Using a heart rate monitor

[wagon]

Bloke I go running with (Lunch time in work) has a heart rate monitor.

I'm not sure what he uses it for (or he doesn't really).

I've googled that your heart rate should be about 75% of max for best cardio improvement other than that no idea what the other % are equal too and how these equate to mma, grappling and the best way to use them. Or if they are worth it at all?

Seen them on TUF and just thinking.

[Superhornet]

HR monitors are used to enable you to work to varying intensity and stick to it. They can take out a fair amount of guess work.

At different HR's you metabolise different substrates often in realtion to respiration in the presence or abscence of oxygen.

They are good at realising a target level during training the only down side I have found is that with excessive use (several years in my case :( ) you can loose feeling of training and beceome a bit of slave to them. However the majority of people aren't a fuckin twat like me.

[Superhornet]

P.S.

They are dirt cheap these days and reliable.

[DetoxGuru.com]

think they are worth invesing in , even if just to keep an eye on your max heart rate.

[Superhornet]

A caveat to a lot of this is an accurate max HR so that other threshold limits can be determined.

[wagon]

and a good place to get them cheapy, cheapy

[Gareth]

and a good place to get them cheapy, cheapy

Tesco's have got the Polar ones for sale for about £25 atm top brand piss cheap! :)

[Alex Gold]

Tesco do an own brand for 20 quid, more bells and whistles I think...not sure about quality though.

[scotty666]

there very good, even if you just use to for basic logging of your heart rate. i have a suunto one, was £200 but cheaper now, does loads of stuff, works well when grappling (doesent move around), records speed and distance travelled when running, you can get ones with altimeters as well and it records the change in heart rate when going up inclines, has a target heart rate witch u can customise and it will beep once u hit it, also an alarm if your heart rate goes too high. handy for hardcore sessions and circuits, helps you not push too far and take longer to recover. just take a look at them. recommended

[scotty666]

oh and they plug into your pc so you can view it all on there and save your logs. they do a really good one for about £90 or search suunto on ebay.

[scotty666]

lol http://www.suunto.com/suunto/Worlds/main/world_article_normal_no_ATL.jsp?CONTENT<>cnt_id=10134198674002869&FOLDER<>folder_id=2534374302759608&bmUID=1227314798995 theres the link

[wagon]

Got a polar off ebay. Tried it running the other day and acording to it I'm going too fast. My target HR should be about 160 for cardio and mine was about 175 - 180. I'm runnign about 5 miles at a pace I would say is quick but comfortable (hurts a bit but ok like), takes me about 35 mins just over to run the 5 miles.

Does this sound about right? or do you think my max HR clcualtion (Age etc) id wrong?

[Gareth]

Got a polar off ebay. Tried it running the other day and acording to it I'm going too fast. My target HR should be about 160 for cardio and mine was about 175 - 180. I'm runnign about 5 miles at a pace I would say is quick but comfortable (hurts a bit but ok like), takes me about 35 mins just over to run the 5 miles.

Does this sound about right? or do you think my max HR clcualtion (Age etc) id wrong?

5 miles in 35 mins is a fair old pace! I struggle to hit 8 minutes a mile!!

[wagon]

5 miles in 35 mins is a fair old pace! I struggle to hit 8 minutes a mile!!

just under 38 last week, best time was just over 35 mins. Don't get me wrong I can't speak after it and I'm in a bit of a state but I aint spewing or owt.

Bear in mind big man you are a tad larger than little middle weight me (82kg)

Jut wondering if my HR calculations are out?

[Alex Gold]

I would agree, go slower. Even 160 sounds high to me for this type of work.

[wagon]

I would agree, go slower. Even 160 sounds high to me for this type of work.

Thanks mate, I don't think the age max HR clculation is right. I ran again yesterday about 3 miles, HR at 160 just over. I was bearly breathing heavy though. Did the 3 miles in boout 21 - 22 mins.


I'm 33, resting HR is 60 bpm!!

Trying to get my head around this HR stuff:mad:

[Superhornet]

Do you knoww hat your max HR is?

Where did you get your target HR infor from?

Often they are based on using a static bike and a max HR running will be higher as you are recruiting more muscle mass.

Its more accurate to set your own limits.

[wagon]

Do you knoww hat your max HR is?

Where did you get your target HR infor from?

Often they are based on using a static bike and a max HR running will be higher as you are recruiting more muscle mass.

Its more accurate to set your own limits.

used an excel spreadsheet I got off some site, works out on age and resting HR. I don't think it's very accurate!!

I will try and get my max and work from there I think

[vileniall]

can the ones that count the approximate calories you have burned be used for an extended period of time, say a day?

[TheUnfitOne]

I have a Polar Heart Rate monitor which adjusts the treadmill & cross trainer to keep my heart rate around 120-130bpm for fat burning.

It's really smart

[Justin Devonshire]

I use a heart rate monitor with some clients, but we don't use it to see how high their heart rate can go, we use it to see how quick their rate goes back to normal once the exericse has stopped.


This is because your cardiovascular fitness is measured by the time it takes for your heart to come back to normal rate. The quicker it comes back down, the fitter you (how long it takes you to get your breath back in other words).


I also advise against using the old 220- your age formula for estimating your maximum heart rate, as its a myth based on a faulty scientific study that was never meant to apply to the general population. In over 80% of people, the formula doesn't give you a true reading of your max heart rate, or what you can and can't tolerate.



Also, I don't mean to criticise but I wouldn't recommend staying at a certain percentage of heart rate for conditinoing or weight loss. The 'fat burning / cardio zones' you see on treadmills are another outdated science myth that don't hold true to MMA performance or fat burning.


Instead, I'd use interval training to keep your heart rate varying in intensities, just like what happens in combat situations. This will also burn more fat because it allows you to work at higher intensities for longer.

[Bodyactive]

Depends on which functions you want. If you are into the latest technology you will be dissapointed with the 20 quid ones but on the upside if you're likely to break it you would be pissed if you'd spent £200!!

[TheUnfitOne]

.....Also, I don't mean to criticise but I wouldn't recommend staying at a certain percentage of heart rate for conditinoing or weight loss. The 'fat burning / cardio zones' you see on treadmills are another outdated science myth that don't hold true to MMA performance or fat burning.....

I'm hearing & reading so much contradictory feedback on this, for instance Gary Turner swears by it, you say it doesn't work

Confused :confused:

[Rob T]

I'm hearing & reading so much contradictory feedback on this, for instance Gary Turner swears by it, you say it doesn't work

Confused :confused:

Look for proper clinical trials, if there are any. If there aren't, then I would just consider it doesn't work and ignore it.

Most exercise and nutrional advice is given without any useful science (clinical trials specific to the advice being given) to back it up. At best the science is on something similar, or it's based on knowledge of how individual systems within the body work, but very rarely is it based on actual trials on the matter in hand.

[Justin Devonshire]

Theunfitone - many years ago, scientists discovered that the types of calories burned for fuel during exercise depended on what intensity it was performed at.

They found that when you work at lower intensity, (think a 10 mile jog, or any aerobic exercise) 70% of the calories burned are fat calories, and 30% are carb calories.

When you exercise at a high intensity (sprinting, anaerobic work) the ratio is reversed - 70% of the calories burned are carbohydrate calories, only 30% are fat calories.


So this is why they decided that to lose fat, you needed to burn more fat calories than carb calories. Therfore, staying at a low intensity that could be maintained for a longer period of time (hence the 60-70% Max Heart Rate figure).


However, at the time the scientists didn't realise that although aerobic exercise burns more fat calories than anaerobic exercise, anaerobic exercise burns far more calories overall.


There are numerous studies (not that I like to rely on scientific studies too much) and huge amounts of real world evidence that high intensity exercise burns fat far more quickly and effectively than low intensity work.

All the most well-regarded conditioning coaches and personal trainers in the world have discontinued aerobic exercise for the purposes of fat loss, and conditioning for anaerobic-based sports (such as MMA).


I hope that solves some of the confusion.

[Rob T]

Can you provide references for trials which support that?

[Rob T]

There are numerous studies (not that I like to rely on scientific studies too much) and huge amounts of real world evidence

Also, this makes no sense. Real world evidence = scientific studies/clinical trials.

[Justin Devonshire]

Real world evidence and clinical trials aren't as correlated as you beleive (not in the fitness industry anyhow).

This is because most scientific studies are conducted by scientists who have limited experience and knowledge of working with people in 'real life' environments.


For example, you may have heard of a study that caused quite a fuss a few months ago in Time magazine. The study basically concluded that exercise had no effect on weight loss.

After looking at the study more in depth, you'd see that the exercise program they used did not resemble what a fat loss program really looks like at all. The most effective fat loss programs are based around full body exercises that cause a higher number of calories to be burned, at high intensities.

The exercises used in the study more closely resembled a bodybuilder-type workout with single joint isolation exercises that would be innefective at burning fat. This goes to show that many of these scientists do not even know what a true exercise program should look like, and neglect to ask a strength and conditioning or exericse professional to help them conduct the studies.

Take another example - the study that came out saying that static stretching reduces plyometric power by 60% (or whatever it was - something like that) if done before a strength workout.

If you again look closely at the study protocols, they had the athletes static stretching for extremely long amounts of time on each exercise, then going immediately into a strength exercise. This is not the way people train in the real world!


This is not to say that research is useless, of course it isn't. But you have to take it with a pinch of salt, and compare it to results you gain from actual clients, to find a solution somewhere in the middle.

Also, it is well known among strength coaches that research is typically 5-10 years behind the times. It is usualyl used to validate what coaches are already doing, and have been doing for some time. By the time the research comes out to prove that something works, the most advanced strength coaches have already found a better method of getting the same result. And the research to prove that the coaches' new method is the best way will again be released a number of years later.



If you do want some references, here are some researched by Strength coach Alwyn Cosgrove (regarded as the top Fat Loss trainer in the world):

King et al.
Beneficial effects of exercise: shifting the focus from body weight to other
markers of health.
Br J Sports Med. 2009 Sep 29.


This study observed 58 people performing aerobic work, 5 days per week for 12 weeks (burning 500 cals per session)


The average weight loss over the 12 weeks was 7lbs (with a huge variance) , however - 26 of the 58 participants only lost 1-2lbs over the entire 12 weeks.

This shows the inefectiveness of aerobic work - with proper nutritional intake and exercise programming a trainee should typcially lose up to 2lbs per week.



McKay et al.
Effect of short-term high-intensity interval training vs. continuous training on O2 uptake kinetics, muscle deoxygenation, and exercise performance.J Appl Physiol. 2009 Jul;107(1):128-38. Epub 2009 May 14.

These researchers compared eight sessions of 8-12 intervals (one minute work to one minute recovery), to eight sessions of 90-120 minute steady state cardio.

Total workout time for the interval group was 80 mins over the 19 day study. Total workout time for the steady state group was 825 minutes. The adaptations were the same in both groups despite the interval training group exercising for one tenth of the time of the steady state group.



Lee et al.
Resting metabolic rate after endurance exercise training.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Jul;41(7):1444-51.

This study showed no change in resting metabolic rate as a result of endurance training. this is similar to other studies showing that only high intensity exercise creates a change in resting metabolism.




Irving et al.
Effect of exercise training intensity on abdominal visceral fat and body composition.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Nov;40(11):1863-72.

The study consisted of three groups:

-No exercise

-Low intensity aerobic exercise (5 days per week low intensity)

-High intensity (above Lactate threshold) exercise (3 days high intensity, 2 days low)

The exercise groups burned the exact same calories (so exercise time was adjusted down in the higher intensity group.)

At the sixteen week point the high intensity group had significantly reduced abdominal fat

The low intensity group saw no changes.

The researchers adjusted the time down in the high intensity group (so that calories burned were the same) - for example only doing 20 mins instead of 30 mins.

But that's not real world. So if you have 30 mins to train - 30 mins of high intensity work would make an even bigger difference. Because when calories burned are the same - it's more effective - you'd see an even bigger effect when you train for an extra 10 minutes per session




Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C.
Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism.
Metabolism. 1994 Jul; 43(7):814-8.

The premise of the study was to compare 20 weeks of steady state endurance training and 15 weeks of interval training.

When comparing total calories burned from exercise, the researchers found that the endurance training burned 28,661 calories, while the interval training group burned 13,614 calories. In other words the interval training group burned less than half the calories of the endurance training group.

However when the researchers adjusted the results and corrected for the difference in energy cost, the interval training group showed a 900% greater loss in subcutaneous fat than the endurance group. In other words – calorie for calorie – interval training was nine times more effective than steady state exercise




These are just a few studies, there are literally dozens more that conclude the same thing.

[Rob T]

Cheers dude.

Disagree that real world evidence is not the same thing as scientific studies though. You just have to check what has actually been studied... as you say yourself.

Also, thanks for just answering me normally, it's refreshing as most people seem to think I am launching some kind of attack on them just for asking questions :) I just wanna learn.

[Justin Devonshire]

No problem.


If you are into your reseach look out for a guy called Stuart Mcgill.

He's one of the very few researches who actually trains athletic clients at the same time, and works with many of the top coaches in the industry for their input into his trials (most notably he has done losts of work with Jon Chaimberg, who is the S&C coach of George St Pierre, Dennis Kang, and Kenny Florian, Nat Marquardt among others)


His findings are very up to date, relevant, and are changing the way these coaches train thier athletes. He has two books out on Low Back Health and performance which are definately worth reading (if you're into geeky stuff like this as I am:o )

[bean]

Hi Justin,

What do you think about M Boyles cutting of bilateral squatting?

[Justin Devonshire]

hahaha oh god, what do I think?


I think Im sick to death of hearing about it lol.


Nah seriously, I think he's right...to an extent. There's an old saying that there are no bad exercises, only bad applications of exercises, and I believe thats 100% true.


Personally, Ive always had the same thought as Boyle, that the squat is a low back exercise, rather than a quad exercise, and the low back is always the limiting factor. I've never programmed a back squat into my routines, simply because I find a front squat is far easier to coach, and most guys will overestimate the load they can use on a back squat, which ruins their form. Either that or they will realise that when i ask them to squat full depth (and nothing less) they weren't as strong as they thought. This is quite an ego killer for many guys (rugby players are the biggest offenders for this) and so I avoid the hassle.

As far as MMA is concerned, I favour the Deadlift as the biggest exericse. I find that is is far more beneficial than the squat for fighters because it increases hip mobility, pulling power and grip strength all in one go.


Still, for Boyle to remove an exercise completely is not the best route in my opinion. Im a 'never say never' guy. There's always going to be someone who will need to use a back squat, like a beginner or deconditioned trainee. You have to learn to produce some power with two legs before using one on its own.

However, I do agree that when it comes to heavily loading the exercise, the back squat does lose out on overall effectiveness compared to single leg variations or front squatting. After all, sport is performed on one leg at a time, it makes sense to train for that, and develop better core stability and balance along the way.



What I've noticed is that the people who are mostly against Boyle's decision tend to be from a powerlifting-orientated background. To them, removing the back squat would be like not allowing double-leg takedowns in MMA! However, I think they've neglected to actually listen to Boyle's message and take it all in before responding.

For instance, Im positive that Boyle will still use the back squat if he was training a powerlifter who has to train for that exact lift in competition. What Boyle is saying though, is that it has limited carryover (compared to single leg movements) when it comes to most sports and applications.



So, I try not to overreact or underreact to these things, and instead just find a solution somewhere in the middle, because a few months after all this controversy has settled, thats what most coaches are going to do anyway.



Bottom line for me: I agree that single leg movements are better for most athletes (particularly MMA / combat sports) but that doesn't mean the back squat is banned from my programming.

People are having a hard time accepting Boyle's theory because the back squat is so traditional. Its like when i first started explaining to fighters than aerobic running isn't very beneficial to combat, I had a backlash. People generally don't like to let go of what they've always done. They will listen to thier emotional connection to an exercise, rather than adhere to logic. But thats human nature in all of us.

[Rob T]

Justin, I am loving your posts... in a totally non-gay way :)

[bean]

You big bender Rob :-p

Thanks Justin, I occasionally read some of the blogs from guys like Boyle, Cressey et el so it's interesting to get other peoples perspective who are also in the field, and not just casual readers like me.

[Justin Devonshire]

I think its good that more trainees such as yourself are looking deeper into the conditioning side of things.

Cant go wrong with Eric Cressey, I love his stuff.



how gay is this thread turning lol:(