Work out heart rate vs. resting heart rate

[betpchem]

I just got the Charge HR and I was wondering about heart rate. Is there a set heart rate I should be reaching or should it be a set change from resting heart rate? In the gym, on the aerobic machines, they have a number per age. Should I go by that or should I say, for example, I'm in the cardio zone if I'm 50 or 60 or whatever beats per minute over my resting heart rate? Thanks for any advice.

[circlecircle]

If your age is y years

220-y is the maximum heart rate

Fat burn or moderately intense exercise is (220-y)  x  0.5 to (220-y) x 0.69

Cardio or hard intense is (220-y) x 0.7 to (220-y) x 0.9

When you put you age in the fitbit app it will calculate on its own, the different zones for you!

Resting heart rate varies from individual to individual, it is between 60 to 90! The healthier the heart the less it needs to beat during resting. So, lower is better!

[betpchem]

Thank you, @circlecircle, but that doens't really answer my question. 

I understand all those formulas, but where do they come from? Should cardio be differerent if the resting heart rate is higher or lower? For example, let's say your cardio heart rate is 130. If your resting heart rate is 60, then you are more than doubling your resting heart rate doing cardio, but if you're resting heart rate is 80, then your heart is really doing less work to get up to 130.  

[circlecircle]

Now I understand your question clearly! I do not have any idea, about the
effect of resting heart rate, while calculating zones. Maybe an expert can
answer you!

[Colinm39]

---

@betpchem wrote:

Thank you, @circlecircle, but that doens't really answer my question. 

I understand all those formulas, but where do they come from? Should cardio be differerent if the resting heart rate is higher or lower? For example, let's say your cardio heart rate is 130. If your resting heart rate is 60, then you are more than doubling your resting heart rate doing cardio, but if you're resting heart rate is 80, then your heart is really doing less work to get up to 130.  

---

@betpchem I  have linked this post to @Heybales whom I have found very knowledgable in this area. 

I'm no medical person, but interested in cause and effect and any information I have suggested here is as published on the Internet. My GP keeps track with me with  my regular checkups.  `

Because a normal RHR can be between  60 and 90 bpm this link explains that it doesn't mean too much because of the difference in people as a whole.

My RHR is 58 and I like to use Recovery Heart Rate to help me establish the fitness of my heart. and over the last 15 years I have found the gradient of my recovery rate much the same even though my maxHR drops off as I get older.

Here is the the Recovery Heart Rate link

I have never found any correlation RHR and maxHR  but this article throws some light on what you are investigating and one statement is "when your RHR is low the heart has less effort to move the nutrients and the oxygen around the body".

There has been no link established between Blood Pressure and Pulse. See this link

[betpchem]

Thanks, @Colinm39 , those are very helpful links. I will investigate more. 

[Heybales]

---

@betpchem wrote:

Thank you, @circlecircle, but that doens't really answer my question. 

I understand all those formulas, but where do they come from? Should cardio be differerent if the resting heart rate is higher or lower? For example, let's say your cardio heart rate is 130. If your resting heart rate is 60, then you are more than doubling your resting heart rate doing cardio, but if you're resting heart rate is 80, then your heart is really doing less work to get up to 130.  

---

Resting HR usually helps indicate a fitness level, and therefore should have bearing on the HR zones.

The zones adjust - your use of them doesn't need to.

Like need a calm cardio day as recovery to a prior hard lifting day - use the fad-named Fat burning zone, better called Active Recovery HR zone for ages though.

Need a good endurance cardio training session - use the Aerobic HR zone.

And as fitness level changes, the actual numbers on that zone may change, but you use the same one.

This formula is using at least a tad better estimate than the huge bell curve of 220-age, and the actual stat of resting HR (not Fitbit's RHR stat - actual morning after waking RHR).

That determines the range you have to work with. Some people have a genetic Honda heart and HRmax is high, some have a diesel heart and it's lower.

Sadly any calculator can't take that as a factor as it doesn't know.

My tested HRmax of 194 is way higher than an calcs would give at age 47, but at least the one below is closest at 181. But then again it would be wrong for someone with a diesel heart. That's why including RHR is nice.

HRmax isn't an indicator of fitness - though the ability to keep it high as you age is.

www.calculatenow.biz/sport/heart.php?

That above site takes care of such differences. Try it using different RHR to see what I mean.

If cardio is for purpose of endurance training, or speed and such - then a better HR zones would actually be based on Lactate or Anaerobic Threshold, which is trainable compared to HRmax which isn't.

And then zones based on LT/AT allow better usage.

If just general fitness and want an idea of workout levels - stick with above.

www.endurancefactor.com/Articles/article-heartintro.html