very open to folks offering alternative ways of exercising safely.


So telling folks that its ok to train at 10 to 20 beats per minute over their MHR is safe?

Telling folks that they can eat 1 to 2 thousand calories a day over what they burn is safe?

Telling folks to ignore heart rate zones instead of advising what zone they should be working in based on their fitness level is safe?

 

The best advice I could give folks is to do the exact oposite of what you advise. We are all from planet earth where the basic laws of physics apply.


Look, it's obvious you don't like me or my message, and as such, you're trying to prove me wrong by taking my words out of context.

 

 

Regarding the calorie surplus, yes, I ate at least that much and lost 70 pounds in six months, like it or don't believe it or not; that isn't the discussion here.

 

As for training above max heart rate, most folks have no clue what their max heart rate is, and as such, it would be pretty difficult to recommend they train over that threshold, and, by definition, it would also be impossible.  As for training over the poorly formed 220-Age max heart rate, yup, if someone can adhere to the breathing advice I gave above, and still train above the result from the formula, then A) I'll encourage them to do so, and B) the formula is clearly incorrect for that individual.

 

You're pretty funny with that physics comment.  Formulas apply to things like calculating the doppler effect, but when it comes to the human equation, they are a horrible miss; I'm sorry you cannot seem to grasp that concept.  In the meantime, I'll leave you with this from the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health regarding a study about the various methods of calculating a max heart rate:


I have nothing against you personally. It's your crazy advice that is the problem.

 

If you advise someone to disregard their heart rate and they wind up having a heart attack, are you willing to take responsability for that?

 

I think I remember another thread of an older person who was concerned about training and heart rate. most folks recommended to consult with a doctor and start out slow, but you posted something to the effect of disreagarding heart rate and they should not worry about that.

 

When I see posts like that it puts up a red flag for me because I know a little bit about fitness, but not all people do.

 

This is the last post I'm going to make in this thread because I have the feeling that you are so locked into these obserd theories of yours that you are just going to keep trying to cram it down everyones throat anyway.

 

I will just close in saying that if i see any more posts from you that could possably cause someone to cause injury to themselves I will report you to the admins, and hopefully they will do something about it.

 

thank you,

Best Answer

@bcalvanese wrote:

I will just close in saying that if i see any more posts from you that could possably cause someone to cause injury to themselves I will report you to the admins, and hopefully they will do something about it.

 


Then you might as well report me now because I absolutely stand by my statements regarding how to train; I have been coaching long enough to know paying attention to breathing level is far more important than paying attention to some arbitrary heart rate calculated by a one-size-fits-all formula, and regardless of what you say, I'm going to keep giving that advice.

Best Answer

That was quite the exchange. I’m glad you stood up for yourself. I definitely customized my heart rate. The formulas based on age are absurd — as if every 50-year-old is exactly the same??? I wish the zones broke down within the custom mode (listening Fitbit?), but if that guy did any research on how the 220-age came to be, he might be shocked. Not even close to a real clinical study.  So thank you! 

Best Answer